 |
| |
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
 |
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:33
|
|
Ned:
Thanks for the post. I figured your post would rile both those on the left and the right.
I would be wary about making broad stroke generalisations of libertarians as conservatives. I know many conservatives who feel Roe is bad law, even if they do not agree with me on the personhood of the unborn child. Imran would be one of these folks.
I agree, that human rights are more likely to come from the right, and not the left. Look at Dr. Martin Luther King. He's considered the champion of the left, yet much of what he stood for would be considered outmoded by the standards of the left today. Positively conservative.
Same in Britain. You have William Wilberforce abolishing slavery, who argues from a very conservative standpoint, that these are persons, therefore, they should be accorded fundamental rights and freedoms. Again, an argument from the right, in that he relies upon religious tradition, that all people are equal regardless of the colour of their skin.
Now what do we have today? I wonder if Warren would be so quick to pass Roe when faced with arguments that the unborn child is a human person, like any other child, privacy cannot allow one to kill another person.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Caligastia
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whaleboy
Evidence? Thus far, it has been shown that (a) there are less of them and (b) the logical consistency of what they wish to teach is lacking. |
I could give you many examples of instances in which conservative college groups have been unfairly restricted on liberal campuses in the US. Right now I don't have the time to search around for the appropriate links, but many US posters here can verify that what I say is true.
As for logical consistency, well that's just your point of view isn't it? If you feel your views are logically consistent then you should have the courage to subject them to scrutiny from the other side.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Caligastia
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ramo
Why does one need to be "self-aware" to make choices? If the algorithm in my brain can make a choice, why can't a computer or an ant? Given some initial conditions in either case, their biological algorithms will spit out a certain decision. The only difference is that a human person's algorithm is more complicated than a computer's or an ant's. |
As you seem to have an idea of how a computer program works, I'm suprised to hear you say this. You know as well as I that computers don't make choices - they respond to input. They cannot even form concepts let alone be self-aware.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
 |
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:33
|
|
BK: I would recommend that linking notions of "left" and "right" to notions beyond that of economics is a fallacy. That is very one-dimensional, whereas I can think of at least 3/4 off hand that render it inoperable as a concept.
quote:
I could give you many examples of instances in which conservative college groups have been unfairly restricted on liberal campuses in the US. Right now I don't have the time to search around for the appropriate links, but many US posters here can verify that what I say is true.
|
The conservative ones?  . Furthermore that is in the US, whereas I am coming from a UK perspective. Personally though, I cannot say that I think that conservatism in the US (if we're talking neo-con) is as tenable as liberalism (which is heading in a taboo direction unfortunately there) in terms of academics, but that's not what it's about. Liberalism is spawned somewhat in academia, unlike conservatism. Unfairly restricted? This requires clarification, I am assuming employment and teaching opportunities.
quote:
As for logical consistency, well that's just your point of view isn't it?
|
My views are irrelevant, I am merely echoing what I believe to be the consensus in academic circles. I am a relativist, so I'm not about to start saying one view is inherently worse than another, the farthest I am prepared to go is the question of tenability, which denotes pragmatism in a given context, in this case, universities and philosophical inquiry.
quote:
If you feel your views are logically consistent then you should have the courage to subject them to scrutiny from the other side.
|
Which is why there are students. Consider liberalism and conservatism to be products. From an academic standpoint, one is more palletable than the other, its like shopping for shoes. If the conservatives want to be included, they should offer better shoes. Whether or not that is possible is sidetracking.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Caligastia
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whaleboy
The conservative ones? . Furthermore that is in the US, whereas I am coming from a UK perspective. Personally though, I cannot say that I think that conservatism in the US (if we're talking neo-con) is as tenable as liberalism (which is heading in a taboo direction unfortunately there) in terms of academics, but that's not what it's about. Liberalism is spawned somewhat in academia, unlike conservatism. Unfairly restricted? This requires clarification, I am assuming employment and teaching opportunities. |
Not just that, but when students form conservative groups on campus they are more likely to face opposition from college administrators than if they were to form a liberal group.
