During the last season of “West Wing,” reporters tried to pin down candidate Arnie Vinnick (Alan Alda) on the subject of his religious beliefs. Vinnick–who wanted to keep the fact that he’d lost faith in God under wraps–stated that his personal views on God were off limits, he’d never discuss them, that they weren’t relevant to the job he was to do as president, and that as far as he was concerned that was the end of it. To all intents and purposes it was. It never came up again in the series.
I commented at the time that in the real world, that would never happen. That such an assertion would only be the beginning of the story, not the end of it.
Now it seems that we’re seeing the scenario played out in real life as Rudy Giuliani asserts that his personal religious beliefs are just that–personal–and should have no bearing on his campaign.
This promptly became front page news on “Newsday” and now we’ll see just how fast the question goes away. I suspect it won’t anytime soon.
The ironic thing is that Giuliani is both right and wrong. The fact is that his personal beliefs *shouldn’t* be a factor. If he doesn’t want to discuss them, he should be entitled to that. The problem becomes that the automatic assumption is that he is either agnostic or atheist, and in a society where the vast majority of people assert a belief in SOME sort of divine spirit, that’s not going to go over very well.
On the other hand it really IS a relevant question because look who we’ve got running the country now: A man who believes that he’s operating at the personal behest of God. Bush doesn’t simply believe in God; he KNOWS there’s a God and that he and God are tight. If a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, too much “knowledge” can be a lethal thing.
If Giuliani is an atheist and doesn’t want to discuss that beause he figures it’s nobody’s business and that it might cost him votes, I can understand both viewpoints. Still, knowing that a candidate will not run this country and world affairs under the belief that he’s taking his marching orders from God might not be such a bad thing.
PAD
• 
“However I prefer my grandmother’s rolling pin…it’s a multitasker.”
Oh God… She’s quoting Alton Brown. That’s when she’s at her most dangerous. Run you fools, run!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Jerry
“However I prefer my grandmother’s rolling pin…it’s a multitasker.”
Oh God… She’s quoting Alton Brown. That’s when she’s at her most dangerous. Run you fools, run!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Jerry
“However I prefer my grandmother’s rolling pin…it’s a multitasker.”
Oh God… She’s quoting Alton Brown. That’s when she’s at her most dangerous. Run you fools, run!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Jerry
“However I prefer my grandmother’s rolling pin…it’s a multitasker.”
Oh God… She’s quoting Alton Brown. That’s when she’s at her most dangerous. Run you fools, run!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Jerry
“I wouldn’t stay that God leaves no evidence of his existance. Even if you consider the Bible and archeology confirming events in it (not to mention philosophy supporting his existence) insufficient for belief, that is no reason to claim there is no evidence.”
Because the Bible says so, it must be. Well, every single religion out there has its Bible and every single religion wraps its beliefs around at least some historical events. Did your volcano go boom a few years back? Well, you shouldn’t have ticked the local god off. Remember that famine, drought or plague that wiped out half a dad’s generation? That’s what they get for turning their backs on the local goddess. Victories in battle, destruction of cities, massive natural disasters and viral outbreaks have always been used by every religion to point out the existence of the local religions god, goddess, gods, demons, pantheon, etc.
And every religion documents these historical examples or at least references them in their (to name just a few) Bible, Bhagavad Gita, Upanishads, Qur’an, Gleanings or Rigveda (composed somewhere around 1500–1300 BCE, making it one of the world’s oldest religious texts) for all to see. Just because it’s written in a fancy looking book and called holy by some doesn’t make it any more or less true then the next holy book over. It’s called “faith” rather then “fact” for a reason. Why can’t more people take out a loan and by a clue on that one small but rather important distinction.
Even atheism has a text of that nature in a way. They’re called the history book and the science texts.
“Not so if he doesn’t. Whether we know of his existence or not this is still the case. Why should our knowledge effect the objective state of the universe? If we didn’t know about physics would gravity not exist?”
Exactly. Thank you for making the case for every person here arguing against your point about mankind and morals. Knowledge of God or the belief in his non-existence makes very little difference at all. Thanks for finally coming around, Ben.
Morality implies one who holds an agenda — one who wants something. Take ice cream: one’s preference for a flavor of ice cream denotes the fulfillment of a desire. So it is with morality. Where there is no purely objective “wanter” (and what establishes subjectivity more than desire?), there can be no objective morality.
The predictability of consequences to actions in physics implies no fulfillment of such a desire.
On further consideration, it seems that the idea of an objective morality is a patently stoopid idea, with two ohs.
To be objective is to have no biases. But without bias, there can be no morality. The idea of an objective morality is so contradictory, devoting any time to establishing its existence seems to qualify as a sign of mental retardation.
“But without bias, there can be no morality.”
