Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 9:36 pmUmmm...please point to the words "we should agree to be governed according to our own conscience" in what I said.

I'm trying to understand what function you attribute to God in our political decision making. This is a direct quote: "if you think that democracy is legitimate, then it means you've agreed to be governed by the majority of voters". This is another that shortly preceded it: "...an authority is either warranted, or it is not. So if you are behaving appropriately, it means you ought to go along with it, or not." What Earthly authority is warranted?

tillingborn wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 9:54 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 9:36 pmUmmm...please point to the words "we should agree to be governed according to our own conscience" in what I said.

I'm trying to understand...

I'm trying to understand why you're misquoting me. How about you answer my question...

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 10:14 pmI'm trying to understand why you're misquoting me. How about you answer my question...

It's not a quote, those are not words you used, nor have I attributed them to you. I don't understand this contribution of yours:

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 7:59 pmIt's very simple. In practice, it means that an authority is either warranted, or it is not. So if you are behaving appropriately, it means you ought to go along with it, or not.

For example, if you think that democracy is legitimate, then it means you've agreed to be governed by the majority of voters. If you think monarchy is legitimate, then you are convinced that the right thing is to be ruled by the decisions of the king or queen...and so on.

I think I understand what authority is warranted, in your view; what I don't understand is how that authority affects our agreeing to be governed.

tillingborn wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 11:01 pm I think I understand what authority is warranted, in your view; what I don't understand is how that authority affects our agreeing to be governed.

It's very simple: a morally good or right thinking person accords with legitimate authority, where such exists.

For example, parents have legitimate authority over their children -- all things being equal; and good children respect the authority of their parents. More controversially, somebody placed in legitimate proxy of parents -- like, say, a teacher or an instructor -- partakes of their legitimate authority, as their designate; and so respect is owed to such, as well.

Parents ordinarily have legitimate authority over their children. And unless they have egregiously abused that authority in some way, children ought not to rebel against that. After all, their parents are their natural providers, instructors and protectors, and children are not capable of raising themselves. Moreover, the authority of parents is derived from the role assigned them by God Himself, so it's thoroughly legitimate.

Clear?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 15, 2021 1:31 amIt's very simple: a morally good or right thinking person accords with legitimate authority, where such exists.

For example, parents have legitimate authority over their children --
Moreover, the authority of parents is derived from the role assigned them by God Himself, so it's thoroughly legitimate.

Clear?

I think so: a parent has legitimate authority to watch their child all the time, demand absolute obedience and threaten hideous punishment for failure. As a model for politics, what does that tell us about how God's children should play together?

Lacewing wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 3:47 pm

Age wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 11:08 am

Lacewing wrote: ↑Tue Apr 13, 2021 3:44 pm
No, they don't. Examining everything in detail may or may not bring any particular understanding.

Who mentioned anything about "examining"?

Lacewing wrote: ↑Tue Apr 13, 2021 3:44 pm And any particular understanding is not necessarily (nor even likely) a broader understanding than the detail that's being obsessed over.

I suggest you look at the actual words I write ONLY, then, hopefully, you will see, and understand, the absolute Truth, simplicity, and obviousness in them.

That was just my way of expressing it, Age. We can stick with your WORDS if you're assuming that my words aren't in line with your words.

But your words can be CLEARLY SEEN to not be in line with my words.


And sticking with the original words I find is the best, simplest and easiest way to gain a True perspective of the intended meaning, meant by the writer/speaker, behind the message, and words.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 3:47 pm You've repeatedly shown on this forum that you do NOT SEE the broader, or ALL OF the ocean, because you are looking at the drops.

But this is just YOUR interpretation, which is based on YOUR previous assumptions.

Some might even say this is YOU projecting, but that is another issue and matter.

Now, could what you have interpreted and assumed in the above quote be wrong in any way, shape or form?

Could it be possible that actually 'I' am actually SEEING more of the "ocean" than you presume I am? Or, is this just not a possibility, to 'you'?

Lacewing wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 3:47 pm You've shown how you obsess over words, instead of seeing the broader meaning of how they are used and put together.

LOL Could it be possible that I have ALREADY seen the actual broader meaning in words, which 'you', human beings, see and use, but I, in fact, are actually SEEING even more, broader, or further afield than you, human beings, do, in the days when this is being written?

Or, is this just not a possibility, to you?

Lacewing wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 3:47 pm You've said you want to learn to communicate better, but you disagree continually with what people are saying as if you are an expert.

How are these two points related, exactly?

I want to communicate ideas to 'you', people, which you appear to not yet have considered FULLY, YET, in the days of when this was written.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 3:47 pm You project onto people (claims that are not true), then seem unaware that you're doing it, or make excuses for it, when it's pointed out to you.

Will you back up and support this CLAIM of YOURS with what you think or believe is ACTUAL EVIDENCE or PROOF?

I have also ALREADY informed you that 'projecting' is NOT necessarily a wrong NOR bad thing to do at all.

You propose 'projecting' is NOT the right thing to do, correct?

Also, I do project onto people, claims that ARE True, as well.

By the way, have you ever projected onto people, claims that are NOT true?

Furthermore, I projected onto a person, which was NOT 'you', something in this forum, which I still stand behind. You have absolutely NO authority to claim that that claim was "not true", correct?