quote:
My views are irrelevant, I am merely echoing what I believe to be the consensus in academic circles. I am a relativist, so I'm not about to start saying one view is inherently worse than another, the farthest I am prepared to go is the question of tenability, which denotes pragmatism in a given context, in this case, universities and philosophical inquiry. |
You know as well as I do that people in general tend to favor those who think the way they do. Therefore if college administrators are largely liberal then conservative views are less likely to have voice. While you say you don't believe one view is inherently worse than another, you act as though the general tendency of academia to support your side proves it's superiority.
quote:
Which is why there are students. Consider liberalism and conservatism to be products. From an academic standpoint, one is more palletable than the other, its like shopping for shoes. If the conservatives want to be included, they should offer better shoes. Whether or not that is possible is sidetracking. |
That's fine. I just want both sides to have an equal chance to be represented.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Caligastia
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ramo
We respond to input too. Like I said, the only difference is the complexity of the algorithm. |
A computer can see an image or hear a sound that links it to a command, but it can never form a concept of the input.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
|
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:33
|
|
quote:
The whole point of conservatism is absense of a general, underlying philosophy (just an observation), or if there is a philosophy, it consists of a paradoxical pramatism
|
Okay, I'm going to have to sum up an excellent essay, since I cannot find the online source anymore.
What are the elements of classical conservatism?
Most of the definitions go back to the views of Edmund Burke.
1. Man is fundamentally corrupt. You cannot perfect man through society, you can only restrain him.
2. Government, as a necessary evil, requiring the authority to restrain men.
3. Traditional elements in society are to be defended, because to tear at one, tears at all the rest. Changes to society, must always have compelling reasons before they are to be implemented.
4. Protection of men from each other. The concept, that people can indeed harm themselves, and the rejection of a victimless crime. In one case, prostitution, is not a victimless crime, because of the effects that prostitution has on the indulger.
5. Rights are based on Natural Law, and not on edicts of society. Fundamental freedoms, such as speech, religion, and life are to be acknowledged rather than procured by the government.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Caligastia
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ramo
They are? I've never heard of my school persecuting the Young Conservatives of Texas. |
Take a look at the list of speakers your school has had in the past year and note the ratio of liberal to conservative speakers.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kuciwalker
|
 |
of Schmooism
Feb 2001
time: 00:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Oncle Boris
That depends on the definition of science you use. Most would believe maths to be a science. |
Then give a useful definition of science. The application of logic to empirical evidence seems to be a very useful definition.
quote:
It can't. No one ever was able to put a definite, rational argument to prove it. Even Kant admitted it. The only thing we can know is that we have to ASSUME we have free will if we are somehow to act. |
Free will is making one's own decisions. I make my own decisions. Ergo, I have free will. Basic logic.
quote:
Your caps are not helping you. No philosophy teacher would ever say that 'making a decision' is sufficient to believe in free will. I won't argue that we are 'making decisions'- that is a truism anyway. |
Let Agathon make a statement about "no philosophy teacher" - he's at least marginally better qualified than you.
quote:
Say there are two parallel universes, at the state of day 0 (big bang). They are exactly identical. Do they evolve in a different way? |
That has nothing to do with free will - in fact, it's not even a philosophical question, it's a scientific one, decided by empirical evidence. It is the question "is the universe deterministic or probabilistic".
quote:
(BTW, I know there can't be two universes. This a mere abstract hypothesis). |
I understood that in this case, you meant "contiguous region of space-time" 
quote:
The whole point was to say that since free will appeared at a time where humanity had no idea at all of the brain functions, it first originated as a religious concept, which stipulated we had a metaphysical, immortal soul.
