Philosophy Now Forum

Hi Satyr. I am impressed! your imitation of a willy-waving adolescent lad with pretensions to more education than he's actually had is brilliant.

Satyr wrote:Now, if you can prove rights are universal forces, then I'm listening, if you simply repeat how we must all pretend that we are all the same, for the sake of comfort, then that is not philosophy.

Universal forces, like elektromagnetism and gravitation? Don't be silly. Rights are neither universal nor forces. They are human constructs, something that we grant each other. I can't force you to listen, of course, but I'd like to point out that I never said that we are all the same or that we should pretend to be, so I can't repeat it.

Notvacka wrote:Good/Bad are your delusions, boy. You share them with the vast majority, so do not be troubled.

Actually, I have made my own definitions of these terms, along with right and wrong, in order to explain morality:

good = what I want

evil = what I don't want

right = what others want

wrong = what others don't want

The need for morality and morality itself emerges when we discover that good doesn't always equal right and evil does not always equal wrong.

It follows from the definitions that when two people disagree on a moral issue, they must both be wrong, because what others want is defined as right. This is also consistent with the only useful definition of objectivity as common agreement. Only when we agree can we be right on a moral issue.

It also follows from the definitions that what we should strive for is what's both right and good, something that can be achieved by wanting what others want, or by making others want what we want. The Buddhist solution, to not want anything at all, is an interesting third option.

Satyr wrote:I wouldn't suspect nature gives a shit about your human rights or your delusions about equality or your humanistic sympathies, since it functions using criteria that often contradict your idealism.

You are right in that "nature" doesn't care, and I don't understand why you keep talking about "nature" as if it was some sort of diety or higher principle, when it's simply the inevitable.

Satyr wrote:I, cannot just sit back and pretend that all is well, with the world, just because mommy told me so or it feels good.

Nor should you, because it's glaringly obvious that all is not well with the world.

Satyr wrote:The beneficial synergy offered by cooperation or unities is both a symptom if individual weakness, seeking compensation in groups, and it comes with a price. Look at your body, made up, as it is, by billions of individual cells that were once independent. Think about specialization and what this means...

It's nice of you to choose the human body and its individual cells as example, because it illustrates my point perfectly.

Each individual cell thrives when the whole body thrives. The human body, in all its splendor, is the result of extreme coopertation. No single cell could ever accomplice anything like what the united collective of cells can. Because the individual is always weak. Sure, some individuals are stronger than others, and some cells more important than others, but any individual is always weaker than the group.

And it has nothing to do with everybody being the same. Difference is crucial. A brain cell is very different from a blood cell, for instance. But both are equally needed in order for the body to function. What would the brain be without blood? At the same time, each cell, even the most important one, is redundant. The body can always survive the loss of one single cell.

There are of course cells that refuse to cooperate. Cancer is what happens when cells reproduce and grow on their own, without regard for the collective. If cancer is allowed to spread, it eventually kills the body and itself in the process. Because the individual can't survive without the group, just like the group can't survive without the cooperation of individuals.

You think you understand "nature" and "evolution" when all you see is competition. But nature is full of examples showing that cooperation is a much more effective strategy.

Satyr wrote:You see, for some love and loyalty and friendship and trust are so valuable that they cannot just give them away to everyone, like they er cheap trinkets.

Yes, while some are so blessed with love, loyalty, friendship and trust that they can give them away, valuable as they are.

Satyr wrote:I, on the other hand, cannot lower myself that much. It's a matter of self-respect.

Yes, if you have that little respect, I understand that you want to keep it for yourself. Poor, lonesome creature.

Arising_uk wrote:

Satyr wrote:...
I wouldn't suspect nature gives a shit about your human rights or your delusions about equality or your humanistic sympathies, since it functions using criteria that often contradict your idealism. ...

But you are anthropomorphizing "nature" in exactly the way you deride in others? You are making it some ideal that 'gives a shit' but there is no such thing giving or not giving a shit or having criteria for 'functioning' to some purpose.

Little girl, there is no anthropomorphizing here, outside of poetic license.
Just pointing out that nature, the world, is unaffected by human contrivances or what people pretend.

Whether we pretend to be equals or we rpetend to be immortals, it does not affect reality.

