Philosophy Now Forum

by Rick Lewis

https://philosophynow.org/issues/118/Hu ... and_Wrongs

I’ve avoided this site once I experienced that it was controlled by a clique seeking to destroy any suggestions that a reality exists higher than the one they function in. In other words, anything suggesting any concept of the dreaded G word must be condemned and driven away. Naturally no useful discussion is possible under these circumstances so it is better to just leave

But this question of rights has always interested me and since it was brought up again by Rick Lewis it may be possible to introduce an alternative that has been ignored within everything I’ve read pertaining to the editorial. Is the clique brave enough to destroy the editorial? But the fact that it is avoided as much as possible in real life assures that the potential for a free society is dead. It is all over but the shouting. It may be dead but we can at least know why. I’d like to introduce this alternative to the emphasis on rights for those who can profit from considering it. Who better to introduce it than Simone Weil as she did in her only book written as she was dying from TB: “The Need for Roots.” This is a translation from the original French.

"The notion of obligations comes before that of rights, which is subordinate and relative to the former. A right is not effectual by itself, but only in relation to the obligation to which it corresponds, the effective exercise of a right springing not from the individual who possesses it, but from other men who consider themselves as being under a certain obligation towards him. Recognition of an obligation makes it effectual. An obligation which goes unrecognized by anybody loses none of the full force of its existence. A right which goes unrecognized by anybody is not worth very much.

It makes nonsense to say that men have, on the one hand, rights, and on the other hand, obligations. Such words only express differences in point of view. The actual relationship between the two is as between object and subject. A man, considered in isolation, only has duties, amongst which are certain duties towards himself. Other men, seen from his point of view, only have rights. He, in his turn, has rights, when seen from the point of view of other men, who recognize that they have obligations towards him. A man left alone in the universe would have no rights whatever, but he would have obligations….” - Simone Weil, “The Need for Roots”

Rights then depend on obligations. There are two kinds: voluntary and forced. A tyrant will force obligations on his subjects to enable the rights he desires for them. Once his subjects are tortured in one way or another they will adopt their obligations for the sake of rights decreed by the tyrant.

Then there is the potential for the adoption of voluntary obligations which will enable the rights desired by a free society. We experience the battle over rights. We’ve heard of gay rights, women’s rights and a ton of other rights but have you ever heard or read of the battle over gay obligations or women’s obligations etc.? People become insulted and say you can’t discriminate in this way but somehow discrimination as it relates to rights is considered justifiable and noble.

Next the question arises why anyone would feel the value of voluntary obligations especially when living in a society which emphasizes self importance, pride, and vanity? Take what you can and run. Shoot first and ask questions later. Once again I turn to Simone Weil

"The combination of these two facts — the longing in the depth of the heart for absolute good, and the power, though only latent, of directing attention and love to a reality beyond the world and of receiving good from it — constitutes a link which attaches every man without exception to that other reality.

Whoever recognizes that reality recognizes also that link. Because of it, he holds every human being without any exception as something sacred to which he is bound to show respect.

This is the only possible motive for universal respect towards all human beings. Whatever formulation of belief or disbelief a man may choose to make, if his heart inclines him to feel this respect, then he in fact also recognizes a reality other than this world's reality. Whoever in fact does not feel this respect is alien to that other reality also." ~ Simone Weil

Now I know why John Adams wrote: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

Only the presence of the influence from the essence of religion can awaken people to the human perspective allowing for the societal attitude making freedom possible.

The majority will continue to argue rights. It is the progressive way, A minority will become aware of the necessity for the adoption of voluntary obligations in order to make rights possible within a free society. Can the influence of this minority ever take hold? I don’t think so but regardless I would always do what I can to support this minority in the cause of human consciousness and the quality of freedom it can allow.

Nick_A wrote:I’ve avoided this site once I experienced that it was controlled by a clique seeking to destroy any suggestions that a reality exists higher than the one they function in. In other words, anything suggesting any concept of the dreaded G word must be condemned and driven away. Naturally no useful discussion is possible under these circumstances so it is better to just leave

You've got a bit of a cheek haven't you, as if I remember right you left in a high-dudgeon for another forum where you threatened to slander us to all and sundry and yet here you are again.

