EPTOn June 29 2010 06:29 Hawk wrote:
Well this was at least positive:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37975223/ns/politics/
Well this was at least positive:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37975223/ns/politics/
5-4 judgments don't fill me with much confidence.
Iceland Legalizes Same Sex Marriage - Page 11
| Blogs > Alou |
|
R1CH
Netherlands10340 Posts
5-4 judgments don't fill me with much confidence. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10089 Posts
On June 29 2010 05:56 Fontong wrote: That's like saying single parents should have their children taken away from them. I'm not going to jump into the debate on this one, but I just want to say that this analogy has been used a lot in this thread and it is so absurd and flawed. The other line that has been used a lot is, "there are plenty of children in heterosexual homes that are worse off." Those hetero couples probably wouldn't be allowed to adopt either. Taking a kid away from his parents it's not as easy as qualifying/rejecting someone to adopt children. I'd bet there are a lot more lesbian couples that get turned down for adoption than there are children that have been taken away from their biological mother(s). | ||
|
Fontong
United States6454 Posts
On June 29 2010 10:22 BlackJack wrote: I'm not going to jump into the debate on this one, but I just want to say that this analogy has been used a lot in this thread and it is so absurd and flawed. The other line that has been used a lot is, "there are plenty of children in heterosexual homes that are worse off." Those hetero couples probably wouldn't be allowed to adopt either. Taking a kid away from his parents it's not as easy as qualifying/rejecting someone to adopt children. I'd bet there are a lot more lesbian couples that get turned down for adoption than there are children that have been taken away from their biological mother(s). Even if that is so, your point is equally as flawed and absurd. Of course there are far less children taken away from their biological mothers than lesbian couples who are denied for adoption because the former is far harder to verify at all. Unless there is major, major reason that is obvious to the outside world, the child won't be taken away from their parent. It's far easier to look at and evaluate a paper then determine that someone is unfit for adoption. In any case, it's still like saying that single parents should have their children taken away if you say that homosexual couples shouldn't be allowed to adopt children. By saying that, you are presuming that parents of a single sex are more unfit that parents of both sexes. Obviously, there is no way to determine this except by making it a case by case basis. | ||
|
deL
Australia5540 Posts
| ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7793 Posts
On June 29 2010 02:58 MoltkeWarding wrote: If I were of a similar bent, I could have said that Aristotle was inclined to think homosexuality aberrant, and left it at that. A minor correction though; you didn't start with Foucault, but ended with him. Just as Aristotle was the Philosopher of late-medieval scholastics, Foucault seems to be the Philosopher whose thought is gospel. A closer inspection of my argumentation though, reveals no inclination against which Foucault struggled. I did not claim that homosexuality was unnatural, on the contrary, I claimed that nature was an insufficient source for people. I flattered Foucault by giving social constructs more credit than it is seriously due. I did not exclude Greek sodomy from a consideration of sexual nature, but I did claim to think that we have superseded it. I did not claim that Christian marriage is the only form of marriage, but I do think that it is under the circumstances the best form of marriage. These are the essentials of what I wrote. Therefore I don't think what I said can be reduced to a position, to be refuted by another position whose essentials in no way refute what I said. Hum... The whole problem is that we are talking about two different things. I am talking about civil marriage you are talking about christian marriage. In my country, and I think it should be the same everywhere, they are two different things. I don't give a damn about christian church not marrying gays. But when two people get married in front of the law it basically have nothing to do with the metaphysical bullshit (sorry, but for me it is bullshit) about redemption of the flesh etc etc etc... BUT the right to build up a family and to be recognize as a couple by the law. On June 29 2010 02:58 MoltkeWarding wrote: It means simply, that more is less, whether in money or in carnal opportunities, or words or tragedies. That is the meaning of Aesop's Boy who cried wolf, whose wolf meant everything and therefore nothing. The same principle applies to marriage. Yes but no. Creating and discussing concept is the whole object of philosophy (Deleuze). And