Philosophy Now Forum

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Apr 28, 2021 5:36 pm So, Henry... this "intuition of ownness" might be taken a few ways. You're (typically) speaking of "ownership", correct?

I used to till it became clear folks thought I was speakin' about legalisms. That's when I switched over to sayin' a man belongs to himself; his life, liberty, and property are his which is not quite the same as the more legalistic a man owns himself. I adopted ownness as a placeholder cuz ownness simply means The fact or quality of being one's own or peculiar to oneself, a neat summation, I think.

Don't you mean more, though, than just one's own peculiarity to themselves? Don't you think you own things about yourself -- even though they could shift or be taken away? Hasn't that been your point: that you're in control of something?

Henry wrote: I believe everyone knows.

Lacewing wrote:If everyone knows, why do they think or make up so many different ideas/stories?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Apr 28, 2021 5:36 pm Bein'' a free will (a causal agent) only means a person gets to choose (to bend, end, and begin causal chains)...nuthin' about bein' a free will guarantees wise choices.

Havin' a moral compass only means you can know true north...havin' a moral compass never obligates one to give that compass any mind.

As I say up- thread: folks can have a disconnect between what they know is true and what they rationalize and logic themselves into.

Plainly, folks can hoodwink themselves in the same way they can be hoodwinked by others.

So, you're saying that everyone knows that which you "know" as "true", but they may not listen or see or know it clearly as you do... right? In which case, they're hoodwinked... but you're not hoodwinked, right?

Lacewing wrote: ↑Wed Apr 28, 2021 6:47 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Apr 28, 2021 5:36 pm So, Henry... this "intuition of ownness" might be taken a few ways. You're (typically) speaking of "ownership", correct?

I used to till it became clear folks thought I was speakin' about legalisms. That's when I switched over to sayin' a man belongs to himself; his life, liberty, and property are his which is not quite the same as the more legalistic a man owns himself. I adopted ownness as a placeholder cuz ownness simply means The fact or quality of being one's own or peculiar to oneself, a neat summation, I think.

Don't you mean more, though, than just one's own peculiarity to themselves? Don't you think you own things about yourself -- even though they could shift or be taken away? Hasn't that been your point: that you're in control of something?

You mean property, yes?

If not, please explain.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Apr 28, 2021 7:04 pm

Lacewing wrote: ↑Wed Apr 28, 2021 6:47 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Apr 28, 2021 5:36 pm So, Henry... this "intuition of ownness" might be taken a few ways. You're (typically) speaking of "ownership", correct?

I used to till it became clear folks thought I was speakin' about legalisms. That's when I switched over to sayin' a man belongs to himself; his life, liberty, and property are his which is not quite the same as the more legalistic a man owns himself. I adopted ownness as a placeholder cuz ownness simply means The fact or quality of being one's own or peculiar to oneself, a neat summation, I think.

Don't you mean more, though, than just one's own peculiarity to themselves? Don't you think you own things about yourself -- even though they could shift or be taken away? Hasn't that been your point: that you're in control of something?

You mean property, yes?

If not, please explain.

Life, liberty, and property... as you say. Don't you think you own them, even though they could shift or be taken away? Hasn't that been your point: that you're in control of them?

Lacewing wrote: ↑Wed Apr 28, 2021 7:01 pm

Henry wrote: I believe everyone knows.

Lacewing wrote:If everyone knows, why do they think or make up so many different ideas/stories?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Apr 28, 2021 5:36 pm Bein'' a free will (a causal agent) only means a person gets to choose (to bend, end, and begin causal chains)...nuthin' about bein' a free will guarantees wise choices.

Havin' a moral compass only means you can know true north...havin' a moral compass never obligates one to give that compass any mind.

As I say up- thread: folks can have a disconnect between what they know is true and what they rationalize and logic themselves into.

Plainly, folks can hoodwink themselves in the same way they can be hoodwinked by others.

So, you're saying that everyone knows that which you "know" as "true", but they may not listen or see or know it clearly as you do... right? In which case, they're hoodwinked... but you're not hoodwinked, right?

There are many folks who share my views...many deists, natural rights libertarians, etc.

Please, don't make it seem that I'm claimin' to have some esoteric access to knowledge denied to others.

I'm not a gnostic.

Look at my central clam...

a man belongs to himself

And the followup...

intuitively, everyone knows this about themselves and others.

Are either particularly startling? Do either seem nonsensical? The hoodwinkin' (self- and by others) comes into the picture when folks get convinced, for example, they have to give up freedom to preserve freedom, or that only thru security can freedom be ensured (another way of sayin' give up freedom to keep it).

A good example of hoodwinkin' is the one man-one vote lie. This, of course, is gambling mated with the mob. If you win, you get to see the other guy forced to do what you voted for; if you lose, the other guy gets to see you forced to abide by what he voted for. And that's assuming the vote isn't skewed before hand and hasn't been turned in Hanson's Choice.

