Philosophy Now Forum

I'm very happy that our new issue has a theme of Human Rights. Given many of the stories in the news in the last week or so, it seems apt.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/118

RickLewis wrote: ↑Tue Jan 31, 2017 9:56 pm I'm very happy that our new issue has a theme of Human Rights. Given many of the stories in the news in the last week or so, it seems apt.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/118

Since, relation to self is inadmissible, how many human rights are there?
Only one. A mind can either do its own work, or it cannot.
A human right is not something anyone can grant to anyone else. It is biologically defined.

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Fri May 09, 2025 9:20 pm

RickLewis wrote: ↑Tue Jan 31, 2017 9:56 pm I'm very happy that our new issue has a theme of Human Rights. Given many of the stories in the news in the last week or so, it seems apt.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/118

Since, relation to self is inadmissible, how many human rights are there?
Only one. A mind can either do its own work, or it cannot.
A human right is not something anyone can grant to anyone else. It is biologically defined.

If a so-called mind can either do its so-called 'own work' or not has absolutely nothing at all to do with 'rights' in regards to you human beings.

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Fri May 09, 2025 9:20 pm

RickLewis wrote: ↑Tue Jan 31, 2017 9:56 pm I'm very happy that our new issue has a theme of Human Rights. Given many of the stories in the news in the last week or so, it seems apt.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/118

Since, relation to self is inadmissible, how many human rights are there?
Only one. A mind can either do its own work, or it cannot.
A human right is not something anyone can grant to anyone else. It is biologically defined.

Perhaps it would be a good idea to start by defining what you mean by a "human right"? Otherwise, I do not see how we can assess your claim.

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Fri May 09, 2025 9:20 pm

RickLewis wrote: ↑Tue Jan 31, 2017 9:56 pm I'm very happy that our new issue has a theme of Human Rights. Given many of the stories in the news in the last week or so, it seems apt.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/118

Since, relation to self is inadmissible, how many human rights are there?
Only one. A mind can either do its own work, or it cannot.

If you really think or believe that 'that claim' is a 'human right', then you really are more lost and confused than you had previously shown and presented, here.

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Fri May 09, 2025 9:20 pm A human right is not something anyone can grant to anyone else. It is biologically defined.

Okay.

Did any one, here, say or claim that a so-called 'human right' is some thing that a human being can grant to another?

If yes, then who said or claimed 'that', exactly?

RickLewis wrote: ↑Tue Jan 31, 2017 9:56 pm I'm very happy that our new issue has a theme of Human Rights. Given many of the stories in the news in the last week or so, it seems apt.

you could probably bring out a new issue every week with the same theme, and your last sentence above, here, itself, would still be apt.

Now, considering that you wrote 'that' over eight years ago, some might be wondering when are things ever really going to change, for the better.

RickLewis wrote: ↑Fri Jul 11, 2025 1:00 pm

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Fri May 09, 2025 9:20 pm

RickLewis wrote: ↑Tue Jan 31, 2017 9:56 pm I'm very happy that our new issue has a theme of Human Rights. Given many of the stories in the news in the last week or so, it seems apt.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/118

Since, relation to self is inadmissible, how many human rights are there?
Only one. A mind can either do its own work, or it cannot.
A human right is not something anyone can grant to anyone else. It is biologically defined.

Perhaps it would be a good idea to start by defining what you mean by a "human right"? Otherwise, I do not see how we can assess your claim.

It might also be a 'good idea' if "phil8659" started defining what it means by, 'mind', exactly, as well.

Because as it stands, saying and claiming that, 'a mind can either do, or not do, its own work' is nonsensical, to say the least. Let alone adding that nonsensicalness in with it is a 'human right', as well.

RickLewis wrote: ↑Fri Jul 11, 2025 1:00 pm

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Fri May 09, 2025 9:20 pm

RickLewis wrote: ↑Tue Jan 31, 2017 9:56 pm I'm very happy that our new issue has a theme of Human Rights. Given many of the stories in the news in the last week or so, it seems apt.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/118

Since, relation to self is inadmissible, how many human rights are there?
Only one. A mind can either do its own work, or it cannot.
A human right is not something anyone can grant to anyone else. It is biologically defined.