----------------------

Turdrill wrote: Hi Satyr. I am impressed! your imitation of a willy-waving adolescent lad with pretensions to more education than he's actually had is brilliant.

Thanks douche-bag.

I'm impressed that you would know what education I have had or that you still function under the delusion that knowledge=intelligence...or that you know, for sure, that I am not an adolescent.

What I'm not impressed by is that you had to enter my field of vision and make your presence known....that was typical.

------------------------

Notvacka wrote:Universal forces, like elektromagnetism and gravitation? Don't be silly. Rights are neither universal nor forces. They are human constructs, something that we grant each other. I can't force you to listen, of course, but I'd like to point out that I never said that we are all the same or that we should pretend to be, so I can't repeat it.

Ah...therefore you would agree that a system is a cocooning increasingly self-referential unity within which nature is often disregarded or dismissed.

To use an extreme example to clarify the point: if the system relied upon offering each other the illusion or delusion that all perspectives are equally valid, when they are not, or that all inherited genes are equal in potential, as they are not, then this still would not change the reality of it.
All it would do is it would enclose us in a mythological world where we all pretend things are other than what they really are.
Like all lies and/or pretentiousness, the more you repeat it the more convinced you are that it is fact.

Notvacka wrote:Actually, I have made my own definitions of these terms, along with right and wrong, in order to explain morality:

good = what I want

evil = what I don't want

right = what others want

wrong = what others don't want

Then your world-view is admittedly subjective...and you are proud of it.
Hate to break it to you but what "you want" has no affect on what I want, nor on anything outside your skull. It only determines your actions and then what repercussions will come of them.

Notvacka wrote:The need for morality and morality itself emerges when we discover that good doesn't always equal right and evil does not always equal wrong.

Particularly when the "good=I want" assumes that the "I" is common.
This is herd morality, dear boy.

Notvacka wrote:It follows from the definitions that when two people disagree on a moral issue, they must both be wrong, because what others want is defined as right. This is also consistent with the only useful definition of objectivity as common agreement. Only when we agree can we be right on a moral issue.

Which would explain why there is no common moral code outside the common biological self-serving needs imposed upon us by our nature.

Now I can say that it is "good" to live, but this only expresses a subjective point of view, even if it is shared, that has no relevance outside my self-interest.
For someone else my "living" may not be so good.

So, you meet another and you agree to pretend that his life is just as important to you as your own, and he reciprocates to maintain the common lie, when in fact this is not the case.
Ergo your moral system is one based on hypocrisy.
You don't really care about the other's life, but only as much as it affects your own.

Notvacka wrote: It also follows from the definitions that what we should strive for is what's both right and good, something that can be achieved by wanting what others want, or by making others want what we want. The Buddhist solution, to not want anything at all, is an interesting third option.

Ah, so in this case you expose another aspect of your herd morality, as it involved uniform desires.
One must become indoctrinated within a common belief system and value system, establishing common wants and common identifications.

In Christianity this is achieved with the projection of the ideal Man, the God.

As for Buddhism this is also an interesting example.
It proposes an anti-existence existence...and contradicts itself.
In fact there is no life without need, as when you live your heart pumps blood and your lungs take in air and your cells absorb nutrients and your immune system fights off viruses, constantly.
you are in a constant condition of need, or strife, or activity. So you want continuously, even if you might not be consciously aware of it.

Now the Buddhists might be suggesting an absence of want in reference to social and/or human contexts: an ascetic ideal.
This proposition fails outside human contrivances or relationships, for there is no state which is not wanting.
The absence of an absolute is felt as need by a conscious mind. You might control your needs, limit them to a bear minimum, to decrease your need/suffering, and this is a commendable attribute, but you can never totally do away with it.

The only solution is death, which would be the return to unconsciousness, where the absence, is no longer felt.

The Buddhist position if taken to the extreme proposes a living-death.To deny one's self the sensation of existing so as to forgo the cost of it, which is need/suffering.

Another option is to increase your tolerance, your strength, in reference to existence, so as to make need/suffering less detrimental to your living state.
This would be a more Hellenic attitude.

for instance, when you purposefully stress your body, placing it in controlled conditions of self-imposed need/suffering, such as lifting weights or exercising in general, you are in fact increasing your tolerance to need/suffering. Lift enough weights and gravity seems to have less of an impact upon your consciousness.
Here the ascetic (askisis) ideal is used as a method, a tool, not proposed as an end in itself.

