The Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Sep 27, 2026 12:32 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Sep 26, 2026 9:54 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Sep 26, 2026 9:50 pm I have my own sins to explain, Gary. And unless you're sinless, you have yours. But on the authority of Scripture, I don't believe you could be sinless. You've got to have a few things you need to explain, I'm quite sure. Covetousness, for a start. You've expressed that consistently. Remember commandment #10?


You've never explained to me why you think you're entitled to the money Elon Musk has. Maybe you will now.

That's because I have never once said that I believe I'm entitled to the money Elon Musk has. I have repeatedly said that his employees are more entitled to some of it than Musk is.

Prove that. How much is each of his employees entitled to, and why?

It's curious that you feel you have some stake in this, too...clearly, you think your own judgment about that is really important, despite the fact that you confess you actually have no personal entitlement at all. I wonder why you think your assessment matters.

It's curious that it bothers you when I point out that it would be more economically fair to spread Musk's wealth among his employees. I thought that would be common sense. You don't see it that way, I take it?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Sep 27, 2026 12:51 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Sep 27, 2026 12:32 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Sep 26, 2026 9:54 pm

That's because I have never once said that I believe I'm entitled to the money Elon Musk has. I have repeatedly said that his employees are more entitled to some of it than Musk is.

Prove that. How much is each of his employees entitled to, and why?

It's curious that you feel you have some stake in this, too...clearly, you think your own judgment about that is really important, despite the fact that you confess you actually have no personal entitlement at all. I wonder why you think your assessment matters.

It's curious that it bothers you when I point out that it would be more economically fair to spread Musk's wealth among his employees.

It doesn't "bother me" at all. In fact, I'm totally unsurprised by the impulse, because it's so common.

That doesn't make it right, of course...but it's certainly common.

What makes you suppose anybody's wealth must be spread to some level that pleases you?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Sep 27, 2026 1:06 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Sep 27, 2026 12:51 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Sep 27, 2026 12:32 am
Prove that. How much is each of his employees entitled to, and why?

It's curious that you feel you have some stake in this, too...clearly, you think your own judgment about that is really important, despite the fact that you confess you actually have no personal entitlement at all. I wonder why you think your assessment matters.

It's curious that it bothers you when I point out that it would be more economically fair to spread Musk's wealth among his employees.

It doesn't "bother me" at all. In fact, I'm totally unsurprised by the impulse, because it's so common.

That doesn't make it right, of course...but it's certainly common.

What makes you suppose anybody's wealth must be spread to some level that pleases you?

Am I wrong to think that Musk is taking more than his fair share of profit from his companies? Is making 2 MILLION times the income of his employees fair? Is there not a point where we can say that the employees are getting an unfair cut compared to Musk, based on the amount of work they all do?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Sep 26, 2026 3:58 am

Dubious wrote: ↑Sat Sep 26, 2026 3:34 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Sep 25, 2026 3:05 pm
No, it's only one way. I think I was clear: we all have one truth. It doesn't belong to me, and it doesn't belong to you. It's universal. It is the same for everybody.

No it's not...

Yeah, it is. The truth is the same for every person...there are only those who may know it, and those who may not. But not knowing doesn't produce a different "truth," just a different relation to the truth.

...and your relation to truth is that the bible, as written, is it's ultimate confirmation. Forget about the "Origin of Species" the bible very long ago already told us how it happened.

My relation to the truth is that evolution happened. So much for the "universality" of truth.

Guess which portfolio version of it possesses ALL the evidence!

It's only evidence which gives truth its credence even if it can never, with some exceptions, be resolved to perfection...an essential condition the bible and all scripture is surpassingly lacking in.

Within the human domain Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, is the one truth I naturally regard as universal and most often infringed. If that were adhered to, only ONE religion which doesn't confute the evidence, would be necessary.

Dubious wrote: ↑Sun Sep 27, 2026 1:48 am Within the human domain Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, is the one truth I naturally regard as universal and most often infringed. If that were adhered to, only ONE religion which doesn't confute the evidence, would be necessary.

HOWEVER, look at the context from which we get this, there IS a relationship to the Bible.

The sage Hillel* was approached by a man** who said "Teach me the law (Torah) while standing on one foot". Hillel replied "Do not*** do to anybody else what is hateful to yourself. The rest is commentary. Go study it."



* Hillel the Elder -- about 70 BCE to 10 CE Jewish tradition ended up following almost all of his opinions. Compared to Hillel, Jesus a moderate.

** supposedly much money lost by people wagering they could make Hillel lose his temper by asking him a ridiculous question.