a concept is never set in stone. Cratyle and all semyology explains it all... On June 29 2010 02:58 MoltkeWarding wrote: Actually, that was more or less the conception I had when referring to original meaning in connection with that word. You have to give others credit, that they are at least equally capable of thinking counter-intuitively as yourself. Yes, but in that case, you see that what we call democracy is everything but what Plato was calling himself democracy (which for him was a disaster). If you read the work of french philosoher Jaques Rancière for example, you will see that his whole work is a battle for the original meaning of the word democracy. That's what politics is about: battles for the meaning of concepts. Same applies to marriage. On June 29 2010 02:58 MoltkeWarding wrote: I understand what you mean by calling me reactionary, but I don't understand what you imply by it. After all, adoption of jargon is to be forever to be bound to the mental cliches of jargon. A man with imagination who bursts the bonds of prescriptive vocabulary, ought to mean something different by "reactionary" than the stale associations of Leninist demagogy. But, despite all my resolution in being progressive in thought, I am limited by this essential problem: I do not understand what you are saying. Your position on the evolution of concepts is reactionary because you are basically wanting things to stay as they are. "Mariage has a meaning, it's the christian union of a man and a woman in front of God", and we are still leaving in the same society in 4000 years. In other words, I said reactionary because you want to stick to what you think is the truie meaning of the word marriage, and therefore to traditions set in stone. On June 29 2010 02:58 MoltkeWarding wrote: Not at all, guilt, like fear is the most rational as well as the most natural of impulses. It is not a matter of social brainwashing, but the most essential consequence of the intellect which can recognize the connection between past and future, between deeds and consequences. Well, we can also refer to Nietszche, Spinoza or Deleuze to show how guilt is the affect of domination, the affect of the slaves, to use Niestzche's words. You know, hate of life, reactive forces, self-hate etc... You are a christian, that's fine, but there is no reason why society should be built around an affect that everybody who is not religious has every reason to find abject. And since once again, we are talking about civil marriage, we should maybe leave that outside. On June 29 2010 02:58 MoltkeWarding wrote: If marriage is the union in front of the law of two people who love each other, what is its purpose? As I intimated, marriage is not primarily about the law, but in its primary nature, about love. Thus, very sensibly, the ceremony of marriage is an event under the doctrine of Catholic theology different from the consummation of marriage, and it is possible under the same to be married even in absence of the prescribed ceremony. Once again, confusion between two things. You talk about theology, but marriage as an institution concerns equally christians, buddhist, jews, satanist or atheists. A marriage is a civil contract in order to make a family. Then if you are christian and you need to be cleared from the sin and purify yourself in the holy sacrement, well, your business. You go to the church and you get married by the priest. On June 29 2010 02:58 MoltkeWarding wrote: I conceded the point at the beginning, it makes no difference to the Icelandic law what I say about homosexuality or marriage. However, you must be consistent about this: either a person's argument is merely subjective, and therefore personal and individual, or his argument is social and participant, in which he makes a claim to the understanding of others. Therefore it is not only "very good" that I have a personal philosophy, but it is also good that it is not merely a personal one. Degradation is very simply underperforming relative to the potential of your nature. A person who behaves like a pig degrades himself. This is clear enough. I am not religious. I don't think flesh is dirty. I don't believe in the sin. I don't believe in transcendance. And you see, I am a faithful loving person. Making an opposition between living a a pig and believing in this whole reactive religious thing which claims that everything which is good and beautiful is bad and you should feel guilty about it is a bit fallacious. On June 29 2010 02:58 MoltkeWarding wrote: How powerless is this power, and how ignorant in human nature. I suppose by this account, the impulses of humanity are driven to this deduction: Human beings build up families. To this end, I must marry. Is it possible than an understanding with so little humanity is to prescribe wise laws for humanity? By treating men as though they were simple like machines, as if inner life were merely the superstructure of inhuman reality, we arrive at the most unrealistic vision of all. It is the Lucifer-complex of the philosopher, who is the only man in the world unable to liberate himself of the enslaving Zeitgeist. I see christian ideology as an enslaving one, as the one which depreciate life constantly like a horrible pain factory. So it's a question of point of view I guess. You don't need transcendance nor religion to have a high idea of what life is about. On the exact opposite, I would say. Have you read Spinoza? | ||