Here pleasure is not denied, want is not rejected, but it is controlled, directed.
This is what I meant when I said that the dominance of the male over the female starts inside the individual. The man first dominates his own feminine side, his own nature.

Satyr: in case you may feel I flippantly dismissed the lengthy post which you addressed to me, here is my considered evaluation:

These are 4 unsupported assertions:

Satyr wrote: they easily conform to any prevailing norm.

Satyr wrote: much of civilization is based no hypocrisy.

.

Satyr wrote: animals deserve respect and dignity. .

Satyr wrote: In monogamy, . all act as if . . . . marriages are happy, when in fact most are miserable within them. .

These are 3 unfocussed rants:

Satyr wrote:, they simply know that they must have them tob e normal, New age, modern females; enlightened and progressive. .

Satyr wrote: when you enforce a strict code of behavior you create uniformity....which adds to the illusion that label are the same, when in fact they are not but they are forced to act as if they are. .

Satyr wrote: Your assessment of them is based on appearances, which you must declare irrelevant if you should hold females as being no different than males, and your judgment ignores the unity of nature, which you propose to be your founding ideal, which makes you no different than a pig or a dog, even if it cannot speak. It can bleed and feel pain...and so given that life is sacred and deserves a moniker of dignity,as you understand it, animals deserve respect and dignity. .

These are 9 (yes nine) unfounded and (mostly) erroneous assumptions about my ‘morality’’principles’ ‘claims’ etc;

Satyr wrote: you propose to live in a fantasy scenario where we all rpetend, but none dare speak his mind, as if the fantasy were real. .

What fantasy? You mean a world in which all adult humans have equal political status?

Satyr wrote:, if you follow your own principles to their logical conclusion then you have an obligation tog rant these creatures, who cannot demand them, their rights. .

What principles have I stated? (Except that men and women are equally human). I haven’t made any statement of principle, either in favour of, or against, ‘animal rights’. (for the record, I’m broadly against the idea.)

Satyr wrote: To do otherwise is to contradict your own morals. .

What ‘morals’ have I espoused?

Satyr wrote: Your assessment of them is based on appearances, .

No it isn’t. Men and women don’t appear to be equal at all!

Satyr wrote: which you must declare irrelevant if you should hold females as being no different than males, .

No I don’t. We’re obviously not the same.

Satyr wrote:. . . . the unity of nature, which you propose to be your founding ideal, .

Where do I propose anything of the sort?

Satyr wrote: that life is sacred and deserves a moniker of dignity,as you understand it, .

Where have I said anything whatsoever about the sacredness or dignity of life?


,

Satyr wrote: to claim that the difference is one of degree, animals being more different to man than a woman is, or an ape.

Where have I made such a claim?

Satyr wrote: Furthermore, your assessment that humans are not resources, is highly problematic. .

Where have I suggested that humans are not resources? Ask my boss!


These 3 statements are simply historically wrong:

Satyr wrote: these "rights" were male inventions, handed over to women as ideas/ideals. .

Satyr wrote: Females simply adapted them as their own.

Satyr wrote: if we harken back to an earlier age when atheism was punishable by death.

This is 1 simply hysterically wrong statement.:

Satyr wrote: They know not from whence these "rights" come from .

Advice; if your going to use anything as high-falutin as ‘whence’ make sure you understand the terms ventured. ‘Whence’ doesn’t need even one ‘from’. Definitely not two of ‘em!
This is unwarranted pomposity.

So: we have 4 unsupported assertions, 3 unfocussed rants, 9 wrong assumptions about my beliefs, 3 statements which are historically wrong, and 1 piece of comically unwarranted pomposity.
All in the one post!
Have I missed anything out? Like, y’know, something that might justify your occupation of all that bandwidth?

Satyr wrote:Then your world-view is admittedly subjective...and you are proud of it.

Yes! Objectivity is nothing but common agreement, for which you show such disdain.

Satyr wrote:This is herd morality, dear boy.

Yes, if that's what you like to call it. Since the need for morality and morality itself emerges from the existence of others, how could there be any other kind? Using a derogatory term is no argument, and I wouldn't be debating with you unless I was immune to such petty abuse.