Walker wrote:... premature withdrawal from Iraq, ...

Er! How about the illegal invasion in the first place? Not done by 'progs' if I remember right.

Arising_uk wrote:

Nick_A wrote:I’ve avoided this site once I experienced that it was controlled by a clique seeking to destroy any suggestions that a reality exists higher than the one they function in. In other words, anything suggesting any concept of the dreaded G word must be condemned and driven away. Naturally no useful discussion is possible under these circumstances so it is better to just leave

You've got a bit of a cheek haven't you, as if I remember right you left in a high-dudgeon for another forum where you threatened to slander us to all and sundry and yet here you are again.

Quite true. I left because the clique insisted on destroying a useful thread. I asked the mod to remove it. The thread is still there so the mod sided with the clique. Since that was the collective attitude there was no sense in remaining. Why cater to a clique which only seeks destruction?

The question of human rights is important to me. Nothing posted from any direction mentioned the relationship between rights and obligations. I wanted to introduce it for anyone willing to contemplate it. I didn't think that any members of the clique would be nasty enough to attempt to ruin an editorial by Rick. I was wrong. Nothing stops the clique. I shouldn't have posted.

Nick_A wrote:Quite true. I left because the clique insisted on destroying a useful thread. I asked the mod to remove it. The thread is still there so the mod sided with the clique. Since that was the collective attitude there was no sense in remaining. Why cater to a clique which only seeks destruction? ...

You live in a paranoid fantasy.

The question of human rights is important to me. Nothing posted from any direction mentioned the relationship between rights and obligations. I wanted to introduce it for anyone willing to contemplate it. I didn't think that any members of the clique would be nasty enough to attempt to ruin an editorial by Rick. I was wrong. Nothing stops the clique. I shouldn't have posted.

Not heard of the ignore function?

Arising_uk wrote:

Nick_A wrote:Quite true. I left because the clique insisted on destroying a useful thread. I asked the mod to remove it. The thread is still there so the mod sided with the clique. Since that was the collective attitude there was no sense in remaining. Why cater to a clique which only seeks destruction? ...

You live in a paranoid fantasy.

The question of human rights is important to me. Nothing posted from any direction mentioned the relationship between rights and obligations. I wanted to introduce it for anyone willing to contemplate it. I didn't think that any members of the clique would be nasty enough to attempt to ruin an editorial by Rick. I was wrong. Nothing stops the clique. I shouldn't have posted.

Not heard of the ignore function?

You don't respect ideas. Of course I can use an ignore function but what good is that in relation to respecting ideas? The clique wants to destroy what they don't understand. Philosophers enjoy contemplating apparent contradictions. Once it was proven that the clique dominated the site the only joy comes from participating in the destruction of ideas.

“Who were the fools who spread the story that brute force cannot kill ideas? Nothing is easier. And once they are dead they are no more than corpses.” ―Simone Weil

I respect the deeper ideas too much to want to kill them. It isn't a matter of ignoring the dominant efforts to kill ideas by clicking on a button but not feeling comfortable participating in their destruction. To each his own.

Arising_uk wrote:

Walker wrote:... premature withdrawal from Iraq, ...

Er! How about the illegal invasion in the first place? Not done by 'progs' if I remember right.

Since it’s always about something else with you,

and since Bush is Obama’s default excuse for involvement,
accepted by Progs without question or responsibility to Obama,

then it’s easy enough to make England the U.S.’s default excuse.

Blame England.

Nick_A wrote:“The majority will continue to argue rights. It is the progressive way, A minority will become aware of the necessity for the adoption of voluntary obligations in order to make rights possible within a free society. Can the influence of this minority ever take hold? I don’t think so but regardless I would always do what I can to support this minority in the cause of human consciousness and the quality of freedom it can allow.”

I think that the minority you describe is already in place. They, along with the trust that empowers the simulacrum of wealth known as the banking system, is what keeps the wheels turning.

