Frank wrote on Dec 27
th, 2022 at 2:11pm:
thegreatdivide wrote on Dec 27
th, 2022 at 12:49pm:
Quote:What are the naturally present and instantly recognised human characteristics in YOU? On what basis do you recognise YOURSELF as a human being? Do you recognise those characteristics as being also present in all other human beings but not in all other non-human beings and things?
All questions which are not easily answered because we are all driven by
instinct, ego and emotion, as well as rationality (sadly, a distant fourth).
So your own recognition of your own humanity might be, in your mind, instinctive, emotional, self-centered - as well as rational? How do you tell them apart?
It's obvious if one is competing, or being egoistic, or being evil (like Peitro's side-kick in 'Gommorah' who said he had "earned his place in hell" for killing Ciro's young daughter), or being rational....like understanding the need to eradicate war - in the age of MAD - as a means of dispute settlement.
Quote:I think you are hopelessly confused. Recognising your own humanity and that of others is not instinctive or egotistic or emotional or rational. It is natural.
Of course
recognizing one's humanity is not equivalent to those things, recognizing them is understanding those - "natural" - things are drivers of our humanity.
Quote:Having recognised humanity you can perceive egotism or rationality but that comes after recognising the natural category of humanness.
So have you defined "the natural category of humanness" yet?
I have certainly identified some DRIVERS of human thought and behaviour, rationality sadly being well down on the list of those drivers.
Of course, a sense of 'justice ' and 'fairness' - or even 'live and let live' are also drivers of human thought and behaviour, but you have yet to define 'natural rights' or even 'some natural rights' which you are suggesting are evidence for your posited "natural category of humanness"
Quote:I don't think you can (think clearly). The position from which you make a judgement is entirely unexamined and unevaluated by yourself. Your basic principles, groundings, moral and intellectual positions are completely chaotic, contradictory and in a constant flux. And those are just the ones you may be dimly aware of.
I think you need to respond to my above examination of your concept of " natural category of humanness", before we can proceed.
Quote:You are also utterly incapable of taking more than two logical, consistent steps in your 'reasoning'. That is why you almost always cut up posts into single sentences and address each sentence according to the word in it that triggers your hal dozen Pavlovian responses to that word: job guarantee, common prosperity, evil freedom ideology, evil sovereignty (bad) except as sovereign money printer government (good).
When you are lost - usually by the third sentence - you just say, 'addressed above' and then go around with the same Pavlovian cliches again and again. But a dog salivating at the sound of a bell is not addressing the bell. He's just triggered into an automatic response and cannot do otherwise. Psittacism is another word for that.
Priceless... thanks for the chuckle.. I see your point....
BUT your analysis is flawed from the beginning, with your undefined "category of humanness". GIGO.
Note:
1. I "cut up posts into single sentences", in order to address the point in that sentence, regardless of any word which might trigger a Pavlovian response (love it!...and the existence of the Pavlovian response itself proves just how subject we all are to unconscious psychological mechanisms, not only me...).
But you will note I have NOT cut up your above paragraph into single sentences because I know it's all based on flawed reasoning, ie, of an undefined "category of humanness".
2. What is "lost" about seeking/writing law to engender common prosperity and security?
Oh, and the "sovereign money printer" in fact needs to be subject to international law, too...
Forum
Pages: 
The Aboriginal Voice referendum (Read 99507 times)
