Please !

[Guest 2smart4u]

So far all I can boil down from Bryan's posts, is that he feels that 'Man', 'Humans' or 'Human Beings' are materialistic and need a 'Deity' to keep them from doing harm to other 'Men', 'Humans' or 'Human Beings.' 

Therefore all laws must be based on there being some Power or Gods, that people throughout history have base whatever laws they have made on.  In such a world all government comes from this "Power" or "God(s)" and it's leaders rule by Divine Right.

The Framers of the United States of America's Constitution, saw how such a system easily is Abused and so tried to create a system that is base on "Natural Laws" and not made the claim, that the government's laws come from a Higher Power. 

That any of the writers of the Constitution, may have been Deist or Theist, doesn't matter in fact they were trying to avoid the problems they saw in other forms of government in Europe, which the rules based their right to Power on Divine Rights.

I remember, this being taught to me, first in elementary school and reinforce to me by my mother, while she lived.  She focus most of her, college study on Constitutional History and spent years working as an volunteer in the League of Women Voters.  Mom could go on for hours about the subject.  One fact she always made was that under our system of government, Americans are to bow down to "No One".  Every four years she watch the opening ceremonies of the Olympic Games to make sure our national flag was not dipped before foreign heads of state.

Which brings us to the Point Paul been trying to get Bryan to understand.  One can have a system of government that does not need a 'God" to justified it's laws, but can instead ask that it's citizens try to treat each other with respect and over come ones self interest, for the greater good of "Man Kind."  Paul's Universal Ethic" is based on the idea, that one can look at what human around the world value as Ethical and not always need some Higher Power to justified them. 

Such a world where all live by these Universal Values, sadly doesn't exist and probably never will.  We as humans always are pulled between acting for our own self interest and helping others.

Government is a social contract.  Citizens agree to live by the government's laws, in exchange for the services they want the government to give.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

When you get out of 5th grade, give me a call and I'll show you where you're wrong.

[Strife767]

When you get out of 5th grade, give me a call and I'll show you where you're wrong.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Very ironic coming from someone who thinks there's nothing wrong with preaching religion in a public school classroom. Were you homeschooled by any chance?

Also: http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...dpost&pid=43489 <-- you are inarguably the most childish poster here, by far, so I wouldn't look down my nose at any other posts if I were you.

[Guest Guest]

Very ironic coming from someone who thinks there's nothing wrong with preaching religion in a public school classroom. Were you homeschooled by any chance?

Irony, irony. Matt was homeschooled for a while. Hmmm.

[ElneClare]

Another expert at seeing what she wants to see in what she reads, evidently.

Kettle met Black.

The rest of my response, was written first this morning, before I had to leave for the day and then gone back to later. I am a visual learner, so ramble a lot on ideas without reaching my point, so expect I confuse most readers. Maybe if I stuck to drawing picture or try poetry, would work , but I actually enjoy the confusion created, in trying to read my writings. links are given for some things, as visual aides, for those that need them. some added thoughts to what I first wrote are in italics.

Problem with reading Bryan's posts, is that he selectively decides what parts in that of other posters responses, he feels best helps his clause and ignores everything else. He can't be pin down to deal with the whole post, but must cut it into bits and pieces. Then he goes on the attack of each part of the post, that suits his need to be right.

That would work, if we all speak in mathematical terms only, but we are using the English language, not math (I thought of trying to read some Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead and analyzing Bryan's posts, but don't have the time or interest. Might make a great paper on logic, if I was still in college. As logic, goes, all Bryan seems to want to do is confuse and I can't quite figure out if such logical analyst would prove him right or wrong without some study. The wonder of English is that it is so imprecise in what each word can mean. So historians will tell students, that one must look at the whole content of a person's writing to try and understand what they are saying. One doesn't study Van Gogh by just paying attention to one small star in Starry Night. Even making a study of all his artwork and writings, plus the comments made by those who knew him, wouldn't be enough to have a 'True' understanding of what drove him to paint Starry Night.