Satyr wrote:So, you meet another and you agree to pretend that his life is just as important to you as your own, and he reciprocates to maintain the common lie, when in fact this is not the case. Ergo your moral system is one based on hypocrisy.

There is no lie and no hypocrisy. It's all about empathy. His life is as important to him as mine is to me. If we both understand this, then we have a common basis for morality and cooperation. The notion that self-interest is the only "true" interest is the lie.

Satyr wrote:One must become indoctrinated within a common belief system and value system, establishing common wants and common identifications.

Yes. That's how human society works. You make it sound like a bad thing, but it's the secret to our success as a species.

Notvacka wrote:

Satyr wrote:Then your world-view is admittedly subjective...and you are proud of it.

Yes! Objectivity is nothing but common agreement, for which you show such disdain.

Not "disdain"...I am placing it in its rightful place..as another self-deserving human contrivance.

If you wish to explore reality, as it is rather than as you prefer it to be, you should, at least, try to escape human contrivances or dissect them with honesty.

Equality between males and females is like any other form of it a human invention that has nothing to do with reality.
Now, you may argue on behalf of the necessity of acting as if they were fact or you might defend the necessity of the lie, but you cannot present it as anything other than what it is, when in fact in the real world, outside human inventions, the opposite is true.

Notvacka wrote:Yes, if that's what you like to call it. Since the need for morality and morality itself emerges from the existence of others, how could there be any other kind? Using a derogatory term is no argument, and I wouldn't be debating with you unless I was immune to such petty abuse.

How nice for you.
Morality does not "emerge from the existence of others" it emerges from our need of them. It is selfish in origin.
If I do not another, I am indifferent to him and I have no compulsion to treat him kindly or unkindly.
The only reason i would treat someone in a certain manner, which you would call "good", is because I wish for him to reciprocate in kind.

We see how respect is rooted in intimidation.
Even when I respect my teacher or mother, it is because I fear that if I do not they will deny me their teachings, support, love or presence.
It is the fear of their loss, or the loss that may come about due to their activities in response to my own, that I take into consideration.

Notvacka wrote:There is no lie and no hypocrisy. It's all about empathy. His life is as important to him as mine is to me. If we both understand this, then we have a common basis for morality and cooperation. The notion that self-interest is the only "true" interest is the lie.

So, our "commonality" is founded on our common needs, or failings, or weaknesses.

But now you've also touched upon another modern myth.
Empathy does not necessarily lead to sympathy.
When I empathize I place myself in the other's position and imagine how it feels or what it is based on.
My empathy could very much lead to disgust or hatred, given that this understanding of the other might also include the understanding of what brought his predicament about...or my empathy might expose me to parts I hate about myself, and so parts I have overcome or am still fighting against.

Notvacka wrote:Yes. That's how human society works. You make it sound like a bad thing, but it's the secret to our success as a species.

I make it sound in a way that "corrects" your romantic idealism of it.

There is no "good" or "bad" and so there is only a complete or an incomplete understanding and/or appreciation.
Growing up in a system that exaggerates the "goodness" of certain things while diminishing their "badness" results in a naive perspective.

For example, if I were to appreciate only the good things about my family, denying any negative things, avoiding to even consider them, then I am setting myself up for many negative surprises in the future.
If I "love" them, then I must include in my appreciation all the nasty things, to make my appreciation more genuine and strong because it is rational, not emotional.

Difference between eros and agape.

So, focusing on all the benefits of society makes you vulnerable to all the costs.
With every gain there is a loss, and with every loss a gain.

One of the costs of social living is a loss of independence. In fact social behavior in animals is a strengthening of inter-group dependencies.
This offers the benefit of synergy, as specialization frees some of the organism's energies to be dedicated towards other goals.
This, specialization, in turn results in the necessity for compartmentalization of selective knowledge and reasoning.

Dear boy, thanks for keeping my books for me.
Out of all of it, these are the only places where you actually made a declaration that alluded to something.

Turdhill wrote:These 3 statements are simply historically wrong:

I'm getting tingly...

Turdhill wrote:

Satyr wrote: these "rights" were male inventions, handed over to women as ideas/ideals. .

