For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
You're not suggesting that Yao is directly being an objectivist and Iambiguous is implying an objectivism!?!?
That's one way to look at it, sure. But the gist of Yeo's assessment seems to revolve instead around philosophical analyses that are encompassed almost entirely in worlds of words up in the didactic -- pedantic? -- clouds.
Stooge stuff.
iambiguous wrote: ↑Thu Feb 29, 2024 11:05 pmA context!Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Feb 29, 2024 10:40 pm: As an advocate for animal rights, Francione’s work directly addresses ethical choices in our interactions with other beings. For someone seeking a philosophy that aligns with compassionate action, his ideas may be compelling.Gary Lawrence Francione
Philosophy, ethics and animal rights.
First up: the pros and the cons: https://www.google.com/search?q=animal+ ... URT-reRWmz
Though here, in turn, science would appear to be no less stymied in regard to concocting either the optimal moral prescriptions and proscriptions or [for some] championing what they insist is the one and the only rational frame of mind there can ever possibly be here.
As with the cars above, different people have different assessments regarding animal rights in the is/ought world. And, in particular, these assessments can collide ferociously for those here -- https://www.google.com/search?q=animal+ ... s-wiz-serp
And for those here: https://www.grandviewoutdoors.com/gear/ ... anizations
Now, my argument is that each of us as individuals will acquire a particular moral assessment here based largely on 1] our indoctrination regarding animal rights as children 2] our own uniquely personal experiences as adults pertaining to animal rights and 3] the world [historically, culturally and experientially] that we are adventitiously "thrown" into at birth.
The part I root existentially in dasein. The part that the moral objectivists among us root in one or another One True Path.
Their own!
So, how might Gary Lawrence Francione react to that?
Maybe IWP didn't respond because ...iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 10:54 pm
In other words, he chooses not to sustain what might have become an intelligent and civil exchange above:
iambiguous wrote: ↑Thu Feb 29, 2024 11:05 pmA context!Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Feb 29, 2024 10:40 pm
[/b]: As an advocate for animal rights, Francione’s work directly addresses ethical choices in our interactions with other beings. For someone seeking a philosophy that aligns with compassionate action, his ideas may be compelling.
Philosophy, ethics and animal rights.
First up: the pros and the cons: https://www.google.com/search?q=animal+ ... URT-reRWmz
Though here, in turn, science would appear to be no less stymied in regard to concocting either the optimal moral prescriptions and proscriptions or [for some] championing what they insist is the one and the only rational frame of mind there can ever possibly be here.
As with the cars above, different people have different assessments regarding animal rights in the is/ought world. And, in particular, these assessments can collide ferociously for those here -- https://www.google.com/search?q=animal+ ... s-wiz-serp
And for those here: https://www.grandviewoutdoors.com/gear/ ... anizations
Now, my argument is that each of us as individuals will acquire a particular moral assessment here based largely on 1] our indoctrination regarding animal rights as children 2] our own uniquely personal experiences as adults pertaining to animal rights and 3] the world [historically, culturally and experientially] that we are adventitiously "thrown" into at birth.
The part I root existentially in dasein. The part that the moral objectivists among us root in one or another One True Path.
Their own!
So, how might Gary Lawrence Francione react to that?
If I had not already understood Descartes's error in presupposing the existence of mind before he proved it, then his torturing of animals would alert me to the error of his ontological stance.phyllo wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 12:05 pmMaybe IWP didn't respond because ...iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 10:54 pm
In other words, he chooses not to sustain what might have become an intelligent and civil exchange above:
iambiguous wrote: ↑Thu Feb 29, 2024 11:05 pm
A context!
Philosophy, ethics and animal rights.
First up: the pros and the cons: https://www.google.com/search?q=animal+ ... URT-reRWmz
Though here, in turn, science would appear to be no less stymied in regard to concocting either the optimal moral prescriptions and proscriptions or [for some] championing what they insist is the one and the only rational frame of mind there can ever possibly be here.
As with the cars above, different people have different assessments regarding animal rights in the is/ought world. And, in particular, these assessments can collide ferociously for those here -- https://www.google.com/search?q=animal+ ... s-wiz-serp
And for those here: https://www.grandviewoutdoors.com/gear/ ... anizations
Now, my argument is that each of us as individuals will acquire a particular moral assessment here based largely on 1] our indoctrination regarding animal rights as children 2] our own uniquely personal experiences as adults pertaining to animal rights and 3] the world [historically, culturally and experientially] that we are adventitiously "thrown" into at birth.
The part I root existentially in dasein. The part that the moral objectivists among us root in one or another One True Path.
Their own!
So, how might Gary Lawrence Francione react to that?
- you were not addressing him directly in the post
- you posted general pros and cons of animal rights which IWP probably already knows about, so you were talking to an audience. I don't think IWP needs a high school lesson on the subject.
- you were interested in how Gary Lawrence Francione would react and not how IWP would react
If you addressed him directly and spoke at his level, you might get a different result.
Actually that was a spot on comment. And yes, I noticed how you don't mind Yao's objectivism. Stooge stuff is just dismissing a point without justification.
In other words, he chooses not to sustain what might have become an intelligent and civil exchange above:
my post had a point, that philosopher was an example. You did not respond to my point, at all. My point: instead of bemoaning philosophy that you don't like, there are in fact a bunch of philosophers and journals that do exactly what you want- they write about philosophy with the intention of it being applicable in people's daily lives - and you could post about them. They're not hard to find. Has philosophy lost its way? It has a lot of ways.