|
QuanticHawk
United States32026 Posts
On June 29 2010 07:46 R1CH wrote: 5-4 judgments don't fill me with much confidence. no but I was trying to be positive  | ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
Hum... The whole problem is that we are talking about two different things. I am talking about civil marriage you are talking about christian marriage. In my country, and I think it should be the same everywhere, they are two different things. I don't give a damn about christian church not marrying gays. But when two people get married in front of the law it basically have nothing to do with the metaphysical bullshit (sorry, but for me it is bullshit) about redemption of the flesh etc etc etc... BUT the right to build up a family and to be recognize as a couple by the law. Hence I used the word "evil" and not imprudent, impractical, unjust, unfair, or any other adjective. Not everything evil can be or should be illegal. There is such a thing as circumstantial ethics, that is not the point. The real injury to this entire debate is that people are all too willing to hide behind legal philosophies (of course, the realities of Icelandic culture are ignored,) as a substitute for their lack of moral conviction. "I don't see any reason not to grant homosexual marriage" in essence means the same thing as "I have not given much thought to the matter." The argument never leaves its ideological first principles, which are permissiveness and isonomy. I haven't seen anyone make a convincing case for homosexual marriage as a legal right either, since as I said, marriage deprived of transfiguration remains a natural (albeit less beautiful) reality. There is no question of legitimate inheritance (the primary consideration in Greek marriage), there is no question tax and welfare benefits (since those benefits are not integral to the right in dispute), there is no question of adoption being a natural right. What remains in dispute then, but the essential quality of marriage? What could the law give a couple, which they could not give themselves? If you accept, as I do, that the essential quality of marriage is made in the heart and not on paper, you will plainly understand the relative indifference with which I view the dictates of lawgivers. Yes but no. Creating and discussing concept is the whole object of philosophy (Deleuze). And a concept is never set in stone. Cratyle and all semyology explains it all... The point is not under discussion. No one disputes the reality and necessity of semantic shifts throughout a language's history. Yet there is no need for such a confusion of processes and ends. The end of all revolutions is stability, the end of all heresy is orthodoxy. Revolution and heresy cannot be ends for their own sake. Similarly, it is not that a word will be set in stone, but a word should be set in stone. This is not paradoxial. Movement cannot be conceived without stillness. A man who discovers that going to New York by plane is superior to going there by boat, cannot enjoy this superiority by refusing to land in New York. The only question then is the quality of the change being proposed, whether by shifting a thing's meaning, we give greater poetry or clarity to the word in question. Christianity gave marriage a different quality than that which existed under Roman marriage, yet by its prescription of supernatural marriage, was ultimately constructive, rather than destructive vis-a-vis the institution it replaced. Could the same argument be made for this case of semantic inflation? This was the aim of my jesture. You are a christian, that's fine, but there is no reason why society should be built around an affect that everybody who is not religious has every reason to find abject. Suppose I am not a Christian, but see the purpose behind Christianity? As I said, the bottom of person's beliefs cannot be simply swept under the rug by saying: "this person is a Christian, this person is a Muslim, they will never quite see eye to eye." Perhaps, but every Christian thought, no less than individual thought, is an argument, not merely personal and private. Therefore the extremities of secular partition is wrong. It is one thing to have an independent church and an independent state, it is another to pretend that the two inhabit distinct, isolated realities. I see christian ideology as an enslaving one, as the one which depreciate life constantly like a horrible pain factory. I wonder if