fiscal insanity...

[Brant Gaede]

19 hours ago, moralist said:

I can clarify your statement because you omitted the essential moral qualifier...

The American Constitution was also made for ethical employees as well as the ethically self employed...

... because only an ethical employee has the courage to refuse to work for an unethical employer.

Greg

My late sister lost her job because she refused to sign off on fraudulent accounting by a firm that subsisted on a state government contract. The idea was to keep the government money flowing into the company. She needed the employment.

--Brant

[KorbenDallas]

54 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

Thomas Jefferson? (Joke.)

The right to lifers--today--say the right to life comes from God. While you see an intimation of that in the Declaration of Independence ("endowed by their Creator") the Lockeans essentially invented rights. References to God by them is merely to provide moral gravitas PR or propaganda to their invention. Some did believe in God too. Not Rand. What makes rights natural is they are predicated on human nature which matches up to the political philosophy.

Human rights are a human invention. They are and will remain seemingly something of an intellectualization out of the deterioration of critical thinking and proper liberal arts education over 200 years in this country which has snowballed into gigantic and gross imbecility. This can't be reversed by Objectivism; it might be by pantheism, a religion of no faith*, displacing monotheistic religion, Christianity first.

--Brant

*just the self evident validity of axioms

Brant,

The phrase "endowed by their Creator" gives way too many people "proof" the US is a theocracy.  I have told a few the phrase didn't appear in the original draft, that it was later added in, and they weren't pleased (and I don't think they believed me).

The original draft reads more like Objectivism:
https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/declara/ruffdrft.html

Quote

We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independant, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these ends, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government shall become destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, & to institute new government, laying it's foundation on such principles & organising it's powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety & happiness

and here is a page suggesting the phrase came from someone other than Jefferson (bottom of the page has a summary of the article):
http://candst.tripod.com/doitj.htm

 

[Brant Gaede]

"Creator" gave the document more oomph for hoi American polloi. I agree with its inclusion for the Declaration was more a propaganda document that bitch slapped George III than a statement of a rights' philosophy. I also like "pursuit of happiness" rather than "property." It was the throw down of the gauntlet to the earth's most powerful country. Primarily I think of it in literary terms.

--Brant

[SteveWolfer]

2 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

The right to lifers--today--say the right to life comes from God. While you see an intimation of that in the Declaration of Independence ("endowed by their Creator")

In the late 1700s Americans were mostly Christians or Deists.  Darwin hadn't been born and the theory of evolution wasn't an alternative.  I read "endowed by their Creator" and I'm comfortable with thinking of evolution as our Creator or even just a fuzzy notion of "nature".  But, in any case, what is important was that the rights came before government, not from government, and that government couldn't violate them ("unalienable").

I prefer to think of individual rights as a discovery, rather than an invention.

[SteveWolfer]

5 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

My thoughts, I clearly sense come from inside.

I think you missed what I was saying.  If your thoughts aren't different from the neural activity how can you distinguish one from another.  How can you say "my thoughts" and then say "neural activity" and say they are identical.  If they are identical why do you have different names, different concepts, and different ways of talking about them exactly as if they are not the same thing.  I'm saying that thoughts are thoughts and that they aren't the same as the neural activity that mediates a given thought. 

[SteveWolfer]

7 hours ago, Peter said:

How about some Aristotle?

Great post, Peter!  I've been reading it bit by bit - it is really rich, and it generates a lot of thought. 

I'll try to come back with some thoughts in a few days.

[moralist]

2 hours ago, KorbenDallas said:

The phrase "endowed by their Creator" gives way too many people "proof" the US is a theocracy. 

It's not proof to me.

America's Constitutional government is completely secular. You will never find the word God in the Constitution. However the US government was originally designed solely for decent Americans who live by Judeo Christian values. It doesn't work for the indecent. The present morally corrupt and financially bankrupt US government is functionally unconstitutional...

...because morally corrupt and financially bankrupt people don't deserve a decent Constitutional government.

They have a government which is exactly like they are...

...because by moral law, the US government is a duly authorized agent of moral retribution.

 

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

7 hours ago, SteveWolfer said:

In the late 1700s Americans were mostly Christians or Deists.  Darwin hadn't been born and the theory of evolution wasn't an alternative.  I read "endowed by their Creator" and I'm comfortable with thinking of evolution as our Creator or even just a fuzzy notion of "nature".  But, in any case, what is important was that the rights came before government, not from government, and that government couldn't violate them ("unalienable").

I prefer to think of individual rights as a discovery, rather than an invention.