Now writing later in the day, as my ride came an interrupted my thoughts on this and I just dame inside to find page still up.

Thing is most people over the age of 20, who have a decent education know, which painting I'm talking about, by just hearing the words Starry Night, though the full title is "Starry Night Over the Rhone." I can bring it up in a general conversation and don't have to go into depth over each detail.

Such generalization doesn't work, if I am writing a paper for a college class, but boards such as Kearny on the Web, are not a assignment, but here for conversations on what people think. Mistakes are common and expected by smart readers and so often forgiven. We also expect a few trolls to come along and make stupid remarks, that only show how silly people are at times.

So when many of the original posts were started, a reasonable person, may have expected disagreement on idea's, but not on the meaning of words, that Bryan seems to get into frequently. One can't win against his logic, as he challenges every meaning of a word, in the context you may have used it in. Somehow the idea's are lost in the battle of word definitions.

So if anyone even got this far and understood what I wrote, I'll be surpise, but remember, I'm only writing because I can't seem to stay away. Unlike 2dim4us, I passed the fifth grade and realize how much there still is for me to learn.

[Strife767]

Irony, irony. Matt was homeschooled for a while. Hmmm.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

EDIT: I knew it, you dishonest scumbag.

P.S. I myself am good friends with someone who was homeschooled through most of high school for a very significant reason.

[Bryan]

Kettle met Black.

And you've got an example? I've got a couple of beauts featuring you.

The rest of my response, was written first this morning, before I had to leave for the day and then gone back to later.  I am a visual learner, so ramble a lot on ideas without reaching my point, so expect I confuse most readers.  Maybe if I stuck to drawing picture or try poetry, would work , but I actually enjoy the confusion created, in trying to read my writings.  links are given for some things, as visual aides, for those that need them.  some added thoughts to  what I first wrote are in italics.

Problem with reading Bryan's posts, is that he selectively decides what parts in that of other posters responses, he feels best helps his clause and ignores everything else.  He can't be pin down to deal with the whole post, but must cut it into bits and pieces.  Then he goes on the attack of each part of the post, that suits his need to be right.

It's nice being criticized for posts that are too long and posting selectively at the same time.

The psychologizing was a nice touch, too. You can successfully imply that I'm wrong about stuff without even having an example.

That would work, if we all speak in mathematical terms only, but we are using the English language, not math (I thought of trying to read some Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead and analyzing Bryan's posts, but don't have the time or interest.  Might make a great paper on logic, if I was still in college. As logic, goes, all Bryan seems to want to do is confuse and I can't quite figure out if such logical analyst would prove him right or wrong without some study.

... another psychologizing attempt ...

The wonder of English is that it is so imprecise in what each word can mean.  So historians will tell students, that one must look at the whole content of a person's writing to try and understand what they are saying.  One doesn't study Van Gogh by just paying attention to one small star in Starry Night.  Even making a study of all his artwork and writings, plus the comments made by those who knew him, wouldn't be enough to have a 'True' understanding of what drove him to paint Starry Night.

That's a good point, though making it relevant would make it even better.

Now writing later in the day, as my ride came an interrupted my thoughts on this and I just dame inside to find page still up.

Thing is most people over the age of 20, who have a decent education know,  which painting I'm talking about, by just hearing the words Starry Night, though the full title is "Starry Night Over the Rhone."  I can bring it up in a general conversation and don't have to go into depth over each detail. 

Such generalization doesn't work, if I am writing a paper for a college class, but boards such as Kearny on the Web, are not a assignment, but here for conversations on what people think.  Mistakes are common and expected by smart readers and so often forgiven.  We also expect a few trolls to come along and make stupid remarks, that only show how silly people are at times.

So when many of the original posts were started, a reasonable person, may have expected disagreement on idea's, but not on the meaning of words, that Bryan seems to get into frequently.  One can't win against his logic, as he challenges every meaning of a word, in the context you may have used it in.