you have not confounded Christianity with Buddhism, or with the more morbid aspects of puritanism. Christianity supports marriage precisely because it gives pleasure through charity. It supports monastic abstinence because of the even higher calling of contemplative pleasure. Its mortification of the flesh is not affected by the fear of suffering (indeed, Christianity's ultimate martyr symbolized the virtue of suffering,) but by the superior virtues of charity. That is what I mean by constructive philosophy, a thing which, like art, transcends a thing by creating the illusion of a higher reality. You don't need transcendance nor religion to have a high idea of what life is about. On the exact opposite, I would say. Have you read Spinoza? I don't see why Spinoza's God should give us a higher conception of life. After all, Roger Bacon had much the same idea about discovering God by inference through nature. It is not that our western religion denies the reality of nature, but it does not equate nature to what is most high. Anyhow, I do not feel that theology is much to the point, and the point is that I am no way expounding a personal faith here. I am merely pointing out that a non-religious and religious understanding of the world are not mutually exclusive. If you look at my background, you will find few of the superstructural symptoms which would incline me to talk about Saint Paul. The only reason I bring the matter up is I do not dismiss what I find to be reasonable, even if it's said by a Christian saint. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7793 Posts
On June 29 2010 20:48 MoltkeWarding wrote: Hence I used the word "evil" and not imprudent, impractical, unjust, unfair, or any other adjective. Not everything evil can be or should be illegal. There is such a thing as circumstantial ethics, that is not the point. The real injury to this entire debate is that people are all too willing to hide behind legal philosophies (of course, the realities of Icelandic culture are ignored,) as a substitute for their lack of moral conviction. "I don't see any reason not to grant homosexual marriage" in essence means the same thing as "I have not given much thought to the matter." The argument never leaves its ideological first principles, which are permissiveness and isonomy. I haven't seen anyone make a convincing case for homosexual marriage as a legal right either, since as I said, marriage deprived of transfiguration remains a natural (albeit less beautiful) reality. There is no question of legitimate inheritance (the primary consideration in Greek marriage), there is no question tax and welfare benefits (since those benefits are not integral to the right in dispute), there is no question of adoption being a natural right. What remains in dispute then, but the essential quality of marriage? What could the law give a couple, which they could not give themselves? If you accept, as I do, that the essential quality of marriage is made in the heart and not on paper, you will plainly understand the relative indifference with which I view the dictates of lawgivers. What I am trying to tell you since the beginning is that marriage is basically two distinct things. A laic recognition of the will of making a family by the law (the paper) OR a philosophical / religious / metaphysical act that everybody has the right to perceive differently (the heart). We are talking about the first one. We are talking of the marriage as a contract. I know many people for whom marriage didn't change anything or who have lived as the best husband and wife without marrying. So what? And I know people who have married after 10 years of living together for practical reason and it has not changed anything (may parents). So tiding together as if it was the same thing as it used to be five hundred years ago is fallacious. On June 29 2010 20:48 MoltkeWarding wrote: The point is not under discussion. No one disputes the reality and necessity of semantic shifts throughout a language's history. Yet there is no need for such a confusion of processes and ends. The end of all revolutions is stability, the end of all heresy is orthodoxy. Revolution and heresy cannot be ends for their own sake. Similarly, it is not that a word will be set in stone, but a word should be set in stone. This is not paradoxial. Movement cannot be conceived without stillness. A man who discovers that going to New York by plane is superior to going there by boat, cannot enjoy this superiority by refusing to land in New York. The only question then is the quality of the change being proposed, whether by shifting a thing's meaning, we give greater poetry or clarity to the word in question. Christianity gave marriage a different quality than that which existed under Roman marriage, yet by its prescription of supernatural marriage, was ultimately constructive, rather than destructive vis-a-vis the institution it replaced. Could the same