** The commentaries (Talmud) will discuss why Hillel expressed in the negative.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Sep 27, 2026 1:11 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Sep 27, 2026 1:06 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Sep 27, 2026 12:51 am

It's curious that it bothers you when I point out that it would be more economically fair to spread Musk's wealth among his employees.

It doesn't "bother me" at all. In fact, I'm totally unsurprised by the impulse, because it's so common.

That doesn't make it right, of course...but it's certainly common.

What makes you suppose anybody's wealth must be spread to some level that pleases you?

Am I wrong to think that Musk is taking more than his fair share of profit from his companies?

What do you care? What's what Musk have got to do with you? If he owned the moon, what's that to you?

But I'll tell you what does have to do with you (and me); the attitude we're having toward people who have more than we do.

We won't answer for Musk. We'll answer for us.

Dubious wrote: ↑Sun Sep 27, 2026 1:48 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Sep 26, 2026 3:58 am

Dubious wrote: ↑Sat Sep 26, 2026 3:34 am

No it's not...

Yeah, it is. The truth is the same for every person...there are only those who may know it, and those who may not. But not knowing doesn't produce a different "truth," just a different relation to the truth.

My relation to the truth is that evolution happened.

And if you were right, that would be the universal truth. I would simply be wrong.

And if I'm right, guess who's wrong?

Guess which portfolio version of it possesses ALL the evidence!

I realize you may not know the evidence. That's possible. But you could.

I guess you don't want to know. And you can remain unknowing of that, of course. Nobody can stop you.

Within the human domain Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, is the one truth I naturally regard as universal

Interesting. Do you know who said it? (Luke 6:31)

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Sep 27, 2026 6:28 pm

Within the human domain Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, is the one truth I naturally regard as universal

Interesting. Do you know who said it? (Luke 6:31)

Uh.... in effect Hillel the Elder (who would have still been alive/teaching during Jesus's boyhood.

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Sun Sep 27, 2026 7:14 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Sep 27, 2026 6:28 pm

Within the human domain Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, is the one truth I naturally regard as universal

Interesting. Do you know who said it? (Luke 6:31)

Uh.... in effect Hillel the Elder (who would have still been alive/teaching during Jesus's boyhood.

Actually, he said something different. He said "Don't do..." not "Do unto others." There's a world of difference.

I can obey Hillel merely by NOT doing ANYTHING to my neighbour. There's no requirement in Hillel that one has to do any positive good for him. One simply has NOT to do evil to him. Jesus added much more: not only are you not to harm your neighbour, but you are actively to seek his good...and not just a little bit, but with all the fervour with which you would seek your own. That's much more than Hillel ever conceived.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Sep 27, 2026 7:25 pm Actually, he said something different. He said "Don't do..." not "Do unto others." There's a world of difference.

I can obey Hillel merely by NOT doing ANYTHING to my neighbour. There's no requirement in Hillel that one has to do any positive good for him. One simply has NOT to do evil to him. Jesus added much more: not only are you not to harm your neighbour, but you are actively to seek his good...and not just a little bit, but with all the fervour with which you would seek your own. That's much more than Hillel ever conceived.

I will refer you to the commentaries. There is a reason why Hillel used the negative.

Hint: Consider how SURE you can be with the negative vs with the positive (sure about what the neighbor would prefer). For my own good would you compel me to sit still to receive your proselytizing; you would do this with fervor, for my own good.

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Sun Sep 27, 2026 9:38 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Sep 27, 2026 7:25 pm Actually, he said something different. He said "Don't do..." not "Do unto others." There's a world of difference.

I can obey Hillel merely by NOT doing ANYTHING to my neighbour. There's no requirement in Hillel that one has to do any positive good for him. One simply has NOT to do evil to him. Jesus added much more: not only are you not to harm your neighbour, but you are actively to seek his good...and not just a little bit, but with all the fervour with which you would seek your own. That's much more than Hillel ever conceived.

I will refer you to the commentaries. There is a reason why Hillel used the negative.

Sure. It's much less demanding.

Dubious wrote: ↑Sun Sep 27, 2026 1:48 am My relation to the truth is that evolution happened.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Sep 27, 2026 6:28 pm And if you were right, that would be the universal truth. I would simply be wrong.

And if I'm right, guess who's wrong?

You are! You can consider yourself right as much as you like but evolution has long ceased to be a theory and is now completely established. But if instead you want to believe in a 2600 year old absurdity called the Garden of Eden and its original mating couple, that is your choice.