Nicely put. In that sense physics is about discovering laws of physics, not their invention. I can see how one might use one or the other depending on the written context. Humans should not be endowing rights on other humans but discovered and known and experienced from the inside out. Intuitively rights feel right just for starters, at least for Americans classically rendered and known. (There has to be a nature/nurture divide of varying ratios culture to culture and within present-day American culture writ large.

Individual rights are "natural." Never mind the silliness of saying they aren't because they aren't somehow found on autopsy.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

11 hours ago, moralist said:

Its not your brain, Bob... and those thoughts aren't you.

You have no choice but to believe they are yours because your brains tells you they are. And since you believe all you are is the chemical reactions in your brain, you have to believe every stupid thought is you because you have no choice.

Your government positively loves people like you. 

Greg

 

You,  sir,  are a fool and a nincompoop.   You have no concept  of deep and careful thought and you are a scientific ignoramus.

[BaalChatzaf]

10 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

Thomas Jefferson? (Joke.)

The right to lifers--today--say the right to life comes from God. While you see an intimation of that in the Declaration of Independence ("endowed by their Creator") the Lockeans essentially invented rights. References to God by them is merely to provide moral gravitas PR or propaganda to their invention. Some did believe in God too. Not Rand. What makes rights natural is they are predicated on human nature which matches up to the political philosophy.

Human rights are a human invention. They are and will remain seemingly something of an intellectualization out of the deterioration of critical thinking and proper liberal arts education over 200 years in this country which has snowballed into gigantic and gross imbecility. This can't be reversed by Objectivism; it might be by pantheism, a religion of no faith*, displacing monotheistic religion, Christianity first.

--Brant

*just the self evident validity of axioms

That is Deist Speak  for created by Nature.   Jefferson was a closet atheist.   The least encumbered of the  enlightenment thinkers identified God and Nature. For example Spinoza.   The God of the natural theologians was nothing like the  crazy God-King of the Christians, Jews and Muslims. 

[moralist]

3 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

You,  sir,  are a fool and a nincompoop.   You have no concept  of deep and careful thought and you are a scientific ignoramus.

All your "deep and careful thought" is totally useless in learning how to become an American who enjoys their God given right to liberty from the government of which you complain of being a helpless victim. I'm quite content being a "shallow thinking scientific ignoramus" because I learned how to be a happy productive prosperous financially independent American. 

You see, there's a cost extracted for your hatred and negation of God... and the price you are forced to pay is your slavery to your god of government.

For all of your education, you're stupid, Bob. There's liberal government education... and then there's American common sense. You freely chose to live by the former by your rejection of the latter...

...and that makes you the fool.

Greg

[moralist]

11 hours ago, SteveWolfer said:

In the late 1700s Americans were mostly Christians or Deists. 

...while today, the majority of the people in America are secularists. So they are no longer fit to be governed by a lawful Constitutional government as originally designed by the Founding Fathers to only govern decent Americans. Instead the government has to be "fundamentally transformed" so as to be able to govern the secularist majority.

This necessitates the constant inexorable willful violation of the Constitution you see taking place today, for the US government to match the moral values of the governed so by moral law it can be the government people deserve.

So today, the US government constantly grows like malignant cancer... and is thoroughly corrupt and fiscally bankrupt so as to match the moral values of the majority in America who have abandoned being Americans.

 

Greg

[BaalChatzaf]

22 minutes ago, moralist said:

...while today, the majority of the people in America are secularists. So they are no longer fit to be governed by a lawful Constitutional government as originally designed by the Founding Fathers to only govern decent Americans. Instead the government has to be "fundamentally transformed" so as to be able to govern the secularist majority.

This necessitates the constant inexorable willful violation of the Constitution you see taking place today, for the US government to match the moral values of the governed so by moral law it can be the government people deserve.

So today, the US government constantly grows like malignant cancer... and is thoroughly corrupt and fiscally bankrupt so as to match the moral values of the majority in America who have abandoned being Americans.

 

Greg

Several of our Founders , in particular  Jefferson and Franklin were Deists which was a polite way of being an atheist back in those days.  One could hardly be more secular than Ben Franklin.

[moralist]

6 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Several of our Founders , in particular  Jefferson and Franklin were Deists which was a polite way of being an atheist back in those days.  One could hardly be more secular than Ben Franklin.

While your head is in the dead past... you're a slave to your liberal government in the present.

Greg

[BaalChatzaf]

6 minutes ago, moralist said:

While your head is in the dead past... you're a slave to your liberal government in the present.

Greg

Dead past???? We will celebrate it the day after tomorrow.

[moralist]

3 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Dead past???? We will celebrate it the day after tomorrow.