Why?
“The idea of an objective morality is so contradictory, devoting any time to establishing its existence seems to qualify as a sign of mental retardation.”
While I disagree with the philosophical opinion that thee is objective morality in the sense Ben is talking about, it would be extremely arrogant to say that all the thinkers who thought objective morality exists were mentally retarded. In a way, that is the point of this discussion: neither the religious or atheists are neither stupid, nor immoral, nor moral parasites. They simply have a difference of opinion on a philosophical question.
“Morality implies one who holds an agenda — one who wants something. Take ice cream: one’s preference for a flavor of ice cream denotes the fulfillment of a desire. So it is with morality. Where there is no purely objective “wanter” (and what establishes subjectivity more than desire?), there can be no objective morality.”
In a way you are confirming what I said earlier about morality being an intentional act of choice rather than a description of fact (as opposed to physcics). The reference to physcics here was Ben’s.
However, I disagree that “Morality implies one who holds an agenda.” To do or not to do something for moral reasons is an act of choice, but I wouldn’t call it an agenda. Not every opinion,or attitude or wanting or nor wating something would be considered an agenda in everyday speech, unless we will render the term meaningless.
Furthermore, although I peronaly hold the philosophical position that morality does require intent, I don’t think it is necessarily so.
Let’s suppose I say: “you shouldn’t aim a pistol to this person’s head and shoot, it’s bad, it will kill him.”
Now, it is my opinion that the objective fact that pulling the trigger will result in a person’s death, does not constitute a moral fact. The badness is not inherent in the act. I believe somebody has to care that the person will not die (such as the person himself) for the act of shooting to be bad. The badness is in the mind of the people forming an attitude toward the event. However, somebody could hold to the opinion that there is a way in which killing a person is bad that is independent of an attitude by man or god. Someone could hold to the opinion that there is something somehow inherently bad in killing a person. I would disagree with him on the philosophical level, but I would not consider him mentaly retarded for holding that view.
“Even atheism has a text of that nature in a way. They’re called the history book and the science texts.”
I’m not sure I agree. There are two things. One, modern history and science are said to employ a certain rational critical methodology that ancient sacred texts did not. This methodology is supposed to make the descriptions of reality provided by science and history to be more reliable. The most clear examples of this are the ability to reproduce the results of an experiments, and the constant criticism and questioning involved. Obviously, the system is not pefect, but still the distiction needs to be made.
Secondly, most atheists don’t think there is a god because it does not seem justified to them to claim that there is one based on the same rational way of thinking. So we would expect them to have a positive attitude toward the rational method in the fields of science and history (less with history). However, it is not necesseraly so. Some people may not believe in god or the scientific method. People who have a strong positive attitude toward science (like Dawkins) are often atheists (not always), but they are also something more. Aside from rejecting god they have other beliefs and attitudes, for example, but not necessarily, communism.
How can any choice of consequence be made without a preference for the outcome?
For your example “[holding] to the opinion that there is a way in which killing a person is bad that is independent of an attitude by man or god” is an out-and-out contradiction to “the badness is in the mind of the people forming an attitude toward the event.”
First you say there is no “bad” without a beholder, and then you say there is “bad” independent of a beholder. You are trying to have it both ways. That may pass in some kind of world of arbitrary privilege, but it doesn’t pass for any kind of reason that can withstand even the most casual scrutiny.
Micha,
That’s why I said, “… in a way.” It wasn’t a blanket statement.
It was also more of an example of puting the two texts side by side. A theist looks at his or her book, points to an earthquake and points to a god’s/God’s direct hand in some historic event. An atheist would point out the shifting plates and the history or quakes in the area that didn’t tie in to some holy war or battle.
It wasn’t really meant to say that atheists actually see those books as holy texts. My fault for being more sarky then clear there.
“How can any choice of consequence be made without a preference for the outcome?”
Would you call every preference for an outcome an agenda? It would seem to me to be streching the use of the word.
If I believed that capital punishment is wrong, it could be said that I prefer that people are not executed, but could you say I have an ‘agenda’ against capital punishment unless I actively doing something to abolish them?
“First you say there is no “bad” without a beholder, and then you say there is “bad” independent of a beholder.”
No. First I said that in my opinion there is no ‘bad’ without a beholder. Then I said that I would disagree with someone who held the position that ‘bad’ is independent of the beholder, but that I would not consider his opinion absurd or untennable. It’s called respecting the opinions of others while disagreeing with them.
Posted by: Jerry Chandler at June 18, 2007 02:22 PM
“Micha,
That’s why I said, “… in a way.” It wasn’t a blanket statement.
It was also more of an example of puting the two texts side by side. A theist looks at his or her book, points to an earthquake and points to a god’s/God’s direct hand in some historic event. An atheist would point out the shifting plates and the history or quakes in the area that didn’t tie in to some holy war or battle.