argument be made for this case of semantic inflation? This was the aim of my jesture. That's your conception that I, and many people would (all dissensualists philosophers) reactionary. A concept has to be questionned again and again endlessely. As much as order has to be undermined equally endlessely (cf Jacques Rancière dichotomy between police and politics and his work on democracy), etc... That is not because we love revolution but because what we believe being evil is stillness and order (in other word hierarchy and domination). Plus what I am trying to say is that it is not a semantic problem. The question is not to give greater clarity to a concept. The question is a political question and therefore it questions a concept. Do homosexual have a right to exist as such in front of the law in our society? On June 29 2010 20:48 MoltkeWarding wrote: Suppose I am not a Christian, but see the purpose behind Christianity? As I said, the bottom of person's beliefs cannot be simply swept under the rug by saying: "this person is a Christian, this person is a Muslim, they will never quite see eye to eye." Perhaps, but every Christian thought, no less than individual thought, is an argument, not merely personal and private. Therefore the extremities of secular partition is wrong. It is one thing to have an independent church and an independent state, it is another to pretend that the two inhabit distinct, isolated realities. Ok, let's put it simplier. I am not believer. Therefore I don't believe that man was born guilty because of a non-existent ancestor that was punished for a breach to an inexistent law made by an inexistent transcendant judgemental God (that's an atheist point of view). Why on earth would I want an institution to clear me from a guilt that I don't have any reason to have? That's why in France we have two distinct marriages. Religious marriage, and civil marriage. On June 29 2010 20:48 MoltkeWarding wrote: I wonder if you have not confounded Christianity with Buddhism, or with the more morbid aspects of puritanism. Christianity supports marriage precisely because it gives pleasure through charity. It supports monastic abstinence because of the even higher calling of contemplative pleasure. Its mortification of the flesh is not affected by the fear of suffering (indeed, Christianity's ultimate martyr symbolized the virtue of suffering,) but by the superior virtues of charity. That is what I mean by constructive philosophy, a thing which, like art, transcends a thing by creating the illusion of a higher reality. I have a very good book for you. It's called the Anti-Christ, by Nietszche, and it explains it all in the most convincing fashion.Christian conception is that life needs to be redeemed by transcandance because life, in itself, is guilty. Therefore christianity is depreciating life. I don't feel guilty, and I don't feel that I need transcendance to give a justification to my existence. And I don't want the laws of my country being tied up with a pain-making judgemental philosophy. On June 29 2010 20:48 MoltkeWarding wrote: I don't see why Spinoza's God should give us a higher conception of life. After all, Roger Bacon had much the same idea about discovering God by inference through nature. It is not that our western religion denies the reality of nature, but it does not equate nature to what is most high. Anyhow, I do not feel that theology is much to the point, and the point is that I am no way expounding a personal faith here. I am merely pointing out that a non-religious and religious understanding of the world are not mutually exclusive. If you look at my background, you will find few of the superstructural symptoms which would incline me to talk about Saint Paul. The only reason I bring the matter up is I do not dismiss what I find to be reasonable, even if it's said by a Christian saint. I asked you about Spinoza because he gives the best example of philosophy of immanence. There is no transcendance whatsoever in Spinoza as God is the unique and infinite substance. His God is not a legislator, good and evil don't exist in his system, sin is for him an invention of men and guilt is a pain and should be fought. Was thinking about that: That is what I mean by constructive philosophy, a thing which, like art, transcends a thing by creating the illusion of a higher reality. | ||
|
Orome
Switzerland11984 Posts
![[image loading]](http://wac.osu.edu/tutorials/images/calvin-writing.gif) | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7793 Posts
On June 29 2010 22:05 Orome wrote: lol How dare you? EDIT: Actually, it made me laugh out loud. <3 Calvin & Hobbes. | ||
|
GogoKodo
Canada1785 Posts