Perhaps it would be a good idea to start by defining what you mean by a "human right"? Otherwise, I do not see how we can assess your claim.

Really? You do not know what right and wrong are? Nor how they relate to human behavior, which is what a mind is responsible for producing. Do you actually read?

Ha, people have pulled this stunt on me before. You ask them to define what they mean by human rights, and instead they start blustering. "What, don't you know??"

Age wrote: ↑Fri Jul 11, 2025 2:02 pm

RickLewis wrote: ↑Tue Jan 31, 2017 9:56 pm I'm very happy that our new issue has a theme of Human Rights. Given many of the stories in the news in the last week or so, it seems apt.

you could probably bring out a new issue every week with the same theme, and your last sentence above, here, itself, would still be apt.

Now, considering that you wrote 'that' over eight years ago, some might be wondering when are things ever really going to change, for the better.

Hello, Age.
Philosophy Now is a good place to wonder, no? To revisit. That's what I'm doing. You can always see something different on a re-read. I've returned here because this pertinent discussion and your comment caught my eye.

'the stories in the news' can be overwhelming. Like many, I need a break from it all. But we need to keep vigilant, don't we? So that any progress made is not destroyed by the regressives.

How to keep calm, and a sense of perspective. How can philosophy help? Or does it hinder or harm?
So many theories, claims, opinions, lies, damned lies. It's easy to lose focus on the important. What matters.

I am surprised but delighted that this forum is still around. It is a place where all kinds of craziness combine with a soupçon of clarity. Perhaps even a sparkling flash of AHA-ness. We can but hope? To reflect, create and produce words reflecting our confusion amidst the spin. To play, move in time and restfully consider.

If we have the time, energy or care to unravel the spaghetti. To explain or understand what something means according to our world view. To examine the questions not necessarily to provide clear-cut answers but to show weaknesses or strengths. Points of interest. To compare and share.

Some things never change.
Everything changes.

From the latest issue:
Challenging Times & Moral Issues
by Rick Lewis
“For the times they are a-changing.” Bob Dylan, 1963

Well, ain’t they always? Right now they are a changing in a whole collection of challenging ways all at once.

***
Rick, I have a stack of PN mags to read. I don't intend to participate much in the forum.
However, I think it would be good to at least comment on some articles.
Thank you and others for keeping philosophy alive and relevant.

amity_blu wrote: ↑Thu Oct 16, 2025 10:09 am

Age wrote: ↑Fri Jul 11, 2025 2:02 pm

RickLewis wrote: ↑Tue Jan 31, 2017 9:56 pm I'm very happy that our new issue has a theme of Human Rights. Given many of the stories in the news in the last week or so, it seems apt.

you could probably bring out a new issue every week with the same theme, and your last sentence above, here, itself, would still be apt.

Now, considering that you wrote 'that' over eight years ago, some might be wondering when are things ever really going to change, for the better.

Hello, Age.
Philosophy Now is a good place to wonder, no?

Is there a 'bad' place to wonder?

amity_blu wrote: ↑Thu Oct 16, 2025 10:09 am To revisit. That's what I'm doing. You can always see something different on a re-read.

I agree.

But, then again, I might disagree on a re-read, right?

amity_blu wrote: ↑Thu Oct 16, 2025 10:09 am I've returned here because this pertinent discussion and your comment caught my eye.

But, I would have thought you would have already have 'had to' have already returned, here, first, to then be able to see 'this discussion and my comment'.

I am not sure how it could have been 'this discussion and my comment' that caused you to return, here. But anyway,

amity_blu wrote: ↑Thu Oct 16, 2025 10:09 am 'the stories in the news' can be overwhelming.

Only if one allows them to be.

amity_blu wrote: ↑Thu Oct 16, 2025 10:09 am Like many, I need a break from it all. But we need to keep vigilant, don't we?