Then you can provide one example where women invented moral systems or philosophies that resulted in a moral system.
Even feminism is a outcrop of Judeo-Christianity and Democratic values.
Both male contrivances.

Turdhill wrote:

Satyr wrote: Females simply adapted them as their own.

True, females maladjusted to them.

Turdhill wrote:

Satyr wrote: if we harken back to an earlier age when atheism was punishable by death.

You mean to tell me that there was no time in hotry where anyone even implying the non-existence of God did not risk death?
What history books are you reading, boy, or are you simply understanding them selectively?

Turdhill wrote:This is 1 simply hysterically wrong statement.:

Satyr wrote: They know not from whence these "rights" come from .

Advice; if your going to use anything as high-falutin as ‘whence’ make sure you understand the terms ventured. ‘Whence’ doesn’t need even one ‘from’. Definitely not two of ‘em!
This is unwarranted pomposity.

The critique was appreciated...and empty of substance. Thanks for your declarations of taste.
I have found that those simpleminded ones who lack any insights, often dedicate themselves to grammar and spelling tests.
They prefer exploring the words themselves, and the appropriateness of the syntax, while they avoid exploring the meanings.
They remind me of art critics who having no artistry of their own and no eye for much more than surfaces, offer their services and attract attention by critiquing the brush strokes or how the form was not exactly right in one image.

Sorry. The game's up. I suggested at the top of the page that you might well be a talented writer, presenting, for some reason, the views of a willy-waving adolescent lad pretending to more education than he's actually got. Now, alas, you demonstrate that you are the real article. At this point, i go elsewhere for entertainment.
Bye, nob'ead!

Thundril wrote:Sorry. The game's up. I suggested at the top of the page that you might well be a talented writer, presenting, for some reason, the views of a willy-waving adolescent lad pretending to more education than he's actually got. Now, alas, you demonstrate that you are the real article. At this point, i go elsewhere for entertainment.
Bye, nob'ead!

I've had Satyr on ignore for ages. I suggest that you do the same.

Thundril wrote:Sorry. The game's up. I suggested at the top of the page that you might well be a talented writer, presenting, for some reason, the views of a willy-waving adolescent lad pretending to more education than he's actually got. Now, alas, you demonstrate that you are the real article. At this point, i go elsewhere for entertainment.
Bye, nob'ead!

Dear boy, I was hoping you would put up a fight, because if you agree with me then there is no reason to talk with you at all...in which case you saw my adolescent dick-waving you and heeded the call....wanting to prove that yours was bigger or that you were far more infantile than I appeared to be.

None of my views are faked, but since you're slow and in need, I wanted to offer you one last chance....to redeem yourself.

Let me help you along:
See the moniker? It is of the name of a mythological creature.
See the avatar? It is of a fictitious character.
Both together constitute my on-line public face - my style if you will.
I try to remain faithful to it.

Given my views then this is your public face. Mine is more exaggerated.

Unfortunately you've convinced yourself that you are genuine...in this case genuinely stupid.
I concur...hoping it isn't so...alas....ALAS!!!
That inclusion was funny.

I'm still hoping you are not as obtuse as you appear to be, but I still haven't seen evidence of female creativity, perhaps you can teach me how and where females invented moral standards and philosophical thought...perhaps you can explain how atheism was never punishable by death and hellfire.
But you've found a way to disengage and save face.
I grant you that "right".

But it is too late.

Follow the retard below and ignore me...and thank you for not wasting any more of my time.

Ta, Ta,

Schopenhauer, Arthur wrote:(Politeness is) a tacit agreement that people's miserable defects, whether moral or intellectual, shall on either side be ignored and not be made the subject of reproach.

Satyr wrote:If you wish to explore reality, as it is rather than as you prefer it to be, you should, at least, try to escape human contrivances or dissect them with honesty.

I'm not sure about the line you seem to draw between "reality" and "human contrivances". At least I don't think that one is independent of the other. Neither do I believe that we can know anything about reality "as it is". There is no objective knowledge, only subjective viewpoints and common agreement, for what it's worth.

Satyr wrote:Equality between males and females is like any other form of it a human invention that has nothing to do with reality.