The wheels stop turning when that minority is overwhelmed, like when the few youth carry the rights of the many old. The wheels also stop turning when the minority shrugs, like Rand’s Atlas. Either option runs the car into the ditch and sets the cell phone to seeking tow-truck rights.

Back when cash was backed by gold, U.S. gold reserves were not even close to the numbers being thrown around these days.

Under the current system of faith, the U.S. is so wealthy that Rand Paul says if baseline budgeting was eliminated and there were no other spending increases, the hoary federal debt would be gone in five years.

Look at the resources that could then be devoted to all those human citizens displaced by robots.

*

"The majority will continue to argue rights."

I think the majority of those who argue will continue to argue rights, however it's questionable whether or not those who argue rights are a majority of the population.

Vocal, politically active minorities are quite influential at seeing to their rights, and Progressive tactics have proven effective in a Hopey climate.

viewtopic.php?f=13&t=21309&start=135#p299508

Hi Walker, you wrote:

I think that the minority you describe is already in place. They, along with the trust that empowers the simulacrum of wealth known as the banking system, is what keeps the wheels turning.

For the moment let’s discuss this from the perspective of the collective or society as a whole. Would you say that money is the cause of societal chaos or just an image of the desires of the human condition left to its own desires?

Which of these two statements are closer to the truth in your opinion?

“Religion is the opiate of the masses.” Karl Marx

“Revolution is the opiate of the masses.” Simone Weil

If religion is the cause of human misery, then Marx is right. If revolution based on the belief in external rights only sustains collective human misery, then Simone is right.

You wrote on the Trump thread:

The answer is, rights without responsibilities is the definition of innocence until the age of independence.

After that, rights without responsibilities is corruption of the individual, which corrupts society and the natural order.

What in your opinion can provide the incentive on a large scale to adopt voluntary responsibilities? Some would say education but what is left to be said on the subject? Who listens to educators?

Do you believe in the possibility for what Plato described as anamnesis? From this idea higher values are not learned; instead they are remembered and are the natural condition for our being. If anamnesis is a reality it means higher consciousness is as well as does the highest quality of consciousness or the dreaded G word.

Where conscience is a word now used in relation to societal conditioning, objective conscience woukd be the result of awakening through anamnesis or remembering what we are.

I wrote this to explain how difficult it is to discuss the question of the relationship between rights and obligations. It requires first coming to grips with the nature of Man, what we ARE. The depth of this philosophy is unpleasant so avoided. It is more fun to argue about rights so everything just follows the natural cycles as explained in Ecclesiastes 3 including war and peace. Since we are as we are, everything is as it is. Money is just a natural result.

Oddly enough, when I read your mention of money I mis-remembered the phrase, “Man does not live by bread alone.” But I didn’t remember the rest of it, and I don’t think I ever knew it. I don’t think many people do know the rest of the verse, since only the first part is ever quoted, like when someone has a disappointing payday. So I just now looked it up. They are the words of Jesus.

It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. – Matthew 4:4.

To philosophically consider the truth of any premise, what one knows of reality must be made to fit the premise without contradiction.

So, assume that the verse is a premise, and that it is true.

Based on this assumption, then any perceived contradictions of the verse, when comparing it to the known, are indications that at least one flawed premise exists in the understanding of reality.

That flawed premise would be a delusion, if the verse is true.

When all contradictions to the premise are reconciled with new understanding that is in accord with reality, then the verse actually is true, and that truth is limited to what is known.

However, before any of this happens, one must understand the meaning of the verse.

What do you think the full verse means when the overlooked portion that includes God, is included?

*

N: What in your opinion can provide the incentive on a large scale to adopt voluntary responsibilities?

W: Either hard times or intelligence. Intelligence allows one to experience mistakes in the mind rather than with the body. History indicates that for a society, probability leans towards hard times rather than intelligence, though the fact that the human race still exists is an indication of intelligence since that is primarily how folks get by, unlike animals that primarily rely on the body for survival.

Hi Walker, you wrote:

When all contradictions to the premise are reconciled with new understanding that is in accord with reality, then the verse actually is true, and that truth is limited to what is known.