But note, nowadays, where the hoodwinkin' is never directed: never does the hoodwinker flat out say you don't belong to yourself. Even the slaver kings as they asserted this never assumed they'd convince their slave subjects that it was natural and normal to be a slave. That's why the slaver kings of yesterday, and the would-be slavers of today make with talk of obligations and the greater good and the will of the people, that's why democracy is lauded and the foundations of what constitutes legitimacy in governance is marketed by those who profit from it to those who'll be profited on. This is why individual achievement is downplayed and community is elevated.

And all of it is backed by the big stick of law enforcement (we'll make you).

The hoodwinkin' isn't about denyin' what every man knows about himself, but, instead to get all men to think less of themselves, to encourage an interdependence that falls well outside normal cooperative impulses.

The supreme hoodwink is: yes, you are yours, but alone you ain't diddly.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Apr 28, 2021 7:42 pm The supreme hoodwink is: yes, you are yours, but alone you ain't diddly.

I wonder what Lace's alternative is. If she thinks you don't belong to yourself, and there's no God to whom you could belong, then to whom does she think she belongs?

I'd be interested in hearing the answer to that.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Wed Apr 28, 2021 7:07 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Apr 28, 2021 7:04 pm

Lacewing wrote: ↑Wed Apr 28, 2021 6:47 pm
Don't you mean more, though, than just one's own peculiarity to themselves? Don't you think you own things about yourself -- even though they could shift or be taken away? Hasn't that been your point: that you're in control of something?

You mean property, yes?

If not, please explain.

Life, liberty, and property... as you say. Don't you think you own them, even though they could shift or be taken away? Hasn't that been your point: that you're in control of them?

I am my life, my liberty, and my property. You can kill me, chain me, abuse me, claim you own me but with a single opportunity for me to escape you or properly defend against you, it is clear you can interfere with me but you can never legitimately own me, never truly deprive me of myself.

And: yeah, it is about a kind of control (though I never think if it in that way). We can talk about control if you like.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Apr 27, 2021 9:59 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Apr 27, 2021 7:37 pm I do know what rights are, but perhaps you would like to tell us what you think they are?

Already did. Keep reading.

All I saw was that the added irrelevant detail to my post about the history of rights. You've not said anything of substance.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Apr 27, 2021 10:10 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Apr 27, 2021 7:49 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Apr 27, 2021 7:20 pm "Socialism, like...

THe basis of the UN UDHR

Is not premised on Socialism. Under Socialism, one has no rights.

Utter dogamtic Fascistic ignorance

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Apr 28, 2021 9:11 pm Utter dogamtic Fascistic ignorance

Socialism? Absolutely.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 28, 2021 9:22 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Apr 28, 2021 9:11 pm Utter dogamtic Fascistic ignorance

Socialism? Absolutely.

No you. You are ignorant. Shockingly ignorant. You owe your entire liberty to left wing reforms for the last 200+ years. Started by people such as Hobbes, Locke, Paine. This was the grounding of democratisation, emancipation and more.
You are just an idiot.

The right wing have not been there to hand out freedom, they were all gained by the left, by fighing morons like you

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Apr 28, 2021 9:48 pm You owe your entire liberty to left wing reforms for the last 200+ years. Started by people such as Hobbes, Locke, Paine.

That's Classical Liberalism, not Socialism. If you don't know the difference, time to learn.

To Socialism, we owe 100 million dead bodies in the last century alone, and more yet to come in this century. Socialism gave us China's Great Leap Forward, the USSR's gulags, Hitler's Holocaust, the Killing Fields of Cambodia, and the starving millions of Venezuela.

You don't know Socialist history. Nobody who does can believe in it.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Apr 28, 2021 7:42 pm There are many folks who share my views...many deists, natural rights libertarians, etc.

Please, don't make it seem that I'm claimin' to have some esoteric access to knowledge denied to others.

Many humans share the views of many humans, all throughout history. What difference does that make, really?

One of the main questions that comes up in philosophy is "What do we know?" And many people will claim different answers to that. It's one of my favorite questions, along with WHY people claim to know.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Apr 28, 2021 7:42 pm Look at my central clam...

a man belongs to himself

Okay. It sounds nice, but I'm saying that there's more to it from my perspective. We are all PRODUCTS of so many factors (family, human history, culture, etc.), yes? So, I'm not so sure man really belongs to himself. Rather, he's part of a product line with built-in flaws and limitations, which are being upgraded across generations... perhaps.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Apr 28, 2021 7:42 pmAnd the followup...

intuitively, everyone knows this about themselves and others.