On the contrary, it's one of those things, like the value of money for instance, that become real if enough people believe it to be real. If we treat each other as equals, then we truly are equals. Ideas become reality when we act upon them. Sure, we are all slaves to reality, but that does not mean that we can't change reality if we wish to do something about it.

Satyr wrote:...when in fact in the real world, outside human inventions, the opposite is true.

There you go again, referring to the "real world" as if it were something you could actually access.

Satyr wrote:The only reason i would treat someone in a certain manner, which you would call "good", is because I wish for him to reciprocate in kind.

Perhaps. You know yourself best. But even if you act selflessly only for selfish reasons, the act itself is enough. Your motives are less important. Cooperation is what matters.

Satyr wrote:We see how respect is rooted in intimidation.

Are you talking about your own self respect also? Anyway, that is what you see. As far as I'm concerned respect rooted in intimidation isn't worth much.

Satyr wrote:So, our "commonality" is founded on our common needs, or failings, or weaknesses.

Yes. There is strength in numbers, and to gain that strength, you need to first understand that you are weak on your own.

Notvacka wrote:

Satyr wrote:If you wish to explore reality, as it is rather than as you prefer it to be, you should, at least, try to escape human contrivances or dissect them with honesty.

I'm not sure about the line you seem to draw between "reality" and "human contrivances". At least I don't think that one is independent of the other. Neither do I believe that we can know anything about reality "as it is". There is no objective knowledge, only subjective viewpoints and common agreement, for what it's worth.

Who said they wee independent?

Reality is fluid, active, dynamic..a process...call it flow or flux if you wish to incorporate multidimensional possibilities.
Human opinions, theories, ideas and ideals are snapshots of it: simplifications, generalizations, static models, then projected as objects/objectives.

To make sense of a fluid environment the human mind projects upon it what is absent: the absolute. This becomes a signpost, a direction finder upon the mental grids in the mind - four dimensional space/time.
The other dimensions cannot be conceptualized and so they remain theoretical and never perceived. What the mind cannot perceive, find patters within, it interprets as darkness.

Notvacka wrote:On the contrary, it's one of those things, like the value of money for instance, that become real if enough people believe it to be real. If we treat each other as equals, then we truly are equals. Ideas become reality when we act upon them. Sure, we are all slaves to reality, but that does not mean that we can't change reality if we wish to do something about it.

Exactly like money.
Money is a human abstraction of resources...energies, potential or actual given a numerical value.
Money has no meaning outside human constructs.
Nature knows of no money nor wealth passed on from father to son.

This human inventions gives man the opportunity to purchase a correction to what he genetically lacks. For example an ugly chick may purchase beauty and a weak man may purchase strength.
This beauty and strength is only relevant within the human system which supports the contrivances.

Notvacka wrote:There you go again, referring to the "real world" as if it were something you could actually access.

I live in the "real world". I do not know where you live, but it isn't in the real world if you think equality makes sense.
Reality is what challenges consciousness to perceive it accurately or face the consequences.

Take Heidegger's perspective and realize that when you perceive you are looking backwards to what no longer is, while you are living forwards...the direction determined by the increase of entropy. so perception is always lagging behind.
To compensate the mind created abstractions which it can then use to project probable occurrences in the future, based on patterns of repetitive predictability he calls logic.

Reality cannot be perceived directly, because it is fluid and so a dynamic process of interactivity. But man can access reality indirectly, artistically, using the perception of patterns.

Notvacka wrote: Perhaps. You know yourself best. But even if you act selflessly only for selfish reasons, the act itself is enough. Your motives are less important. Cooperation is what matters.

Then against the urging of Socrates you do not wish to know yourself, you just wish to enjoy the outcome. This is a recipe for disaster....bit to each his own.

If your motives do not interest you, in other words if you do not interest you and you are only interested in other, then what the hell are you doing pretending to be interested in philosophy?

Now THAT is hypocrisy.

Notvacka wrote:Are you talking about your own self respect also? Anyway, that is what you see. As far as I'm concerned respect rooted in intimidation isn't worth much.

This is because you need to purify it with your romantic feminine idealism.
You are like the christian who doesn't wish to explore what the metaphor of God really is, because he cannot live without it....or like a girl who doesn't wish to deconstruct love, its purpose, why it evolved, because she fears she will lose its mystical power...its magic.