You haven't anything to celebrate because you're not actually free, Bob.

You're a slave of your government.

Greg

[BaalChatzaf]

2 minutes ago, moralist said:

You haven't anything to celebrate because you're not actually free, Bob.

You're a slave of your government.

Greg

As long as one depends on others for necessary supplies one is not completely free.

You silly man,   you think you are free.  You are not.
 

[moralist]

4 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

As long as one depends on others for necessary supplies one is not completely free.

You silly man,   you think you are free.  You are not.
 

That's not the kind of freedom I'm talking about, Bob. Because you're not free you don't believe anyone else could be free. That's what failures do to make them feel comfortable in their failure.

Greg

[Peter]

Ba’al asked us to “Read what Lucretius has to say on the matter,” and it is interesting. He thought of this a really long time ago. Astounding. When he talks about the supernatural, and the powers of the deities, “which leads to an invective against the gigantic monster superstition, and a thrilling picture of the horrors which attends its tyrannous sway,” Lucretius is describing silly Greg to a tee.

Peter  

From Wikipedia. De rerum natura (Latin: [deː ˈreːrũː naːˈtuːraː]; On the Nature of Things) is a first-century BC didactic poem by the Roman poet and philosopher Lucretius (c. 99 BC – c. 55 BC) with the goal of explaining Epicurean philosophy to a Roman audience. The poem, written in some 7,400 dactylic hexameters, is divided into six untitled books, and explores Epicurean physics through richly poetic language and metaphors.^[1]

Lucretius presents the principles of atomism; the nature of the mind and soul; explanations of sensation and thought; the development of the world and its phenomena; and explains a variety of celestial and terrestrial phenomena. The universe described in the poem operates according to these physical principles, guided by fortuna, "chance," and not the divine intervention of the traditional Roman deities.^[2]

To Epicurus, the unhappiness and degradation of humans arose largely from the dread which they entertained of the power of the deities, from terror of their wrath. This wrath was supposed to be displayed by the misfortunes inflicted in this life, by the everlasting tortures that were the lot of the guilty in a future state (or, where these feelings were not strongly developed, from a vague dread of gloom and misery after death). To remove these fears, and thus to establish tranquility in the heart, was the purpose of his teaching. Thus the deities, whose existence he did not deny, lived forevermore in the enjoyment of absolute peace, strangers to all the passions, desires, and fears, which agitate the human heart, totally indifferent to the world and its inhabitants, unmoved alike by their virtues and their crimes.

To prove this position he called upon the atomism of Democritus, so as to demonstrate that the material universe was formed not by a Supreme Being, but by the mixing of elemental particles that had existed from all eternity governed by certain simple laws. Lucretius' task was to clearly state and fully develop these views in an attractive form; his work was an attempt to show that everything in nature can be explained by natural laws, without the need for the intervention of divine beings.^[3]

Lucretius identifies the supernatural with the notion that the deities created our world or interfere with its operations in some way. He argues against fear of such deities by demonstrating, through observations and arguments, that the operations of the world can be accounted for in terms of natural phenomena. These phenomena are the regular, but purposeless motions and interactions of tiny atoms in empty space. Meanwhile, he argues against the fear of death by stating that death is the dissipation of a being's material mind. Lucretius uses the analogy of a vessel, stating that the physical body is the vessel that holds both the mind (mens) and spirit (anima) of a human being. Neither the mind nor spirit can survive independent of the body. Thus Lucretius states that once the vessel (the body) shatters (dies) its contents (mind and spirit) can no longer exist. So, as a simple ceasing-to-be, death can be neither good nor bad for this being. Being completely devoid of sensation and thought, a dead person cannot miss being alive. According to Lucretius, fear of death is a projection of terrors experienced in life, of pain that only a living (intact) mind can feel. Lucretius also puts forward the 'symmetry argument' against the fear of death. In it, he says that people who fear the prospect of eternal non-existence after death should think back to the eternity of non-existence before their birth, which probably did not cause them much suffering.