Dubious wrote: ↑Sun Sep 27, 2026 1:48 am Within the human domain Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, is the one truth I naturally regard as universal.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Sep 26, 2026 3:58 am Interesting. Do you know who said it? (Luke 6:31)

The core concept was already old hat when Luke - or whatever his actual name was, which remains unknown - presumably spoke it.

The core concept—commonly known as the Golden Rule—spans over 3,000 to 4,000 years of recorded human history, while the specific English phrasing close to "Do unto others..." dates back to the 16th century (roughly 450 to 500 years ago).

While English translations often reference the New Testament, core formulations—both negative ("do not do...") and positive ("do unto...")—appeared independently across ancient Middle Eastern, Asian, and Mediterranean civilizations.

Dubious wrote: ↑Sun Sep 27, 2026 10:57 pm

Dubious wrote: ↑Sun Sep 27, 2026 1:48 am My relation to the truth is that evolution happened.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Sep 27, 2026 6:28 pm And if you were right, that would be the universal truth. I would simply be wrong.

And if I'm right, guess who's wrong?

You are!

Let's see if that confidence bears you out.

Dubious wrote: ↑Sun Sep 27, 2026 1:48 am Within the human domain Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, is the one truth I naturally regard as universal.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Sep 26, 2026 3:58 am Interesting. Do you know who said it? (Luke 6:31)

The core concept was already old hat when Luke - or whatever his actual name was, which remains unknown - presumably spoke it.

So you don't know? No, it was not "old hat," and it was Jesus Christ Himself who first said it.

As for the "negative GR," it's not the same. It can be fulfilled with the injunction, "Leave people alone." That's obviously nowhere near the same thing.

But let's take either one. Why is it obligatory for us, morally speaking, to follow the GR? I can explain that as a Christian...can you explain it, with no reference to anything but secularism of some kind?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Sep 27, 2026 11:20 pm Let's see if that confidence bears you out.

Confidence is not required when the evidence is absolute! It's called EVOLUTION, not EVOLUTIONISM! That's your choice of words to create an hypothesis to maintain the veracity of the bible long verified to have very little left.

Dubious wrote: ↑Sun Sep 27, 2026 1:48 amThe core concept was already old hat when Luke - or whatever his actual name was, which remains unknown - presumably spoke it.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Sep 27, 2026 11:20 pmSo you don't know? No, it was not "old hat," and it was Jesus Christ Himself who first said it.

What don't I know? Supply some reference. It was known LONG before Jesus showed up as specified in the quote which you naturally didn't include.

When in my early teens I had a fixation with Confucius wherein I learned that he pronounced the same principle but in different words. Most of the Ancients were familiar with it and which Jesus - if he even existed - merely repeated. The bible contains major episodes of plagiarism and borrowings presented as if it were said for the first time. The bible can be extremely deceptive in claiming originality in nearly everything it says.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Sep 27, 2026 11:20 pmAs for the "negative GR," it's not the same. It can be fulfilled with the injunction, "Leave people alone." That's obviously nowhere near the same thing.

But let's take either one. Why is it obligatory for us, morally speaking, to follow the GR? I can explain that as a Christian...can you explain it, with no reference to anything but secularism of some kind?

Positive vs. Negative Formulations

Ethical philosophers distinguish between two historical forms:

The Silver Rule (Negative Form): "Do NOT do to others what you would not want done to yourself." (Confucius, Hillel, Isocrates). This serves as a prohibition against harm and injustice.

The Golden Rule (Positive Form): "DO unto others as you would have them do unto you." (Egyptian narrative, Matthew 7:12). This mandates proactive virtue, empathy, and assistance.

The two rules are very much aligned. The Silver Rule is apriori, the Golden Rule being both its incorporation and extension. They are complementary. You cannot have a GR without the SR supporting it.

Dubious wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2026 1:31 am It's called EVOLUTION, not EVOLUTIONISM!

It's called what it is.

Dubious wrote: ↑Sun Sep 27, 2026 1:48 amThe core concept was already old hat when Luke - or whatever his actual name was, which remains unknown - presumably spoke it.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Sep 27, 2026 11:20 pmSo you don't know? No, it was not "old hat," and it was Jesus Christ Himself who first said it.

What don't I know? Supply some reference.

I did. Luke is a chapter in Scripture: did you not know? And the numbers indicate how to find it. Put it into your Google, if you don't know.

When in my early teens I had a fixation with Confucius wherein I learned that he pronounced the same principle but in different words.

Nope. Here's Confucius: "‘Do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you.” (Analects 15:23)

Like Hillel, all he's got is the so-called "negative rule," or what you call the "silver rule," which just means, essentially, "Leave each other alone" --no more than that.

Vive la difference.