However, before any of this happens, one must understand the meaning of the verse.

What do you think the full verse means when the overlooked portion that includes God, is included?

Suppose the truth limited to what is known is exactly what Socrates learned: “I know nothing.” Consider this in the context of the moral certainty thread:

“What I find alarming in Professor Crellin’s thinking is not the particular set of moral values that he holds, but simply his beliefs that there are objective moral values, and that some people know what they are.”

Does this mean that Man is denied knowledge and limited to opinion? Was Simone Weil’s search at fourteen in vain or could she eventually experience a level of wholeness above that of partial truths and opposing opinions? She wrote:

Excerpted from a letter Simone Weil wrote on May 15, 1942 in Marseilles, France to her close friend Father Perrin:

At fourteen I fell into one of those fits of bottomless despair that come with adolescence, and I seriously thought of dying because of the mediocrity of my natural faculties. The exceptional gifts of my brother, who had a childhood and youth comparable to those of Pascal, brought my own inferiority home to me. I did not mind having no visible successes, but what did grieve me was the idea of being excluded from that transcendent kingdom to which only the truly great have access and wherein truth abides. I preferred to die rather than live without that truth......

So according to Peter Lloyd, Simone was wrong to strive to experience the level of truth wherein truth abides. She should have been content to argue opinions.

The verse you posted IMO suggests that something more than the needs and desires of the physical body are necessary to acquire a conscious human rather than a conditioned animal perspective. The animal perspective argues opinions while striving towards a human perspective requires the conscious intent to experience the level of reality in which partial truths exist as one. This is not a new thought. Rather than going into it here, just consider how it is explained in a typical article on Plato's ideas:

http://people.tamu.edu/~sdaniel/Notes/plato.html

Knowledge refers to objective wholeness and opinions refer to beliefs, sense experiences, imagination, and hearsay.

Jesus is referring to the value of conscious knowledge while the Devil is tempting Jesus to devolve into the conditioned world of opinions in which he could rule

Someone like Peter Lloyd becomes enchanted with the world of opinions and glorifies the pursuit of opinions while condemning the potential for conscious experience revealing objective moral certitude or objective human conscience. Conditioned morals only exist because our capacity to experience objective conscience has atrophied. Someone like Socrates or Simone Weil is willing to sacrifice the joys of the battle over opinions in favor of admitting they know nothing in pursuit of the knowledge from which opinions devolved.

N: What in your opinion can provide the incentive on a large scale to adopt voluntary responsibilities?

W: Either hard times or intelligence. Intelligence allows one to experience mistakes in the mind rather than with the body. History indicates that for a society, probability leans towards hard times rather than intelligence, though the fact that the human race still exists is an indication of intelligence since that is primarily how folks get by, unlike animals that primarily rely on the body for survival.

Are you only motivated by bodily desires and intelligence or are you also motivated by your emotional demands? I know how powerful my negative emotions are. It seems the same way with society around me. The force of negative emotions rule the day and the intelligence in the form of opinions serves to rationalize it. That is why IMO the value of adopting voluntary obligations will always be rejected and replaced with fine speeches and opinions. They offer too much satisfaction to be ignored.

Nick_A wrote:I’ve avoided this site once I experienced that it was controlled by a clique seeking to destroy any suggestions that a reality exists higher than the one they function in. In other words, anything suggesting any concept of the dreaded G word must be condemned and driven away. Naturally no useful discussion is possible under these circumstances so it is better to just leave

But this question of rights has always interested me and since it was brought up again by Rick Lewis it may be possible to introduce an alternative that has been ignored within everything I’ve read pertaining to the editorial. Is the clique brave enough to destroy the editorial? But the fact that it is avoided as much as possible in real life assures that the potential for a free society is dead. It is all over but the shouting. It may be dead but we can at least know why. I’d like to introduce this alternative to the emphasis on rights for those who can profit from considering it. Who better to introduce it than Simone Weil as she did in her only book written as she was dying from TB: “The Need for Roots.” This is a translation from the original French.