I'm not sure this statement is true, Henry -- I can imagine that people all throughout history have thought in various ways of belonging. Some theists may think they are nothing without a god... and that they own nothing, rather they belong to god. Some ancient peoples may have thought they belonged to their tribe... or their families/ancestors... rather than themselves. Some people (such as myself) think in terms of being part of a larger system/network, and don't think in the terms you've laid out.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Apr 28, 2021 7:42 pmThe hoodwinkin' (self- and by others) comes into the picture when folks get convinced, for example, they have to give up freedom to preserve freedom, or that only thru security can freedom be ensured (another way of sayin' give up freedom to keep it).

I see the sense of what you're saying here. It's one example of an area that people are not utilizing their full potential, whether due to themselves or others.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Apr 28, 2021 7:42 pmA good example of hoodwinkin' is the one man-one vote lie. This, of course, is gambling mated with the mob. If you win, you get to see the other guy forced to do what you voted for; if you lose, the other guy gets to see you forced to abide by what he voted for. And that's assuming the vote isn't skewed before hand and hasn't been turned in Hanson's Choice.

I don't know that this is the whole truth.

Let's look at the supposed alternative... the electoral college? How about the lies and distortions that are incorporated into that, and that result from that?

Can we believe any of it?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Apr 28, 2021 7:42 pmEven the slaver kings as they asserted this never assumed they'd convince their slave subjects that it was natural and normal to be a slave. That's why the slaver kings of yesterday, and the would-be slavers of today make with talk of obligations and the greater good and the will of the people, that's why democracy is lauded and the foundations of what constitutes legitimacy in governance is marketed by those who profit from it to those who'll be profited on. This is why individual achievement is downplayed and community is elevated.

So, you evidently give humans much more credit than I do. I don't think they know what the fuck they're doing. Sure, they may be aware that they're playing a game that profits themselves, but humans are masters at ignoring all else that they don't want to see or acknowledge. That's how they can excuse and deny all the bullshit they spew and create. They're drunk on the games they play.

Rather than seeing the power players as slaver kings, I think of how to play my game better regardless of what they're doing. We can't necessarily play at their level, as we don't have those resources and connections. But we can dodge (as much as possible) being a slave to someone else's ideas and agenda, while modeling and pursuing a clearer/freer view that isn't twisted up in stories on one "side" or another. Because if you're spun up in being "with them" or "against them", you're dancing with them. Nature seems to have a way of sluffing off dead ends that don't serve the broader good.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Apr 28, 2021 7:42 pm to get all men to think less of themselves, to encourage an interdependence that falls well outside normal cooperative impulses.

Or is it simply focused on immediate control and profit? I honestly don't think people typically mastermind much further as you seem to suggest. I think their drives are mainly in the moment, to serve their ego and needs.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Apr 28, 2021 7:42 pmThe supreme hoodwink is: yes, you are yours, but alone you ain't diddly.

Henry, it simply doesn't make sense to separate ourselves from the systems we are part of. No, we don't have to be be mindless robots -- it is possible to utilize and benefit from our uniqueness and contributions while also recognizing the unavoidable constant ripples that are a part of any system. I hope that you don't have such black and white opinions BETWEEN views (one vs. another), that you cannot see the black and white OF EACH VIEW. The former is a hoodwinked view... embracing stories that serve an unbalanced purpose/agenda. From my perspective, balanced views make more sense -- as opposed to launching oneself onto one end of a scale and drunkenly screaming from that view alone, which humans like to do so that they can claim to know that.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 28, 2021 7:51 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Apr 28, 2021 7:42 pm The supreme hoodwink is: yes, you are yours, but alone you ain't diddly.

I wonder what Lace's alternative is. If she thinks you don't belong to yourself, and there's no God to whom you could belong, then to whom does she think she belongs?

I'd be interested in hearing the answer to that.

I've already spoken to this many times... but will repeat it again here. You don't hear it because you have an agenda that cannot exist beside it. Why do you think there are only two options of belonging: to a god or oneself? If you look around at all we are part of, and how that immense system operates and interacts on so many levels, independent of hierarchical stories about gods or man over all else, then you might be able to consider that we belong to the system as everything else belongs to it, without need for any idea of ownership.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Apr 28, 2021 7:53 pm

Lacewing wrote: ↑Wed Apr 28, 2021 7:07 pm Life, liberty, and property... as you say. Don't you think you own them, even though they could shift or be taken away? Hasn't that been your point: that you're in control of them?

I am my life, my liberty, and my property. You can kill me, chain me, abuse me, claim you own me but with a single opportunity for me to escape you or properly defend against you, it is clear you can interfere with me but you can never legitimately own me, never truly deprive me of myself.

How does that equate to you owning yourself? Just because someone else can't own you, doesn't mean that you own yourself. Do you think there has to be an owner? You can be a free agent -- even free from yourself -- moment to moment. One's identity and concepts of ownership can be a prison.