I am pretty sure one could never watch nor listen to what is called 'the news' and, still, live. So, what do mean by, 'we need to be vigilant', and, what do 'we' supposedly need to be vigilant to, exactly?

amity_blu wrote: ↑Thu Oct 16, 2025 10:09 am So that any progress made is not destroyed by the regressives.

If one were to be 'vigilant' in regards to the wars and the pollution that are continually being created, in the days when this is being written, then where is or what is 'the progress', exactly?

amity_blu wrote: ↑Thu Oct 16, 2025 10:09 am How to keep calm, and a sense of perspective.

Very simply, and, very easily.

amity_blu wrote: ↑Thu Oct 16, 2025 10:09 am How can philosophy help?

Again, very simply and very easily.

amity_blu wrote: ↑Thu Oct 16, 2025 10:09 am Or does it hinder or harm?

Why are you, still, not yet sure?

amity_blu wrote: ↑Thu Oct 16, 2025 10:09 am So many theories, claims, opinions, lies, damned lies. It's easy to lose focus on the important. What matters.

No it is not.

Why do you think or believe otherwise?

amity_blu wrote: ↑Thu Oct 16, 2025 10:09 am I am surprised but delighted that this forum is still around. It is a place where all kinds of craziness combine with a soupçon of clarity. Perhaps even a sparkling flash of AHA-ness. We can but hope?

Why do you make statements or claims, but then put question marks on to the end of them?

amity_blu wrote: ↑Thu Oct 16, 2025 10:09 am . To reflect, create and produce words reflecting our confusion amidst the spin. To play, move in time and restfully consider.

If we have the time, energy or care to unravel the spaghetti. To explain or understand what something means according to our world view. To examine the questions not necessarily to provide clear-cut answers but to show weaknesses or strengths. Points of interest. To compare and share.

Some things never change.

What things do not change.

amity_blu wrote: ↑Thu Oct 16, 2025 10:09 am Everything changes.

Are you aware that 'this claim' contradicts your 'previous claim'?

amity_blu wrote: ↑Thu Oct 16, 2025 10:09 am From the latest issue:
Challenging Times & Moral Issues
by Rick Lewis
“For the times they are a-changing.” Bob Dylan, 1963

Well, ain’t they always? Right now they are a changing in a whole collection of challenging ways all at once.

***
Rick, I have a stack of PN mags to read. I don't intend to participate much in the forum.
However, I think it would be good to at least comment on some articles.
Thank you and others for keeping philosophy alive and relevant.

I've written a detailed response twice. And lost it twice. Is the universe telling me to keep it short and simple?
Or that I am simply stupid...?

To answer the question of vigilance:

Age wrote: ↑Sat Oct 18, 2025 7:12 pm amity_blu wrote: ↑Thu Oct 16, 2025 9:09 am
Like many, I need a break from it all. But we need to keep vigilant, don't we?

I am pretty sure one could never watch nor listen to what is called 'the news' and, still, live. So, what do mean by, 'we need to be vigilant', and, what do 'we' supposedly need to be vigilant to, exactly?

amity_blu wrote: ↑Thu Oct 16, 2025 9:09 am
So that any progress made is not destroyed by the regressives.
If one were to be 'vigilant' in regards to the wars and the pollution that are continually being created, in the days when this is being written, then where is or what is 'the progress', exactly?

The continual chaos created, deliberately or otherwise, and then reported in the 'news', can mean the rise of apathy.

Of course, the opposite can be true. When mass protests are organised against the effects of autocracy and oligarchy. Namely, the destruction and overturning of human rights. The manipulation, renaming or reframing of protestors to traitors who hate e.g. America.

Either way, there is a need for an alert, knowledgeable vigilance of what, exactly, is going on and what has been.

We need to appreciate decades of slow, social progress built on the likes of:

https://philosophynow.org/issues/118/Th ... man_Rights

Other kinds of progress includes intellectual advancement in scientific knowledge, philosophical progress in ideas with focus on the practical as well as competing academic theories. A general aim: improved standards/ways of life.