It wasn’t really meant to say that atheists actually see those books as holy texts. My fault for being more sarky then clear there.”
Fair enough. Now I understand what you meant.You are right in that respect.
There are certain people, usually identified as postmodernists, who have gone so far into relativism as to not distinguish at all on text from another. They have a very bad reputation. I don’t think you hold that position, but felt the issue needed to be clarified.
I haven’t been reading this thread for several days, and only just checked in to see the last few posts. So if I’m covering old territory, sorry…
Posted by: Jerry Chandler at June 18, 2007 02:22 PM
A theist looks at his or her book, points to an earthquake and points to a god’s/God’s direct hand in some historic event. An atheist would point out the shifting plates and the history or quakes in the area that didn’t tie in to some holy war or battle.
Jerry, I know you were deliberately being simplistic to make your point, and that you understand the distinction I’m about to make. But it nevertheless bears mentioning that theists don’t necessarily have a “book,” because you can be a theist without subscribing to a religion. Moreover, there’s no reason to believe that a theist or a religionist might not accept the same rational explanation for an earthquake as a scientifically-oriented atheist.
There are so many permutations when it comes to belief.
Ben Lesar is a Christian and a bigot. Bill Mulligan is a Christian and is most definitely not a bigot.
Bill Mulligan is a Catholic and also a Republican. My parents are Catholic and are also Democrats.
My father is a liberal yet is very “traditional” in his beliefs about the sinfulness of sex before marriage. I am a liberal and have been living with my girlfriend for the last six years… and, well, yeah, you do the math.
Luigi Novi is an atheist who believes that the scientific method is the only valid framework for explaining and predicting natural phenomena, and that logic is the only worthwhile tool for debating ideas. I am a theist yet I agree with Luigi on both counts.
Need I go further?
Religious beliefs (or lack thereof) are in no way an accurate predictor of anything. The only rational way to evaluate a candidate for political office is on the basis of the ideas he or she articulates, and his or her past actions.
Unfortunately, I fear my message will amount to preaching to the choir for some, and will fall deaf ears where it actually needs to be heard.
If you take any deliberate action to nurture such as outcome, yes. The definition of “agenda” specifies no threshhold for action.
Why did you validate an opinion you don’t believe to be true? That’s what manipulative people do, is it not?
“Jerry, I know you were deliberately being simplistic to make your point, and that you understand the distinction I’m about to make.”
I don’t know that I was trying to be simplistic so much as not framing my point as only Christian VS atheist and not wanting to type too many words by listing every group that has a “book” of their own. Getting ready for work and all that time limiting stuff.
But, yeah, I get your point as well.
“I am a liberal and have been living with my girlfriend for the last six years… and, well, yeah, you do the math.”
Do you know how many things you set yourself up for with that line and just how hard it is to not let you have it?????????
Posted by: Jerry Chandler at June 18, 2007 04:10 PM
I don’t know that I was trying to be simplistic so much as not framing my point as only Christian VS atheist and not wanting to type too many words by listing every group that has a “book” of their own. Getting ready for work and all that time limiting stuff.
Gotcha. I was simply trying to make clear that I knew you didn’t need to have the distinctions explained to you personally. I was using your post as a springboard to address a larger theme.
Posted by: Jerry Chandler at June 18, 2007 04:10 PM
Do you know how many things you set yourself up for with that line and just how hard it is to not let you have it?????????
Why, no, Jerry, I haven’t the foggiest clue what kinds of jokes you could make about that. I give my girlfriend sex once per year whether she needs it or not. What’s funny about that?
“Why did you validate an opinion you don’t believe to be true?”
I didn’t validate it.
“That’s what manipulative people do, is it not?”
No. It’s what people who make their decisions by looking and understanding different sides of arguments do.
“We find these truth’s to be self evident that all men were created equal and were endowed with their creator with unalienable right of life, liberty and the persuit of happyness.” (I’m sorry if there are mistakes, I’m typing from memory).
My philosophical opinion about morality is slightly different than that of the founding fathers of the US. I don’t think all men are endowed with rights or equality by nature. I think humans should make the choice to respect the rights and equality of humans because of their nature. However, I extremely respect and admire the views of the founding fathers, share much of their moral attitude toward humans and certainly don’t consider them mentally retarded simply because we do not agree completely on the philosophy of morality.
Micha, you seem to personally agree with me that morality depends on a beholder, but for some reason you felt some need to say you disagree with me that the notion morality is independent of a beholder is stoopid with two ohs — because someone could arbitrarily hold such an opinion. Or something. Whatever.