Now your post is starting to contradict itself.

On the one hand, you say English isn't precise. And it's true that English is prone to ambiguity (as with most languages to a greater or lesser extent).

Yet my attempts to communicate clearly in English are characterized as challenging the meaning.

I don't think that's a fair characterization. Where ambiguity exists in a communication, it makes perfect sense to inquire of the writer/speaker what it was he meant. That should improve communication if the other party cooperates.

Somehow the idea's are lost in the battle of word definitions.

That tends to happen when the reader decides what the author meant where some uncertainty exists--without bothering to pay proper attention to the context and without bothering to inquire of the author.

I tend to do that less frequently than my opponents. I'm happy to stick with the definition they provide--though sometimes I can use their specificity against them by showing how the idea they have described does not work (as with a contradiction).

Paul's talk of a "secular world view" is a great example. He has been reluctant to say what he means by the term--the closest he has come is to hint that he means separation of church and state--but that's not really a "world view" (it's a view of one aspect of the world). Now, that's no big deal, because I can certainly forgive Paul using an extra word that didn't quite fit. At least there's a better chance I'll know what he means when he next uses the term.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=51987

Edited April 26, 2007 by Bryan

[Guest Paul]

Irony, irony. Matt was homeschooled for a while. Hmmm.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you mean my son, he was never homeschooled. There is no excuse for this, KOTW, and yet you allow this to continue.

[Guest Paul]

Kettle met Black.

The rest of my response, was written first this morning, before I had to leave for the day and then gone back to later.  I am a visual learner, so ramble a lot on ideas without reaching my point, so expect I confuse most readers.  Maybe if I stuck to drawing picture or try poetry, would work , but I actually enjoy the confusion created, in trying to read my writings.  links are given for some things, as visual aides, for those that need them.  some added thoughts to  what I first wrote are in italics.

Problem with reading Bryan's posts, is that he selectively decides what parts in that of other posters responses, he feels best helps his clause and ignores everything else.  He can't be pin down to deal with the whole post, but must cut it into bits and pieces.  Then he goes on the attack of each part of the post, that suits his need to be right.

That would work, if we all speak in mathematical terms only, but we are using the English language, not math (I thought of trying to read some Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead and analyzing Bryan's posts, but don't have the time or interest.  Might make a great paper on logic, if I was still in college. As logic, goes, all Bryan seems to want to do is confuse and I can't quite figure out if such logical analyst would prove him right or wrong without some study.    The wonder of English is that it is so imprecise in what each word can mean.  So historians will tell students, that one must look at the whole content of a person's writing to try and understand what they are saying.  One doesn't study Van Gogh by just paying attention to one small star in Starry Night.  Even making a study of all his artwork and writings, plus the comments made by those who knew him, wouldn't be enough to have a 'True' understanding of what drove him to paint Starry Night. 

Now writing later in the day, as my ride came an interrupted my thoughts on this and I just dame inside to find page still up.

Thing is most people over the age of 20, who have a decent education know,  which painting I'm talking about, by just hearing the words Starry Night, though the full title is "Starry Night Over the Rhone."  I can bring it up in a general conversation and don't have to go into depth over each detail. 

Such generalization doesn't work, if I am writing a paper for a college class, but boards such as Kearny on the Web, are not a assignment, but here for conversations on what people think.  Mistakes are common and expected by smart readers and so often forgiven.  We also expect a few trolls to come along and make stupid remarks, that only show how silly people are at times.

So when many of the original posts were started, a reasonable person, may have expected disagreement on idea's, but not on the meaning of words, that Bryan seems to get into frequently.  One can't win against his logic, as he challenges every meaning of a word, in the context you may have used it in.  Somehow the idea's are lost in the battle of word definitions.