. . . . The poem opens with an invocation to Venus, whom Lucretius addresses as an allegorical representation of the reproductive power, after which the business of the piece commences by an enunciation of the proposition on the nature and being of the deities, which leads to an invective against the gigantic monster superstition, and a thrilling picture of the horrors which attends its tyrannous sway. Then follows a lengthened elucidation of the axiom that nothing can be produced from nothing, and that nothing can be reduced to nothing (Nil fieri ex nihilo, in nihilum nil posse reverti); which is succeeded by a definition of the Ultimate Atoms, infinite in number, which, together with Void Space (Inane), infinite in extent, constitute the universe. The shape of these corpuscles, their properties, their movements, the laws under which they enter into combination and assume forms and qualities appreciable by the senses, with other preliminary matters on their nature and affections, together with a refutation of objections and opposing hypotheses, occupy the first two books.^[3]

In the third book, the general concepts proposed thus far are applied to demonstrate that the vital and intellectual principles, the Anima and Animus, are as much a part of us as are our limbs and members, but like those limbs and members have no distinct and independent existence, and that hence soul and body live and perish together; the argument being wound up by a magnificent exposure of the folly manifested in a dread of death, which will forever extinguish all feeling.^[3]

The fourth book is devoted to the theory of the senses, sight, hearing, taste, smell, of sleep and of dreams, ending with a disquisition upon love and sex.^[3]

The fifth book is described by Ramsay as the most finished and impressive,^[3] while Stahl considers that its "puerile conceptions" indicate that Lucretius should be judged as a poet, not as a scientist.^[4] This book addresses the origin of the world and of all things that are therein, the movements of the heavenly bodies, the changing of the seasons, day and night, the rise and progress of humankind, society, political institutions, and the invention of the various arts and sciences which embellish and ennoble life.^[3]

The sixth book contains an explanation of some of the most striking natural appearances, especially thunder, lightning, hail, rain, snow, ice, cold, heat, wind, earthquakes, volcanoes, springs and localities noxious to animal life, which leads to a discourse upon diseases. This in its turn introduces an appalling description of the great pestilence which devastated Athens during the Peloponnesian War, and thus the book closes. The abrupt ending suggests that Lucretius had not finished fully editing the poem before his death.^[3]

. . . . It has been suggested that Dante (1265–1321) might have read Lucretius' poem, as a few verses of his Divine Comedy exhibit a great affinity with De rerum natura, which can hardly be explained otherwise.^[10] The Italian scholar Guido Billanovich demonstrated that Lucretius' poem was well known in its entirety among some Paduan pre-humanists during the thirteenth century.^[10][11] This proves that the work was known long before the official rediscovery by Poggio Bracciolini.

. . . . Notable figures who owned copies include Ben Jonson whose copy is held at the Houghton Library, Harvard; Thomas Jefferson owned at least five Latin editions and English, Italian and French translations. Montaigne owned a Latin edition published in Paris, in 1563, by Denis Lambin which he heavily annotated.^[12] His Essays contain almost a hundred quotes from De rerum natura.^[1]

Lucretius' physics[edit]

Lucretius maintained that he could free humankind from fear of the deities by demonstrating that all things occur by natural causes without any intervention by the deities. Historians of science, however, have been critical of the limitations of his Epicurean approach to science, especially as it pertained to astronomical topics, which he relegated to the class of "unclear" objects.^[13]

Thus, he began his discussion by claiming that he would

explain by what forces nature steers the courses of the Sun and the journeyings of the Moon, so that we shall not suppose that they run their yearly races between heaven and earth of their own free will [i.e., are gods themselves] or that they are rolled round in furtherance of some divine plan....^[14]

However, when he set out to put this plan into practice, he limited himself to showing how one, or several different, naturalistic accounts could explain certain natural phenomena. He was unable to tell his readers how to determine which of these alternatives might be the true one.^[15]

Let us now take as our theme the cause of stellar movements.

First let us suppose that the great globe of the sky itself rotates....

There remains the alternative possibility that the sky as a whole is stationary while the shining constellations are in motion. This may happen

because swift currents of ether ... whirl round and round and roll their fires at large across the nocturnal regions of the sky. Or

an external current of air from some other quarter may whirl them along in their course. Or

they may swim of their own accord, each responsive to the call of its own food, and feed their fiery bodies in the broad pastures of the sky.

One of these causes must certainly operate in our world.... But to lay down which of them it is lies beyond the range of our stumbling progress.^[16]

Drawing on these, and other passages, William Stahl considered that "The anomalous and derivative character of the scientific portions of Lucretius' poem makes it reasonable to conclude that his significance should be judged as a poet, not as a scientist."^[17]

The swerve[edit]

Determinism appears to conflict with the concept of free will. Lucretius attempts to allow for free will in his physicalistic universe by postulating an indeterministic tendency for atoms to swerve randomly (Latin: clinamen). This indeterminacy, according to Lucretius, provides the "free will which living things throughout the world have".^[18]

Responses[edit]

The earliest recorded verdict of Lucretius' work is by Cicero, who calls Lucretius's poetry "full of inspired brilliance, but also of great artistry". However, Cicero is elsewhere critical of Lucretius and the Epicureans, and disparaged them for their omission from their work of historical study.^[19]

Cornelius Nepos, in his Life Of Atticus, mentions Lucretius as one of the greatest poets of his times.