“Why, no, Jerry, I haven’t the foggiest clue what kinds of jokes you could make about that. I give my girlfriend sex once per year whether she needs it or not. What’s funny about that?”
Uh, boy. On my way home from work today it dawned on me just what a stupid remark that was, and just how tricky communication can be.
See, what I was thinking was that while women by and large are considered to be a bit less sex-obsessesed than men, it’s a good bet that your average woman in a committed relationship would want sex more than once per year. So, y’know, the joke was that lame ol’ Bill Myers couldn’t get the job done.
But remarking that one “gives” a woman sex whether she “needs it or not” has some ugly connotations that were completely unintended. I realize that 99.9% of you who frequent this board wouldn’t touch this with a ten-foot poll. Hëll, maybe the ugly implications hadn’t occurred to most of you, because decent minds often don’t think that way. But to the 0.01% who need to hear it:
Do. NOT. Go. There.
Do not even go anywhere in the vicinity of “there.”
Because my precious girlfriend has done nothing to you. If those of you who are trolls need a target for your hate, direct it towards me and me alone.
Thank you.
“Micha, you seem to personally agree with me that morality depends on a beholder,”
I’ve held that view before starting the discussion on this thread.
“but for some reason you felt some need to say you disagree with me that the notion morality is independent of a beholder is stoopid with two ohs”
Yes. Because I am capable of disagreeing with somebody withot thinking they are stupid. Since many wise people held and hold to the idea of objective morality, to suggest that they are stupid would be very arrogant.
“because someone could arbitrarily hold such an opinion.”
Not arbitrarily. Philosophers who hold this opinion spent much time refining their thoughts, and writing them down for us to read. So, although I, humbly, do not agree with the philosophers who hold such a position, I would never suggest that their reasoning was either arbitrary or stupid, simply because my own thinking has led me to different conclusions.
“Whatever.”
OK
Ben Lesar is a Christian and a bigot. Bill Mulligan is a Christian and is most definitely not a bigot.
Bill Mulligan is a Catholic and also a Republican. My parents are Catholic and are also Democrats.
Lincoln was shot in Ford Theater by a man named Booth. Bill Mulligan ran over a man at a toll booth while driving a Ford Lincoln.
Anyhoo…for the foreseeable future y’all can move me solidly in the “independent” camp. The republicans did far too lousy a job for my support and the democrats seem, amazingly, bound and determined to emulate them in every way. I think it may take the absolute suicidal self destruction of one of the major parties for us to get something resembling a good one and right now I’m not too choosy on which one drinks the kool-aid.
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at June 18, 2007 07:00 PM
Anyhoo…for the foreseeable future y’all can move me solidly in the “independent” camp.
Actually, I had you pegged as a registered Crackpot.
I didn’t attack the messenger, as you have admitted taking delight in, but the message. I merely said the message was only worthy of the time of a retard.
“I merely said the message was only worthy of the time of a retard.”
Like the US constitution? Or Plato’s dialogues? Or the bible? Or the writings of Spinoza? Leibniz? etc. Are they only worthy of the time of a retard?
Actually, I had you pegged as a registered Crackpot.
Libertarian?
I keed, I keed. Please, no emails from Ron Paul fans.
Are you joking? The US government is not a morality-enforcing institution.
Plato was a dìçk, as if there are a shortage of dìçkš to confuse representation with reality and to starve for eating their dollar bills, so to speak.
Going by the Book of Job, Job’s critics insisted Job must have offended God to receive the punishment he was experiencing, Job insisted he broke no law of God, God intervening to confirm Job is not wrong, God going on further about things that have nothing to do with morality, then Job finally bowing to God rather than cursing Him. In effect, Job took responsibility for his own moral practices.
That’s the annoying thing about the concept of an objective morality: virtue is not done for its own sake. It is oppressive to spontenaity. It’s done for a pay-off from God. It isn’t the morality of Huck Finn sacrificing his soul for his friend Jim. It says there is no virtue to disobedience, when all innovation depends on disobedience, and everything beautiful depends on something that shouldn’t be.
Do you have any quotes from Spinoza incompatible with the Wikipedia take on him?
As for Liebniz, Voltaire subjected him to ridicule no less severe than saying his philosophy was only worthy of the time of a retard.
I was thinking: should I start a discussion about ethis and the philosophy of morality with Mike. I see several reasons why not to do it:
1) It’s been a while since I studied this stuff, and I’m not sure I can treat it well, nor am I sure I’m willing to do the reseach required (somehow I usually am the one doing it). I also can’t seem to find my copy of one of Spinoza’s books.
2) This is heavy stuff. I’m not sure this format is good for such a discussion, and I’m not sure most peope on this board will find it anything but extremely boring and burdensome. I’ve already burdened them with this stiff too many times, even when the rewards were not very promising.