As for "self-respect" yes it is included. The fear of mistreating one's self to the extent that one does damage to it, is what self-respect is.

Notvacka wrote:Yes. There is strength in numbers, and to gain that strength, you need to first understand that you are weak on your own.

Indeed, boy, and who did not admit that?

But not all are equally weak, boy.

Did I not say to another that strength is really a measurement of weakness, just as independence (freedom) is a measurement of dependence?
This plays into my positions.
The weaker an individual is, all the more he seeks refuge in numbers....the size of the group he is comfortable within being inversely proportional to his insecurity, weakness.
This is why the idea of losing one's self ni a crowd is comforting to the one who has the least sense of self to lose. Again, the least self-respect.

Schopenhauer, Arthur wrote: Pride ... is the direct appreciation of oneself.

Satyr wrote:...
There is no omnipotence and so strength is a measurement of weakness...just like you are stupid in degree. ...

Is it? I thought it a continuum.

In this case the degree to which the organism, in this case the beaver, affects its environment and then how this affects it in turn, is what I am talking about.

So, one more time, because you are as thick as molasses on a hot Alabama night, when we are talking about artificial environments we are talking about a degree of intervention upon the environment which then reflects back to the intervening organism in excess to the conditions that preceded this intervention. ...

Whats wrong with just saying its something made intentionally? A nest is artificial as is the beavers lodge and the termites mound, all reflect back in the way you say.

Humans, for instance, have intervened upon natural processes to such a degree that man, in effect, begins affecting himself, his own development, with his interventions in excess to natural processes.

There you go with this 'natural' again. But I agree that we are the animal par excellence at altering the environment to suit us and agree that we are now embarked upon altering ourselves to suit.

Arising_uk wrote: Is it? I thought it a continuum.

Arising_uk wrote: Whats wrong with just saying its something made intentionally? A nest is artificial as is the beavers lodge and the termites mound, all reflect back in the way you say.

I know certain words bother you, and that you have been conditioned to have a Pavlovian reaction to them when they are used in a particular context, but how you've been indoctrinated into self-censorship is your problem not mine.

I've already explained why it is not used in reference to ant colonies or beaver dams, but you've failed to understand.

I just remembered why I disengaged with you and this forum, other than what you told yourself.
If not for the blatant running away to avoid engaging my views, it was the obtuse nagging of a female, like you, who kept on asking the same stupid questions, over and over again, even after a response was given, because she's unable to understand or accept what was offered.
It leads to an endless cycle of repeating and then repeating again...then the woman going off claiming victory because she remained unconvinced or because from what she did understand she found it wanting, in the absolute sense.
Women need an absolute certainty in all areas.

I know nagging works for ya, but it has no other effect than to drive people away, without any resolution.

Now, sweetie, I've explained why and how the term "artificial" is useful....best you reread it, and if still you do not get it, best you run along.

Satyr wrote:...
I've already explained why it is not used in reference to ant colonies or beaver dams, but you've failed to understand. ...

No. I understood what you said, I just disagree with it as the actions of these creatures have quite reasonably affected their evolution from what they were when they had not refined their behaviour to such an extent. Its just that, as you say, it takes a long time. Whereas it appears easier to identify with the human constructs, as again like you say, thay have a faster impact.

I just remembered why i disengaged with you and this forum, other than what you told yourself. If not for the blatant running away to avoid engaging my views, it was the obtuse nagging of a female, like you, who kept on asking the same questions even after a response was given, because she's unable to understand or accept what was written. It leads to an endless cycle of repeating and then repeating again...then the woman going off claiming victory because she remained unconvinced or because from what she did understand she found it wanting, in the absolute sense.
Women need an absolute certainty in all areas. ...

In the long run the meaning of your words are the response they get. So if you're interested in passing on your ideas rather than just the sound of your own voice its worth being patient until you get the response you wish. That or try saying it another way.

I know why you left, you don't like questions about your thoughts nor have patience with those who have to think about them.

Now, sweetie, I've explained why and how the term "artificial" is useful....best you reread it, and if still you do not get it, best you run along.

Since when did the word "artificial" need such a boost of 'usefulness' or such a definition? You think theres a problem with it? Its anything made by living things for a purpose and not just shaped by unliving processes.