Global Progress is difficult to measure.
Objective quantitative statistics and subjective qualitative surveys can be biased or manipulated.
Perhaps best felt or seen locally.
Promotion of health and prevention of disease can be the responsibility of individuals or collectives. Or not.
Environmental conditions, wars and pollution, are shaped by humans and vice versa.
How much moral progress have humans achieved? Where do we see the results of right action/inaction? [*]

Age wrote: ↑Sat Oct 18, 2025 7:12 pm How to keep calm, and a sense of perspective.

Very simply, and, very easily.

amity_blu wrote: ↑Thu Oct 16, 2025 9:09 am
How can philosophy help?
Again, very simply and very easily.

How so?

[*] Given that I want to focus my attention more on the articles than the forum, I rather enjoy the Fiction section:
The Primates
Samantha Neave visits a future where almost all animals have rights.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/170/The_Primates

amity_blu wrote: ↑Sun Oct 19, 2025 2:21 pm To answer the question of vigilance:

Age wrote: ↑Sat Oct 18, 2025 7:12 pm amity_blu wrote: ↑Thu Oct 16, 2025 9:09 am
Like many, I need a break from it all. But we need to keep vigilant, don't we?

I am pretty sure one could never watch nor listen to what is called 'the news' and, still, live. So, what do mean by, 'we need to be vigilant', and, what do 'we' supposedly need to be vigilant to, exactly?

amity_blu wrote: ↑Thu Oct 16, 2025 9:09 am
So that any progress made is not destroyed by the regressives.
If one were to be 'vigilant' in regards to the wars and the pollution that are continually being created, in the days when this is being written, then where is or what is 'the progress', exactly?

The continual chaos created, deliberately or otherwise, and then reported in the 'news', can mean the rise of apathy.

Of course, the opposite can be true. When mass protests are organised against the effects of autocracy and oligarchy. Namely, the destruction and overturning of human rights. The manipulation, renaming or reframing of protestors to traitors who hate e.g. America.

Either way, there is a need for an alert, knowledgeable vigilance of what, exactly, is going on and what has been.

We need to appreciate decades of slow, social progress built on the likes of:

https://philosophynow.org/issues/118/Th ... man_Rights

Other kinds of progress includes intellectual advancement in scientific knowledge, philosophical progress in ideas with focus on the practical as well as competing academic theories. A general aim: improved standards/ways of life.

Global Progress is difficult to measure.
Objective quantitative statistics and subjective qualitative surveys can be biased or manipulated.
Perhaps best felt or seen locally.
Promotion of health and prevention of disease can be the responsibility of individuals or collectives. Or not.
Environmental conditions, wars and pollution, are shaped by humans and vice versa.
How much moral progress have humans achieved? Where do we see the results of right action/inaction? [*]

Age wrote: ↑Sat Oct 18, 2025 7:12 pm How to keep calm, and a sense of perspective.

Very simply, and, very easily.

amity_blu wrote: ↑Thu Oct 16, 2025 9:09 am
How can philosophy help?
Again, very simply and very easily.

How so?

Instead of just being continually 'vigilant', just fix and solve the 'problems' that you human beings keep causing and creating for "yourselves", then it is very simple and very easy to keep calm, with the sense of a True perspective.

amity_blu wrote: ↑Sun Oct 19, 2025 2:21 pm [*] Given that I want to focus my attention more on the articles than the forum, I rather enjoy the Fiction section:
The Primates
Samantha Neave visits a future where almost all animals have rights.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/170/The_Primates

Why only 'almost' all animals have rights? Why not all animals have rights?

A future where all animals have rights is, obviously, far more 'fitting in' with the nature of Life, and living, Itself.

Bacteria that cause other animals much suffering are unlikely to be given rights. The sort of animals that are to be given rights are those animals that have developed central nervous systems.

Neaves does not explicitly point to the damage that we do to ourselves when we are apathetic about the suffering of other animals. But we do damage ourselves when we are so badly informed that we eat pigs who are at least as sentient and intelligent as our beloved dog. I would damage myself if I had fun swimming with a dolphin who is captive in a tank, whilst I enjoyed the company of a much -loved dog at home.