3) The parameters of the discussion as set by Ben Lesar and Mike are too crude for a discussion of different kinds of moral philosophies. There’s more to them than the objective-subjective dichotomy. Take Spinoza, for example. For him the true happiness is recognizing the true deterministic nature of the universe (as he describes it) — seeing it from the point of view of eternity. So is it objective or subjective? It’s a little more complicated than that — I shouldn’t have picked him as an example.
Or Voltaire who writes:
“B: What is natural law?
A: The instinct which makes us feel justice
B: What do you call just and unjust?
A: What appears such to the entire universe.”
Objective or subjective?
4) The person I’m supposed to hold this discussion with is Mike, a person who has shown a complete lack of capacity or sense when dealing with serious issues. That alone is a good reason to stop now. The discussion wil inevitably be twisted in ways that would make it unenjoyable as well as disrespectful of the issues and philosophers involved.
So, let’s talk about zombies.
———————
“Are you joking? The US government is not a morality-enforcing institution.”
The references to equality, liberty, inalienable rights are moral statements, and reflect the concept of morality held by the framers.
You lack sufficient understanding of Plato.
You’re imposing your own preconception on the book of Job, and the book of Job is only one bit of a whole collection of books written by different people on different times. So taking it, imposing on it a meaning and think it’s the whole bible, is ridiculous.
“As for Liebniz, Voltaire subjected him to ridicule no less severe than saying his philosophy was only worthy of the time of a retard.”
You are not Voltaire: you lack the knowledge, the brain , or the wit he had. He didn’t like Spinoza either, if I remember correctly.
Your answer to my question appears to be “no.”
They aren’t only moral statements. They also imply a trust in the average citizen to assume a self-serving level of autonomy. The founders did not wish the revolutionary government to expire by the same sword they had lived by.
When Micha can’t attack the message, he attacks the messenger. Not so I.
I don’t need to have written Candide to know Voltaire based Dr Pangloss on Liebniz. Again, you can’t attack the message, so you attack the messenger.
You present Spinoza and Liebniz as giants of philosophy, but when I point out that Voltaire mocked Liebniz — well, too frickin’ bad for Liebniz and Spinoza, isn’t it? It must be nice the privilege to trample the prestige of the serious philosophers you cite at your convenience. That isn’t nonsensical at all.
a. You are not a messenger.
b. You do attack despite your claims otherwise. The manner of your speech reveals that. I don’t attack you, I respond to things you say which I disagree with. You perceive it as an attack because you are a nut, so you respond belligerantly. And then I counterattack, because at this point the chance for serious conversation is already out of the window, and I don’t want to let your bullying techniques determine the nature of the discussion on these issues.
c. It is not my job to do the research for you al the time and teach you philosophy 101. Especially since I don’t trust your ability to treatt it properly if I do. You found the link to Spnoza in wikipedia, read it in full and understand it instead of simply copying and pasting. Then maybe read the Stanford Encyclopdia of Philopsophy for further understading.
d. Voltaire can mock Leibnitz because he is playing on of the same playing field, and because he does it in an intelligent way as part of a serious (though humorous) philosophical discourse. Also, Voltaire didn’t call Leibnitz a mental retard or a dìçk — he was satirizing his ideas in order to present his own ideas. Philosophers disagree with each other, reject each other, mock each other, and sometimes worse, but always as part of a serious philosophical discussion in which they study and understand each others ideas to a high degree. I think Leibnitz, for all the flaws of his philosophy, has earned the right not to be treated with contempt by an ignorant child whose reading comprehension has already proven to be quite questionable.
I also don’t think Dr Pangloss only represent Leibnitz, but certain philosophical practices in general at the time. But I didn’t study him in school, only read him for fun back in 2000.
d. “You present Spinoza and Liebniz as giants of philosophy.”
The philosophy depatments in most universities in the world present them as giants of philosophy. Some how I doubt Mike Leung is going to be part of the curriculum of any philosophy department, although maybe as a test case at a psychology department.
e. “Like the US constitution?
Are you joking? The US government is not a morality-enforcing institution.
The references to equality, liberty, inalienable rights are moral statements, and reflect the concept of morality held by the framers.
They aren’t only moral statements. They also imply a trust in the average citizen to assume a self-serving level of autonomy. The founders did not wish the revolutionary government to expire by the same sword they had lived by.”
Trust and autonomy are also moral statements. You would do a disservice to the founding fathers of your country if you assume that the only intent of their words was to create a more survivable government.
Speaking of Spinoza,
Micha, are you familiar enough with Spinoza to know whether there’s any significance to Gary Mitchell’s statement in the Star Trek episode, “Where No Man Has Gone Before” that, “he’s simple once you get into him. Childish almost. I don’t agree with him at all.”