"The notion of obligations comes before that of rights, which is subordinate and relative to the former. A right is not effectual by itself, but only in relation to the obligation to which it corresponds, the effective exercise of a right springing not from the individual who possesses it, but from other men who consider themselves as being under a certain obligation towards him. Recognition of an obligation makes it effectual. An obligation which goes unrecognized by anybody loses none of the full force of its existence. A right which goes unrecognized by anybody is not worth very much.

It makes nonsense to say that men have, on the one hand, rights, and on the other hand, obligations. Such words only express differences in point of view. The actual relationship between the two is as between object and subject. A man, considered in isolation, only has duties, amongst which are certain duties towards himself. Other men, seen from his point of view, only have rights. He, in his turn, has rights, when seen from the point of view of other men, who recognize that they have obligations towards him. A man left alone in the universe would have no rights whatever, but he would have obligations….” - Simone Weil, “The Need for Roots”

Rights then depend on obligations. There are two kinds: voluntary and forced. A tyrant will force obligations on his subjects to enable the rights he desires for them. Once his subjects are tortured in one way or another they will adopt their obligations for the sake of rights decreed by the tyrant.

Then there is the potential for the adoption of voluntary obligations which will enable the rights desired by a free society. We experience the battle over rights. We’ve heard of gay rights, women’s rights and a ton of other rights but have you ever heard or read of the battle over gay obligations or women’s obligations etc.? People become insulted and say you can’t discriminate in this way but somehow discrimination as it relates to rights is considered justifiable and noble.

Next the question arises why anyone would feel the value of voluntary obligations especially when living in a society which emphasizes self importance, pride, and vanity? Take what you can and run. Shoot first and ask questions later. Once again I turn to Simone Weil

"The combination of these two facts — the longing in the depth of the heart for absolute good, and the power, though only latent, of directing attention and love to a reality beyond the world and of receiving good from it — constitutes a link which attaches every man without exception to that other reality.

Whoever recognizes that reality recognizes also that link. Because of it, he holds every human being without any exception as something sacred to which he is bound to show respect.

This is the only possible motive for universal respect towards all human beings. Whatever formulation of belief or disbelief a man may choose to make, if his heart inclines him to feel this respect, then he in fact also recognizes a reality other than this world's reality. Whoever in fact does not feel this respect is alien to that other reality also." ~ Simone Weil

Now I know why John Adams wrote: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

Only the presence of the influence from the essence of religion can awaken people to the human perspective allowing for the societal attitude making freedom possible.

The majority will continue to argue rights. It is the progressive way, A minority will become aware of the necessity for the adoption of voluntary obligations in order to make rights possible within a free society. Can the influence of this minority ever take hold? I don’t think so but regardless I would always do what I can to support this minority in the cause of human consciousness and the quality of freedom it can allow.

So, either you "argue rights" while others "argue obligations", with the second group having some kind of "ask what you can do for America" pow. Right? Regardless of the persons you do refer to?

Is the concepts that interesting? Sounds to me like persons aloof from the mainstream of people theoretizising about "we" ought or don't ought to do. In reality there are numbers and choices. Can you give some contemporary example of what you are talking about?

Pleased to see that someone is able to relate Obligations to Rights.
but as ever we seem to be stuck in black and white
Rights, relate to the fundamental nature of the society in question.
Tyranny has no rights only duty to whatever authority is paramount.
And indeed the perfect tyranny is one that everyone accepts.
Obligations must be directed, and this may be to the whole of sapient life.
Or merely to human life.
And is barely an obligation unless it is shared for everybody for the benefit of all.
On the other hand that society which only recognises the right to personal independence, will be a very different place.
Instead of talking about Rights in the first instance, we may use the term liberty or freedom.
And we may the have the freedom to do as our rights specify.
Apart from outright antisocial lawlessness, there are thereby three classes of society we need to contend with before we decide what is 'right or wrong'.
Personally, I like to think I am an altruist and not a libertarian.

RIGHTS of course must be related to the form of society, and in opposition to the alternative societies
Or otherwise our society is an uncomfortable hybrid