So if anyone even got this far and understood what I wrote, I'll be surpise, but remember, I'm only writing because I can't seem to stay away.  Unlike 2dim4us, I passed the fifth grade and realize how much there still is for me to learn.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You must understand Bryan's organizing principle to make sense, at any level, out of his ramblings. His organizing principle is that he is right. All else must conform to that. Adjust your thinking to that, and all will be well.

[Guest Guest]

EDIT: I knew it, you dishonest scumbag.

P.S. I myself am good friends with someone who was homeschooled through most of high school for a very significant reason.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Look at professor Strife trying to act all grown up. Such class or should I say lack thereof. Someone who can't take criticism but could sure dish it out. What a crybaby.

[Guest Guest]

You must understand Bryan's organizing principle to make sense, at any level, out of his ramblings. His organizing principle is that he is right. All else must conform to that. Adjust your thinking to that, and all will be well.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's right, we must all think like Paul.

[Strife767]

Look at professor Strife trying to act all grown up.

Not trying to act like anything. The post you quoted was me expressing disgust and anger toward someone willing to manufacture blatant lies about someone else's family for no good reason.

Such class or should I say lack thereof.

I give what I get.

Someone who can't take criticism but could sure dish it out. What a crybaby.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'd like to see how you would react to people spreading lies about your family. Would you call someone who got mad at that person for being dishonest a crybaby too? Have you morals? Honestly. If that doesn't merit getting annoyed, what does?

[Strife767]

That's right, we must all think like Paul.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not what he said. Not even close.

[Bryan]

Paul went off and left a key question unanswered, so here's a friendly reminder.

Bryan (to Paul) Yet here you are, trying to complete the undermining of the "self-evident" truths to which the Framers subscribed.

Yet you don't count yourself as a divider. How can that be?

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=52315

[Guest Guest]

QUOTE

Quite beyond that, what alternative does Bryan propose, except one in which human beings, driven by their thoughts and emotions, act in the world? I'd love to see an answer to that. One that makes sense and actually relates to the world as it is, that is.

(Bryan's response): A worldview that encompasses a concept of soul-building (like Hinduism, at least on the surface), or like, lays a stronger claim to meaning than does a worldview like Existentialism.

An Existentialism burdened with determinism has even greater philosophical problems.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Soul-binding? How about a claim to reality.

I don't read any of the people opposing Bryan's argument to be arguing an "Existentialism burdened with determinism." They're arguing naturalism, i.e., we may not know what lies beyond this life, if anything except death, but we find meaning in life itself. (Even the Christians opposing Bryan's arguments are making essentially this point.) There's no lack of meaning in that except for those like Bryan who insist on seeing it that way. Just the opposite, experiencing life in all its joy and glory without fantasizing about a hereafter that may not ever exist is loaded with meaning; by contrast, having to fantasize about a hereafter implies dissatisfaction with life, and that pulls meaning out of life. Bryan cannot speak for the millions of people who find meaning in life by taking it on its own terms without trying to embellish on it or make it into something we know nothing about. Who knows, if he opened his mind for a change and tried it, he might like it himself.

It's very sad when people like Bryan get so wrapped up in the intricacies of arcane philosophy that they forget that almost no one lives that way. Virtually no one's world view can be fit neatly into a box of existentialism or whatever Bryan has in mind with that soul-binding thing (I'd love to see his explanation of what he thinks that is, not that I expect he'll ever explain anything he claims to believe, something he consistently refuses to do). Most people develop their world views without much thinking about them. The factors behind a person's world view include the individual's conception of time and space and his or her perceived relationship to them, the individual's conception of the universe as a friendly or hostile place, his or her life experiences, etc. All of those result in a gestalt sense of things, which leads to a world view. Some philosophers think themselves very clever in their attempts to categorize all of that, but I don't think it describes how people actually think or live.