I’ve always wondered if Mitchell’s comments about Spinoza were meant to give those familiar with Spinoza’s work an early-on idea of Mitchell’s personality and/or views on morality, or whether the use of Spinoza’s name had no great significance. I also wondered about this when I took philosophy in college, but that was back in the prehistoric 20th century, and whatever I may have learned about Spinoza, I’ve since forgotten.
Rick
Posted by: Micha at June 19, 2007 07:18 AM
So, let’s talk about zombies.
Can a zombie be taught a set of moral codes? Watch Day of the Dead and Fido.
Debate.
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Hello? Anybody? Ðámņ.
Posted by: Rick Keating at June 19, 2007 11:12 AM
“Speaking of Spinoza,
Micha, are you familiar enough with Spinoza to know whether there’s any significance to Gary Mitchell’s statement in the Star Trek episode, “Where No Man Has Gone Before” that, “he’s simple once you get into him. Childish almost. I don’t agree with him at all.””
Well, I’m not an expert on Spinoza or Star Trek. I can only tell you what I suspect based on the knowledge I do have.
The weird thing with Spinoza is that his most major book, the Ethics, was written as a geomery book, starting with axioms, and building everything else from that. His conclusions present a world built totally by logical conclusions from the axioms, and is very strange and counterintuitive. Now, I would say that there is something naive about trying to build a complete picture of the universe this way. But it is certainly not simple.
I doubt anybody ‘agrees’ with Spinoza. The ideas of philosophers from earlier times often seem strange to us. There is a certain naivity to the way they thought they could understand everything by the power of philosophical reasoning. But there is also beauty to it because it is so fresh. We learn them because they provide stepping stones and insights for later philosophers, and because they were the ones who started thinking of the things we are still trying to figure out.
How all this relates to Gary Mitchell (who had a god complex after aquiring godlike powers). I would guess that part of the reason for his statement is just a way to show his arrogance for his superior intellect. In TNG they had Barkley arguing with Einstein, or something like that (I don’t remember), as a step in a process of becoming a super-genius. So they did it here by having him refer to a very hard to understand philosopher as simple.
It could also be related to the ideas of Spinoza about god. I think Spinoza was the first to talk about an impersonal god who is basically the embodiment of the laws of science. I think Einstein talked about the god of Spinoza or god of the scientists (I could be wrong). So Gary Mitchell’s words might be a foreshadowing to his growing belief that he is becoming a god like being.
Say, you don’t think Mike has aquired god like powers? Because, if so, I’m really in trouble.
—————–
Jerry, I recently saw a movie (relatively new, don’t remember the name) in which humans lived in an enclosed cities while the zombies were outside. The zombies started developing simple learning abilities. I don’t know if that means that eventually they could develop morality.
Well, in the Shaun universe they seem trainable, at least. Though if this is only on the level of an animal’s trainability, and therefore lacking the higher functions necessary to make moral choices is unclear.
.
.
.
.
What, you really expected no one to respond? On this board…?
Micha,
I’m pretty sure that was Romero’s Land of the Dead and he was building on his Bub zombie from Day of the Dead. That’s also what Shaun of the Dead was spoofing.
What does it say that my main mental association with Spinoza is that Jeeves was always reading him?
“What does it say that my main mental association with Spinoza is that Jeeves was always reading him?”
I don’t think it says anything. Who’s Jeeves?
P.G. Woodhouse’s Jeeves and Wooster novels or TV shows based on them. The books are great but the TV series with Stephen Fry and Hugh Laurie are to die for. Just top notch all the way around.
Your attack on the messenger, and not the message, speaks for itself.
You’re the one taking philosophers hostage and hiding behind them. It isn’t my problem you keep citing philosophers you can’t demonstrate a basic understanding for.
If you could think for yourself, you could present your own messege with something resembling integrity, and wouldn’t have to throw the names of prestigious messengers around, relying on the taboo against criticizing them when you don’t know how to relate their messages to the topic at hand.
Why should I bust you with a sledgehammer when you topple at the tickle of a feather?
I didn’t call Liebniz a mental retard or a dìçk. Again, you rely on, you depend on, you need to attribute statements to me I didn’t say. When you can’t disqualify my message, you rely on, you depend on, you need to attribute a message to me to discredit the messenger.
Yeah, as someone Micha portrayed as mentally deficient yet whose statements Micha can’t find anything wrong with. They’ll call the class “It Sucks To Be Micha 101.”
There are no US laws against infidelity, nor any US laws against children, who at the start of their lives depend on their parents for all things, and who cannot legally consent to many things until their late teens.
Micha, thank you for continuing your tradition with not finding anything wrong with what I say.
Can a zombie be taught a set of moral codes? Watch Day of the Dead and Fido.