On June 29 2010 20:48 MoltkeWarding wrote: Hence I used the word "evil" and not imprudent, impractical, unjust, unfair, or any other adjective. Not everything evil can be or should be illegal. There is such a thing as circumstantial ethics, that is not the point. The real injury to this entire debate is that people are all too willing to hide behind legal philosophies (of course, the realities of Icelandic culture are ignored,) as a substitute for their lack of moral conviction. "I don't see any reason not to grant homosexual marriage" in essence means the same thing as "I have not given much thought to the matter." The argument never leaves its ideological first principles, which are permissiveness and isonomy. I haven't seen anyone make a convincing case for homosexual marriage as a legal right either, since as I said, marriage deprived of transfiguration remains a natural (albeit less beautiful) reality. There is no question of legitimate inheritance (the primary consideration in Greek marriage), there is no question tax and welfare benefits (since those benefits are not integral to the right in dispute), there is no question of adoption being a natural right. What remains in dispute then, but the essential quality of marriage? What could the law give a couple, which they could not give themselves? If you accept, as I do, that the essential quality of marriage is made in the heart and not on paper, you will plainly understand the relative indifference with which I view the dictates of lawgivers. Biff is doing a fine job arguing with you but I though I should make this piece of your writing a point. First, "I don't see any reason not to grant homosexual marriage" in essence means the same thing as "I have not given much thought to the matter." Quite, a jump to conclusions there. That first sentence says not a single thing about how much thought has been put to the matter. Quite the contrary, in a predominantly religious nation one needs to put more thought into the matter to get beyond the common position of "Gays are icky", and/or "The Bible says Gays are an aberration. Like shellfish!" It's true that coming up with a nice simple sentence "I don't see any reason not to grant homosexual marriage" could mean the person hasn't put much thought into the issue, it could also mean that after a lot of research, thinking and arguments presented by both sides they don't see anything reasonable on your side of things. Second, There is no question of legitimate inheritance (the primary consideration in Greek marriage), there is no question tax and welfare benefits (since those benefits are not integral to the right in dispute), there is no question of adoption being a natural right. What remains in dispute then, but the essential quality of marriage? What could the law give a couple, which they could not give themselves? It doesn't matter that adoption and such are not a natural right. We are talking about any rights which are afforded straight marriages that are not given to gay marriages just because of the sex of the couple. For example, non-spoilered for emphasis. Rights and benefits Right to benefits while married:
Responsibilities
Ambiguous There are some laws that either benefit or penalize married couples over single people, depending upon their own circumstances:
Yes this is from wikipedia (oooh terrible source), but it's a start. This list is not comprehensive, if you wish to read further on the things that the law will give a couple that they cannot get themselves then try http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04353r.pdf | ||
|
Subversive
Australia2229 Posts
On June 28 2010 22:10 enzym wrote: hormones, like oxytocin for example? im no biologist, but thats one that came to mind. You certainly aren't a biologist. That neuro-modulator is released in the brain for several reasons. And in men, it's vasopressin that is released. In women, it is released during: childbirth, breast-feeding. In men it is released: when a man looks at a picture of his children or at his child. So by your logic women who can't breastfeed or men who are blind shouldn't be allowed to have children? Fantastic. Also, straight couples shouldn't adopt either then. Well done. Nor should people raise children that aren't their own if they remarry. Glad you cleared that all up for us. On a serious note, the study of our brains and how they work is in it's infancy. Pretending you have the answers by mentioning oxytocin is silly. | ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