Lacewing wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 3:47 pm Lots of defensiveness and denial -- traits which are often caretakers of ego.

Lots of assumptions and wrong ones too - traits of those who are CLOSED.

Have you ever considered just discussing my ACTUAL words, instead of continually just expressing what you interpret I am doing?

If, and when, you read back over our conversations, what can be CLEARLY SEEN is you talk more about what I do, instead of what I say, which, to some, is the very opposite of philosophy.

Also, I have a right to defend and deny what I KNOW is Wrong. And I KNOW some of your projections and claims, about me, ARE Wrong. Is this understood by you?

Lacewing wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 3:47 pm And lots of convoluted noise, which does not reflect clarity.

Again your interpretation.

Also, you can NOT see CLARITY, thus you do NOT have CLARITY, because you do NOT ask me CLARIFYING QUESTIONS. I suggest trying it sometime, just to SEE what happens.

The very reason WHY you only hear 'convoluted noise' is because you are NOT 'hearing' what I am actually saying, NOR 'seeing' what I am actually meaning. And this is because you make assumptions BEFORE you ask clarifying questions.

I made a projection, you imply that this projection was WRONG, but YET you have absolutely NOTHING to back up and support this ASSUMPTION of yours.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 3:47 pm Who do you think you are?

I KNOW who 'I' am.

Are 'you' able to answer the question, 'Who am 'I'?', properly AND correctly?

Advocate wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 8:02 pm If consent can be withdrawn, contracts are worthless, enforcing reciprocationn is impossible, and society must crumble. That's not how consent works. It's primarily for the future, not the instant in which is created.

This is a Western bias in thought.

Why must I contractually oblige myself to pay you $120 for a barrel of oil when the market price is $35?

In Western Culture you can expect the usual "Tough luck! Contract!" stance.
In Eastern Cultures the parties are more likely to come to the table and scrap the original (and now unfair) agreement.

Here's a book.

Read "The Geography of Thought" by Richard Nisbett.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 8:54 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 8:41 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 6:38 pm
Man, you're determined not to give any information, aren't you? So either you don't know any, or you're ashamed of what you do know, I guess.

Which "precedent"?

(By the way, "precedents" are, in law, not actually binding; they're at most, a loose indication of prior judgments that may or may not be used to guide a new situation, depending on the judge's determination of relevance to the law in question -- so your condemnation of Boris there is pretty darn faint.)

Educate yourself, dullard.

So...nothing intelligent to say on your own behalf.

I'm really not surprised. Okay.

Please refer to the numerous posts I have already made on this topic.

tillingborn wrote: ↑Thu Apr 15, 2021 6:02 am ...a parent has legitimate authority to watch their child all the time, demand absolute obedience and threaten hideous punishment for failure....

Heh. Well, this is perverse. No such thing was said or implied. It's your pure fabrication.

I can see I'm wasting my time.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Apr 15, 2021 11:34 am Please refer to the numerous posts I have already made on this topic.

Go back to that dry well? No point.

Age wrote: ↑Thu Apr 15, 2021 11:15 am I KNOW who 'I' am.

Who or what is that?

If consent can be withdrawn, contracts are worthless, enforcing reciprocationn is impossible, and society must crumble.

No. If I contract to provide X for $ and I don't meet my freely accepted obligation, then my customer ought to able to withhold $.

We -- me and the customer -- agreed to sumthin', we consented to be bound to that agreement. If either fails to meet his obligation, the contract is voided, and the welsher may face consequence beyond non-payment or not gettin' his product.

Often, contracts will spell out the consequences of failure to adhere. Bad contracts often don't.

Free society most surely begins to crumble if contract is unenforceable and if contract universally offers no means of redress if a contract is violated.

In context of the thread: the consent of the governed figures prominently in constitutional and democratic political thought. Constitutions or charters are a contract of sorts between those who consent to be governed and those privileged by the governed to govern. If either side violates the contract consent mostly surely can be withdraw.

Typically, consent is withdrawn by way of the vote when the governed decline to re-elect someone. Recalling an elected person is another way of withdrawing consent.

The idea of the four boxes is tied to consent...

Citizens can seek redress (and withdraw consent) by way of the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and -- if all else fails -- the ammo box (when the entirety of a government dis-embeds itself from its contract with the governed).

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 15, 2021 12:59 pm

tillingborn wrote: ↑Thu Apr 15, 2021 6:02 am...a parent has legitimate authority to watch their child all the time, demand absolute obedience and threaten hideous punishment for failure....

Heh. Well, this is perverse. No such thing was said or implied. It's your pure fabrication.

It is what God does. Is what God does not legitimate?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 15, 2021 1:00 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Apr 15, 2021 11:34 am Please refer to the numerous posts I have already made on this topic.

Go back to that dry well? No point.

Please refer to the numerous posts I have already made on this topic.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 15, 2021 12:59 pm

tillingborn wrote: ↑Thu Apr 15, 2021 6:02 am ...a parent has legitimate authority to watch their child all the time, demand absolute obedience and threaten hideous punishment for failure....

Heh. Well, this is perverse. No such thing was said or implied. It's your pure fabrication.

I can see I'm wasting my time.

You should try a bit harder to think.