My assumption has always been that in the time between death and renaimation much of the outer layers of the brain die off, leaving only the inner “reptile” brain functioning post reanimation. Sort of like what happens as you drink.
The result is a creature that still has motor functions (though impaired) and the most primal need–to eat–still operating. Hey, it could be worse, what if it was the sex drive that survived?
So the question is then how much of the rest of the brain survived and is it enough to begin the slow process of learning all over again. Bub and Big Daddy seem to indicate that it can be done and even that with learning the compulsion to feed is reduced.
Posted by: Jerry Chandler at June 19, 2007 04:52 PM
“P.G. Woodhouse’s Jeeves and Wooster novels or TV shows based on them. The books are great but the TV series with Stephen Fry and Hugh Laurie are to die for. Just top notch all the way around.”
Thanks. I have a vague recollection of that show, but I don’t think I watched it when it was on. Maybe it will reappear somewhere on on TV and I’ll catch it.
——————–
Bill, what prevents zombies from attacking each other? And do they have a sense of self preservation?
——————-
“There are no US laws against infidelity,”
Yet there are laws against slavery and discrimination. In the past here were also laws against homosexuality which reflected a moral attitude and were changes as a result of a change in moral attitudes.
Even the kind of liberal/liberterian attitude that believes laws should be limited to a bare minimum, and personal choice should be perfered, reflects a moral attitude.
“nor any US laws against children, who at the start of their lives depend on their parents for all things, and who cannot legally consent to many things until their late teens.”
I find this post very troubling, Mike. I don’t know exactly what it means. I was going to respond to some of the other stuff, but now I think I’ll just walk away, since I don’t see any better option. If you need help, I wish I knew how to help you, but I don’t. Take care of yourself.
Bill, what prevents zombies from attacking each other? And do they have a sense of self preservation?
That’s an interesting question and probably related to another one–how do they distinguish between the living and the dead? Except in SHAWN OF THE DEAD (and shamlessly ripped off in my own FOREVER DEAD) they can always tell the living by…what? Sight? Sound? Smell?
(I’d go for smell–the olfactory sensors are directly linked to the brain and more than our other senses, seem to be hardwired for reactions. You have to learn to interpret sounds and sights but some smells will drive you to your knees the first time you smell them. So either the dead can smell us out or they can smell themselves and avoid it for food.
(If the former an airtight suit might offer protection and the ability to walk among them unmolested. If the latter, the technique used in THE WALKING DEAD might work–roll around in some rotted flesh for a bit, throw up and walk among them as one of them. Just watch for ill timed rain showers.)
Hey, Mike, remember this post from the thread entitled “The Comedy Stylings of George Takei”?
Posted by: Mike at February 26, 2007 12:25 AM
I’ve gotten what I’ve been looking for here, paradigms for the motives of the people here that have been baffling me. The price for these paradigms has been my time and, as far as my attraction to the returns for my time here have diminished, you will hear less from me, if at all.
I noticed that the frequency of your posts never actually diminished the way you promised they would. What’s up with that?
Thank you for not disqualifying anything I’ve said.
Micha, are you under the impression there are US laws prohibiting childbirth?
You quoted no such promise from me.
When Bobb made the observation no one can find anything wrong with what I say? I didn’t know my presence here had any more benefit — that I am distilling reason to a heretofore unknown purity (otherwise Bobb’s observation would be untrue for statements that offend so many people) and taking inventory of its benefits — and my statement you cite was reasonable for that assumption.
You have vowed on numerous occasions to never respond to me again. What is up with you making the same vow and breaking it repeatedly?
Posted by: Mike at June 19, 2007 10:40 PM
You quoted no such promise from me.
Thank you for proving my point with your denial of what is undeniably true: that you did indeed make a promise to reduce the frequency with which you post here or stop altogether, and were unable to keep that promise.
Posted by: Mike at June 19, 2007 10:40 PM
What is up with you making the same vow and breaking it repeatedly?
I’m human. I’m flawed. Unlike you, my self-concept doesn’t require a pretense of infallibility. I can acknowledge my fallibility in a way that you cannot because I am stronger than you’ll ever be. And no amount verbiage on your part will change that.
Thank you for proving my point. I have no further use for you for the time being. Take care.
Feeling a little qualifier-challenged today, Bill? Missed that day of school, did you?
I don’t need the pretense of invulnerability — when you simply fail to cite anything wrong with what I say.
“…in the time between death and reanimation much of the outer layers of the brain die off…”
There’s a sorta, kinda ok book on the market called Monster Island that plays around when and where the brain dies off and what you can do about it. A medical student comes up with a way to die and keep his intellect. Not the best zombie book I’d ever read, but it played with some interesting ideas here and there.
