Philosophy Now Forum

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 5:29 pm Oh Heavens! Flash is resorting to bold face, giant type, and color! Run for the electronic hills!

By definition, what you describe is definitively and absolutely subjective. So constantly accusing me of overlooking that it is objective is just a pisstake. Quit it, we've covered the distinction between objective and subjective and you said at the time that it was boring and obvious, so get it right from now on.

So to get back to Augustine, if a slave masturbates, does that make the slave "wicked" and therefore a "slave" unlike the "slave" who doesn't masturbate and is therefore "free"?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 5:53 pm So to get back to Augustine, if a slave masturbates, does that make the slave "wicked" and therefore a "slave" unlike the "slave" who doesn't masturbate and is therefore "free"?

In Aristotle's terms, instead of kings who are enslaved by appetites for vice, the metaphors for this sort of thing are beastiality and incontinence. Firstly I present this information because those are good fun. And of course Jacobi can now attribute that line of reasononing to Plato.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 6:03 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 5:53 pm So to get back to Augustine, if a slave masturbates, does that make the slave "wicked" and therefore a "slave" unlike the "slave" who doesn't masturbate and is therefore "free"?

In Aristotle's terms, instead of kings who are enslaved by appetites for vice, the metaphors for this sort of thing are beastiality and incontinence. Firstly I present this information because those are good fun. And of course Jacobi can now attribute that line of reasononing to Plato.

Good to know. Thank you, FDP.

Amended question:

So to get back to Augustine, if a slave engages in beastiality or is unable to control the functions of his penis, does that make the slave "wicked" and therefore a "slave" unlike the "slave" who doesn't engage in beastiality or has control over his penis' functions and is therefore "free"?

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 5:45 pm

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 5:30 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 5:27 pm You may as well explain the acidic thing too while you are at it because I don't know what you mean by it

Let's start at the very very beginning.

Do you know what an acid is?

A molecule or other species which can donate a proton or accept an electron pair in reactions.

You'll continue to struggle, but when you do arrive at a definition -- for the purposes at hand -- let me know. Then we can continue.

If neither of you two wunderkinder show no progress here I am afraid I'll have to leave you to your devices.

If need be go back to this post and start again.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 2:06 pm An *anchor* in the sense I am referring to is both a discovery and a creation by man.

Is it both an egg and a chicken by Jove?

Perhaps it is both a fiction and a fact, a liquid and a solid, as well?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 6:36 pm If neither of you two wunderkinder show no progress here I am afraid I'll have to leave you to your devices.

If need be go back to this post and start again.

The man who becomes addicted to bestiality or is unable to control the functions of his penis (your condition Gary) — as well as many other vices and addictions — to the degree that these control him, is the degree that he is unfree and (in Augustine's sense) a slave.

Slow going but you might be said to be progressing.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 7:45 pm The man who becomes addicted to bestiality or is unable to control the functions of his penis (your condition Gary)

I'm not into bestiality and I don't wear depends. So what's your problem?

The things brought out in my posts deal in principles. You have issues because you don’t agree with the defined principles or, possibly, you cannot understand the importance of the principles. You tell me.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 10:29 pm The things brought out in my posts deal in principles. You have issues because you don’t agree with the defined principles or, possibly, you cannot understand the importance of the principles. You tell me.

What "principles" are you talking about? Is bigotry a "principle"? You're afraid to check the plumbing once in a while for some entertainment? No wonder you're uptight.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 10:35 pm What "principles" are you talking about? Is bigotry a "principle"? You're afraid to check the plumbing once in a while for some entertainment? No wonder you're uptight.

Uptight?! Are you kidding? I am utterly relaxed.

You are not unintelligent. Yet you are dense. I want you to examine recent posts and — really straining all your faculties — take a run at defining the •principle• involved.

I’m rooting for you!

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 11:32 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 10:35 pm What "principles" are you talking about? Is bigotry a "principle"? You're afraid to check the plumbing once in a while for some entertainment? No wonder you're uptight.

Uptight?! Are you kidding? I am utterly relaxed.

You are not unintelligent. Yet you are dense. I want you to examine recent posts and — really straining all your faculties — take a run at defining the •principle• involved.

I’m rooting for you!

It seems that everything I start to type is the wrong answer. And yet you are full of words and type prolifically. I'm always looking for the right thing to say and have come to a dead end. You profess to be detached and impartial and tirelessly go on and on. You're like the energizer bunny. Struggling against you is like struggling against rust and corrosion. And ultimately, like rust and corrosion, I find you unpleasant company.

"if a slave engages in beastiality or is unable to control the functions of his penis, does that make the slave "wicked" and therefore a "slave" unlike the "slave" who doesn't engage in beastiality or has control over his penis' functions and is therefore "free"?"

That's exactly right. Thus Gustave Vonhamsonshmidt writes:

"More a free man is the slave who doth not stroketh nor lie with his hound, than he who does but be a king".