Again: if absolutely anywhere you go, you only find people who discuss things up in the intellectual clouds, the problem is probably with you. Maybe you are sitting at the bottom of a deep hole and see the clouds far above you, but we others just call those clouds fog, because it's just above the ground and we can walk in it.iambiguous wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2024 11:48 pm But how can anyone really deem their self to be a "deep thinker" if the stuff they post here is ever and always up in the intellectual clouds? Read what they write and then ask yourself, "how is this applicable to the life I live?"
Hey, it's always an option not to respond to people's points.
On the other hand, even in regard to science, all the "hows" in the world have not exactly gotten us any closer to the "whys". In particular this one: why does anything exist at all?Science is an incredibly timely discipline, meaning that there have been clear benchmarks of progress in our march toward modernity. The “how” questions tend to have definitive answers that compound and lead to further advancements in the field.
Indeed. The accomplishments of science speak for themselves. But then why on Earth do these deadly germs have to exist in the first place?The question of how doctors were seeing such high infant mortality rates after handling cadavers was explained by the germ theory of disease. The germ theory then led to the rise of antiseptics, which emphasized the importance of sterilization for infection control. There is a clear track record of successes in science and an overcoming of past failures – we will never go back to a time where washing one’s hands is seen as a dumb thing to do.
Go ahead, Mr. Objectivist, explain to us why that is simply preposterous. Explain to us that, in fact, you and your own "philosophical school" have actually come to grasp not only the optimal moral and political philosophy, but, indeed, the only righteous manner in which mere mortals are permitted to think if they wish to be thought of as rational human beings.Philosophy, however, is a timeless discipline, meaning that the questions that were asked thousands of years ago are still unsolved and relevant today. The “why” questions about existence don’t have definitive answers, and we will spend all of our lives trying to sort through them.
Hand washing was dropped after being initially tried.The question of how doctors were seeing such high infant mortality rates after handling cadavers was explained by the germ theory of disease. The germ theory then led to the rise of antiseptics, which emphasized the importance of sterilization for infection control. There is a clear track record of successes in science and an overcoming of past failures – we will never go back to a time where washing one’s hands is seen as a dumb thing to do.
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-sho ... en-s-lives"The big difference between the doctors' ward and the midwives' ward is that the doctors were doing autopsies and the midwives weren't," she says.
So Semmelweis hypothesized that there were cadaverous particles, little pieces of corpse, that students were getting on their hands from the cadavers they dissected. And when they delivered the babies, these particles would get inside the women who would develop the disease and die.
If Semmelweis' hypothesis was correct, getting rid of those cadaverous particles should cut down on the death rate from childbed fever.
So he ordered his medical staff to start cleaning their hands and instruments not just with soap but with a chlorine solution. Chlorine, as we know today, is about the best disinfectant there is. Semmelweis didn't know anything about germs. He chose the chlorine because he thought it would be the best way to get rid of any smell left behind by those little bits of corpse.
And when he imposed this, the rate of childbed fever fell dramatically.
What Semmelweis had discovered is something that still holds true today: Hand-washing is one of the most important tools in public health. It can keep kids from getting the flu, prevent the spread of disease and keep infections at bay.
You'd think everyone would be thrilled. Semmelweis had solved the problem! But they weren't thrilled.
For one thing, doctors were upset because Semmelweis' hypothesis made it look like they were the ones giving childbed fever to the women.
And Semmelweis was not very tactful. He publicly berated people who disagreed with him and made some influential enemies.
Eventually the doctors gave up the chlorine hand-washing, and Semmelweis — he lost his job.
Semmelweis kept trying to convince doctors in other parts of Europe to wash with chlorine, but no one would listen to him.
Even today, convincing health care providers to take hand-washing seriously is a challenge. Hundreds of thousands of hospital patients get infections each year, infections that can be deadly and hard to treat. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says hand hygiene is one of the most important ways to prevent these infections.
But Yeo admits in the first post that he got answers from Seneca.Philosophy, however, is a timeless discipline, meaning that the questions that were asked thousands of years ago are still unsolved and relevant today. The “why” questions about existence don’t have definitive answers, and we will spend all of our lives trying to sort through them.
And presumably he also got some useful answers from Buddhism and Taoism. Otherwise, why would he want to study more?Seneca’s words provided applicable advice on leading a life well-lived. Inevitably, his work led me to those of other Stoics, which then led me to Buddhism (the two schools of thought are very similar), which led me to Taoism – all of which further solidified my love for philosophy.
Or simply been more tactful. But yes, philosophy in all parties might have helped. A couple of things stand out in the story 1) the conservatism of believers of all kinds 2) threats to ego and power will generally get resisted strongly.
Dr. Kangeng Dzang, a Chinese scientist, has explored fascinating concepts related to biological information directed transfer. Let’s delve into some of the intriguing work associated with this field:
Transfer Pharmacological Frequency (TFF):
Dr. Citro Missimo, an Italian researcher, developed the TFF method. Using this approach, he can transfer the informational frequencies of pharmaceutical medicines directly into the biofield of human subjects. Remarkably, individuals experience the benefits of these medicines without any detrimental side effects or overdose risks.
Pier Luigi Ighina’s Experiment:
Pier Luigi Ighina, a collaborator of Guglielmo Marconi, conducted an experiment involving apple and peach trees. He recorded the field of an apple tree and transmitted it to a peach tree. After sixteen days, the peach tree effectively transformed into an apple tree, producing real, edible apples.
Kangeng Dzang and Gregory Kazmin:
Chinese scientist Kangeng Dzang and researcher Gregory Kazmin used a biomicrowave transmitter to transfer the informational field of wheat to corn seeds. These seeds later produced an apparent hybrid grain with characteristics of both wheat and corn.
They took the concept further by conveying the informational field of a duck to chicken eggs. The resulting chicks exhibited distinct duck features, including duck bills and webbed feet.