“Hey, it could be worse, what if it was the sex drive that survived?”
I’ve seen that DVD at the local rental place and on the online sales sites. So far I’ve, probably wisely, passed on it.
“Bub and Big Daddy seem to indicate that it can be done and even that with learning the compulsion to feed is reduced.”
Yeah, but even after all that rehabilitation, it didn’t stop Bub from growing up to terrorize Smallville and Superboy, did it? Ðámņëd evil bášŧárdš one and all. A good bash to the brainpan would have just saved so many people from so many future hardships.
“”There are no US laws against infidelity,”
“Yet there are laws against slavery and discrimination. In the past here were also laws against homosexuality which reflected a moral attitude and were changes as a result of a change in moral attitudes.”
Actually, many States still have, and some still enforce, adultery laws. Adultery is, the last time I looked, a form of infidelity. The close you go back to the Puritans’ time in America, the more you’ll see adultery laws enforced and with much stiffer penalties then you’ll find now. But they still exist here and, in a lesser form, in Canadian law.
This is an older article, but one I still find some humor in.
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/grossman/20031216.html
“I find this post very troubling, Mike. I don’t know exactly what it means.”
You found it troubling???? I found it incomprehensible. I actually had to go find the original posts and read them and it still doesn’t make a lick of sense. How on Earth does not having laws against children prove that the US government is not a system enforcing morals? For that matter, how does it show that the intent of the Founding Fathers’ words was to create a more survivable government or not? That one line of “logic” is so far “distilled” beyond the sane and rational thought process as to enter a whole new realm of “?????????????” reaction to an example of Mike Logic™. And his response to you made even less sense then the initial statement.
Run away, Micha. Run away as fast as you can. If you ever get close to believing that the exchange makes even a smidge of sense to you, well, it’ll be too late to help you even with professional psychiatrists or keep you from being dragged into insanity’s abyss with him.
“If the latter, the technique used in THE WALKING DEAD might work–roll around in some rotted flesh for a bit, throw up and walk among them as one of them. Just watch for ill timed rain showers.)”
Yeah, that was a wee bit of a disgusting idea. Not unlike some old hunters’ tricks though. There’s also the trick of chaining a couple of them together, muzzling them, whacking their arms off and walking them around with you like a couple of puppies. Not that I would trust that trick but so long. Still, it’s at least rain proof.
Bill Mulligan said: “My assumption has always been that in the time between death and reanimation much of the outer layers of the brain die off, leaving only the inner “reptile” brain functioning post reanimation. Sort of like what happens as you drink.
The result is a creature that still has motor functions (though impaired) and the most primal need–to eat–still operating.”
Schematic, but okay. I can buy the learning centers of the brain becoming disabled, while other parts continue to function, either normally or at an increased capacity.
“Hey, it could be worse, what if it was the sex drive that survived?“
One word: Reavers.
“So the question is then how much of the rest of the brain survived and is it enough to begin the slow process of learning all over again. Bub and Big Daddy seem to indicate that it can be done and even that with learning the compulsion to feed is reduced.“
What if that’s why they eat brains? One of the weaker arcs of Sliders explored a nonetheless interesting scenario where a man with a degenerative neurological condition injected himself with fluids from other people’s brain-stems, killing them in the process. This is to zombies as photo-sensitive blood-consuming disease is to classic vampirism.
Speaking of zombies, any thoughts of the zombified parody of the teen- and child-oriented Mary Jane cover controversy?
Mike: “nor any US laws against children, who at the start of their lives depend on their parents for all things, and who cannot legally consent to many things until their late teens.”
Micha: “I find this post very troubling, Mike. I don’t know exactly what it means.”
Jerry: “You found it troubling???? I found it incomprehensible. I actually had to go find the original posts and read them and it still doesn’t make a lick of sense.”
That would have been reason enough to abandon this discussion. My previous experience conversing with Mike would have been reason enough. But I wasn’t smart enough to do it for these reasons. It was something else.
why would anybody connect the issue of consent to the morality or immorality of having children? There could be other explanations for this, and I’m probably reading too much into this sentence, but I still find the post very troubling. I hope I’m wrong.
Here are links about Spinoza:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spinoza/#2.5
plato.stanford.edu/entries/spinoza-psychological/
Certainly not simple. Not a philosopherr that can be reduced to a few bullet points.
Micha, feel free to present anything incompatible with the wikipedia passages I cited anytime you’re ready.
I don’t doubt it. That may even qualify a state government as a morality-enforcing institution, but not the US government.
Micha insists:
If these were statements were true, there would be some governmental action against the most dependent class of America, young children. Your incredulity demonstrates the ridiculousness of what Micha contends — I am merely the messenger.
It Ain’t Rocket Surgery.™