Paul is making a more general point, which accurately encompasses a great many world views. In fact, his point arguably encompasses all of them, though adherents to some of them would be reluctant to admit it. In the end, whatever philosophy we claim to follow, we all think and feel, and based on our thoughts and emotions we act in the world. Paul's point, as I read him, is that this universally shared mode of living is what binds us together as human beings and makes justice possible. It's such a simple point that many people overlook it, but it's absolutely true. Brayn may think he addressed it, but he didn't.

[Bryan]

Soul-binding? How about a claim to reality.

Otherwise, your spelling's pretty good.

I don't read any of the people opposing Bryan's argument to be arguing an "Existentialism burdened with determinism." They're arguing naturalism, i.e., we may not know what lies beyond this life, if anything except death, but we find meaning in life itself. (Even the Christians opposing Bryan's arguments are making essentially this point.)

Christians making the point as well doesn't make it less vacuous. Existentialism is one of the better attempts to find meaning in a godless worldview. The naturalism you describe is, in effect, Existentialism burdened with determinism.

There's no lack of meaning in that except for those like Bryan who insist on seeing it that way.

Among them not a few atheistic philosophers. You've got the same meaning for your life as Ellen's pet hamster, who experiences the joys of cheekfuls of seeds and glorious runs on the wheel.

Just the opposite, experiencing life in all its joy and glory without fantasizing about a hereafter that may not ever exist is loaded with meaning; by contrast, having to fantasize about a hereafter implies dissatisfaction with life, and that pulls meaning out of life.

So you enjoyment of your tuna fish sandwich is somehow above the enjoyment Mr. Smith obtains from thinking about an afterlife?

Explain how that came to be? The joy counts less if the object isn't real?

If your tuna fish sandwich has salmonella in it but you still enjoyed it, are you a bit closer to Mr. Smith?

Bryan cannot speak for the millions of people who find meaning in life by taking it on its own terms without trying to embellish on it or make it into something we know nothing about. Who knows, if he opened his mind for a change and tried it, he might like it himself.

Wow. You get to speak for millions of people by proclaiming on their behalf that I don't get to speak for them.

Are these rules stacked in your favor or what?

It's very sad when people like Bryan get so wrapped up in the intricacies of arcane philosophy that they forget that almost no one lives that way. Virtually no one's world view can be fit neatly into a box of existentialism or whatever Bryan has in mind with that soul-binding thing (I'd love to see his explanation of what he thinks that is, not that I expect he'll ever explain anything he claims to believe, something he consistently refuses to do).

Rather, something that certain others choose to lie about.

http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil100/evil.html

If you can spell (which doesn't normally seem to be a problem for you) and you know how to use a search engine, soul-building should lose its mystery in short order.

Most people develop their world views without much thinking about them.

What a great idea! I wish I'd thought of that sooner (excuse me while I snore through the rest).

Paul is making a more general point, which accurately encompasses a great many world views. In fact, his point arguably encompasses all of them, though adherents to some of them would be reluctant to admit it.

Nihilism is a worldview, and Paul claimed to be demonstrating an error in that worldview.

Not that he couldn't encompass it at the same time.

After all, most people don't think much about their worldviews, so coming up with one that happily accommodates contradictions is almost standard practice.

In the end, whatever philosophy we claim to follow, we all think and feel, and based on our thoughts and emotions we act in the world. Paul's point, as I read him, is that this universally shared mode of living is what binds us together as human beings and makes justice possible.

Either he's one of those with a worldview tossed together in a junkyard, or he wasted his time like I did to come up with one that isn't contradictory nonsense.

But you're not really interested in that, are you? Wouldn't your time be better spent hacking up mythical creatures in an online virtual world or something?

It's such a simple point that many people overlook it, but it's absolutely true. Brayn may think he addressed it, but he didn't.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The point that "this universally shared mode of living is what binds us together as human beings and makes justice possible" seems so simple, in fact, that it is ridiculous on its face.

Carpenter ants have a universally shared mode of living, too. Is carpenter ant justice possible as a result?

Could you explain how in the case of either humans or ants?

It's apparently very simple, so it can't be that difficult to explain--right?