Ovid, in his Amores, writes: Carmina sublimis tunc sunt peritura Lucreti / exitio terras cum dabit una dies (which means "the verses of the sublime Lucretius will perish only when a day will bring the end of the world").

[PDS]

36 minutes ago, Peter said:

Ba’al asked us to “Read what Lucretius has to say on the matter,” and it is interesting. He thought of this a really long time ago. Astounding. When he talks about the supernatural, and the powers of the deities, “which leads to an invective against the gigantic monster superstition, and a thrilling picture of the horrors which attends its tyrannous sway,” Lucretius is describing silly Greg to a tee.

Peter  

 

Incredibly, Lucretius is more subtle that you are giving him credit for, and Greg is less subtle than you are giving him credit for...

[PDS]

1 hour ago, moralist said:

While your head is in the dead past... you're a slave to your liberal government in the present.

Greg

18 short words plus at least 5 fallacies wedged into a single sentence.  

Greg--I believe this may be your personal record. 

[moralist]

PDS writes:

"When he talks about the supernatural, and the powers of the deities, “which leads to an invective against the gigantic monster superstition, and a thrilling picture of the horrors which attends its tyrannous sway,” Lucretius is describing silly Greg to a tee."

 

 

You only wish that what you say would hold true... except I'm the one who is enjoying the results of the moral values by which I live. That reality trumps your fantasy. So while you're free to indulge yourself in virtual theoretical intellectual arguments. That's not actually doing anything useful, so what I do won't work for you...

...because you can only truly measure your life by your actions, not your thoughts.

 

Greg

[moralist]

20 minutes ago, PDS said:

18 short words plus at least 5 fallacies wedged into a single sentence.  

Greg--I believe this may be your personal record. 

So list them.

 

Greg

[BaalChatzaf]

There was a song which was made illegal to sing or play in Germany under the Nazis:   Die Gedanken Sin Frei   (Thoughts are free)

In German:

Die Gedanken sind frei, wer kann sie erraten,

sie fliehen vorbei wie nächtliche Schatten.

Kein Mensch kann sie wissen, kein Jäger erschießen

es bleibet dabei: Die Gedanken sind frei!

 

Ich denke was ich will und was mich beglücket,

doch alles in der Still', und wie es sich schicket.

Mein Wunsch, mein Begehren kann niemand verwehren,

es bleibet dabei: Die Gedanken sind frei!

 

Und sperrt man mich ein im finsteren Kerker,

das alles sind rein vergebliche Werke.

Denn meine Gedanken zerreißen die Schranken

und Mauern entzwei, die Gedanken sind frei!

 

Drum will ich auf immer den Sorgen entsagen

und will mich auch nimmer mit Grillen mehr plagen.

Man kann ja im Herzen stets lachen und scherzen

und denken dabei: Die Gedanken sind frei!

Here is a translation:

my thoughts are free, who can guess them,

they flee past like nightime shadows.

No one can know them, no hunter can kill it/shoot it dead

It remains: The thoughts are free!

 

I think what I want and what makes me happy,

but always inwardly, and as it suits.

My wish, my desire no one can deny,

It remains: The thoughts are free!

 

And if someone locks me in the dark/gloomy prison,

All that is absolutely wasted work.

Because my thoughts pull the barriers to pieces

and walls in two, the thoughts are free!

 

I want to renounce forever the worries/sorrows

and want to never again plague myself with whims

One can in the heart always laugh and joke

and think: The thoughts are free!

 

The thoughts are free!

 

or this translation:

 

Thoughts are free, who can guess them?

They flee by like nocturnal shadows.

No man can know them, no hunter can shoot them

with powder and lead: Thoughts are free!

 

I think what I want, and what delights me,

still always reticent, and as it is suitable.

My wish and desire, no one can deny me

and so it will always be: Thoughts are free!

 

And if I am thrown into the darkest dungeon,

all this would be futile work,

because my thoughts tear all gates

and walls apart: Thoughts are free!

 

So I will renounce my sorrows forever,

and never again will torture myself with whimsies.

In one's heart, one can always laugh and joke

and think at the same time: Thoughts are free!

And if you like music

 

or 

 

[moralist]

1 hour ago, BaalChatzaf said:

The thoughts are free.

...but you're a slave as long as your living in them instead of the real world. That's the curse of the government educated intellect... thinking without doing. It's why your government has you under its thumb.

 

Greg