No one believes in that anymore. You can still try to defend free will from a scientific, physical perspective, but most scientists are not wasting time doing it, because determinism is becoming increasingly plausible. |
1. Determinism has already been disproven by quantum theory. The universe is probabilistic.
2. It doesn't matter. In either case, I make my own decisions. In a deterministic universe, I make them based on a set of rules, in a probabilistic universe, I randomly choose among a set of decisions with probabilities based on a set of rules. Thus, in either case, I have free will.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
|
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:33
|
|
quote:
Not just that, but when students form conservative groups on campus they are more likely to face opposition from college administrators than if they were to form a liberal group.
|
Well if its just countering their message, then that's fine by me and symptomatic of academia. If their views are being actively oppressed, in other words, forbidding said groups from meeting etc, then that is unacceptable on the grounds of free speech.
quote:
While you say you don't believe one view is inherently worse than another, you act as though the general tendency of academia to support your side proves it's superiority.
|
I am sorry you have that false impression. If we are talking about your average working Joe, then cerebral, philosophical liberalism isn't going to cut much ice. I don't see one context as "better" than the other. Different views are supported by different contexts. Academia supports (generally) liberalism, and I have no problem with that, it's in its nature, just as the fire service favours male employees.
quote:
That's fine. I just want both sides to have an equal chance to be represented.
|
As long as positive or negative discrimination is eliminated, thats fine. However, be aware that this will lead to more liberalism than conservatism.
quote:
They are? I've never heard of my school persecuting the Young Conservatives of Texas.
|
. I must say, I have not heard of any such case in Britain, and frankly would not expect it to occur here.
quote:
1. Man is fundamentally corrupt. You cannot perfect man through society, you can only restrain him.
|
Pragmatism.
quote:
2. Government, as a necessary evil, requiring the authority to restrain men.
|
Pragmatism.
quote:
3. Traditional elements in society are to be defended, because to tear at one, tears at all the rest. Changes to society, must always have compelling reasons before they are to be implemented.
|
Pragmatism.
quote:
4. Protection of men from each other. The concept, that people can indeed harm themselves, and the rejection of a victimless crime. In one case, prostitution, is not a victimless crime, because of the effects that prostitution has on the indulger.
|
Bullshit.
quote:
5. Rights are based on Natural Law, and not on edicts of society. Fundamental freedoms, such as speech, religion, and life are to be acknowledged rather than procured by the government.
|
Bullshit.
Thus we have the philosophical basis for conservatism  .
quote:
Take a look at the list of speakers your school has had in the past year and note the ratio of liberal to conservative speakers.
|
As I said before, this is besides the point. I see nothing wrong in that. Just because someone speaks does not give them a right to be listened to, and no-one is attacking their right to speak. If I were running a college, it would be my perogative who to bring in.
quote:
That must be because academics inherently know what is best for us and are the only ones who have opinions worth considering.
|
Your strawmen aren't helping 
quote:
NO. The only 'intelligent' position that could be remotely linked with conservatism is libertarianism- and yet, most libertarians hate the typical Tory/Republican. There are some libertarian thinkers everywhere.
|
 OB I love you baby!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Oncle Boris
|
 |
Once in a brown moon
Aug 2001
time: 00:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by skywalker
Then give a useful definition of science. The application of logic to empirical evidence seems to be a very useful definition.
|
The application of logic to logic is also a science.
quote:
Free will is making one's own decisions. I make my own decisions. Ergo, I have free will. Basic logic.
|
No. Free will is about a human being making decision in a way that nothing was influenced by the laws of nature. Put Kant-like, it's the ability to become a 'legislator' yourself.
quote:
Let Agathon make a statement about "no philosophy teacher" - he's at least marginally better qualified than you.
|
I think he agrees with me, at least on this one, and probably on some of my other points.
quote:
That has nothing to do with free will - in fact, it's not even a philosophical question, it's a scientific one, decided by empirical evidence. It is the question "is the universe deterministic or probabilistic".
|
So, atomic determinism is not determinism?  In any case, it does have some serious philosophical implications.
quote:
1. Determinism has already been disproven by quantum theory. The universe is probabilistic.
|
I am scientifically illiterate, so I can't discuss this. Can you give an understandable link?
quote:
2. It doesn't matter. In either case, I make my own decisions. In a deterministic universe, I make them based on a set of rules,
|
The point of free will, is that rules concerning your actions are made up by yourself.
quote:
in a probabilistic universe, I randomly choose among a set of decisions with probabilities based on a set of rules. Thus, in either case, I have free will. |
Plausible. Still, if none of these 'set of rules' come from the rational subject, it's not free will.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:33.
Apolyton Time is 00:33. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
15-02-2004 01:33
|