What I am trying to tell you since the beginning is that marriage is basically two distinct things. A laic recognition of the will of making a family by the law (the paper) OR a philosophical / religious / metaphysical act that everybody has the right to perceive differently (the heart). To untangle the metaphysical knot, the matter can be simply said using old jargon: Marriage is a state, and in its primary condition, it is a thing which has nothing to do with the law, for marriage exists independently of marital laws, but not vice-versa. Marriage before the law is a species of that primary state, and not an identical synonym. We are talking about the first one. We are talking of the marriage as a contract. Who today still speaks of marriage in the age of unilateral divorce as any kind of contract? If there is a contract at all, the contract is nearly impotent. There are no conditions within this contract which are enforcible by law except stipulations over property and children. The latter is irrelevant in the case of homosexual marriage. The former does not depend on the institution of marriage. A concept has to be questionned again and again endlessely. As much as order has to be undermined equally endlessely (cf Jacques Rancière dichotomy between police and politics and his work on democracy), etc... That is not because we love revolution but because what we believe being evil is stillness and order (in other word hierarchy and domination). How can one call a thing evil, which is stillness and order? To call a thing evil, there has to be a moral order which is a point of reference for one's ethics. This entire notion that the very concept of evil is evil, is an absurdity which has to be shaken out of the minds of moral relativists on the prowl today. If domination is evil, then motion is the thing which will most inevitably lead to evil, for the purpose of all things is movement towards excellence and therefore domination. If hierarchy is evil, then destruction of the social hierarchy is the greatest evil, for by it we are reduced to a hierarchy of nature, which has less pity for the downtrodden than even the most tyrannical of human constitutions. Politics is not philosophy, there is no multiple jeopardy. A man can harmlessly adopt an erroneous theory and then later change his mind with few injuries to the world. In politics, a grave error of conception, a fragile experience of human nature may be corrected after a path of a thousand corpses. This is why few ideological revolutions ever succeed to their essential purposes, whereas those revolutions which do succeed are essentially conservative revolutions. Ok, let's put it simplier. I am not believer. Therefore I don't believe that man was born guilty because of a non-existent ancestor that was punished for a breach to an inexistent law made by an inexistent transcendant judgemental God (that's an atheist point of view). Why on earth would I want an institution to clear me from a guilt that I don't have any reason to have? The teaching of original sin is the teaching of human nature, not of a particular act. It's ultimate meaning is that evil is an integral part of human nature, and that contrary to the liberal denial of sin, there is such a thing as human taintedness. A liberal wishes to improve the world, but the thing he attempts to improve is always someone or something else. The teaching of original sin is merely this: the fault lies not in the stars, but in ourselves. The first task of morality is to overcome one's own flawed nature, and not the flaws of the impersonal world. I have a very good book for you. It's called the Anti-Christ, by Nietszche, and it explains it all in the most convincing fashion.Christian conception is that life needs to be redeemed by transcandance because life, in itself, is guilty. Therefore christianity is depreciating life. As much as I love reading his revolt against doctile morality, Nietzsche is hardly to be taken seriously in debate. One only proves his truths by living them. I quote from Chesterton's hilarious passage: Joan of Arc was not stuck at the cross-roads, either by rejecting all the paths like Tolstoy, or by accepting them all like Nietzsche. She chose a path, and went down it like a thunderbolt. Yet Joan, when I came to think of her, had in her all that was true either in Tolstoy or Nietzsche, all that was even tolerable in either of them. I thought of all that is noble in Tolstoy, the pleasure in plain things, especially in plain pity, the actualities of the earth, the reverence for the poor, the dignity of the bowed back. Joan of Arc had all that and with this great addition, that she endured poverty as well as admiring it; whereas Tolstoy is only a typical aristocrat trying to find out its secret. And then I thought of all that was brave and proud and pathetic in poor Nietzsche, and his mutiny against the emptiness and timidity of our time. I thought of his cry for the ecstatic equilibrium of danger, his hunger for the rush of great horses, his cry to arms. Well, Joan of Arc had all that, and again with this difference, that she did not praise fighting, but fought. We KNOW that she was not afraid of an army, while Nietzsche, for all we know, was afraid of a cow. Tolstoy only praised the peasant; she was the peasant. Nietzsche only praised the warrior; she was the warrior. She beat them both at their own antagonistic ideals; she was more gentle than the one, more violent than the other. Yet she was a perfectly practical person who did something, while they are wild speculators who do nothing. It was impossible that the thought should not cross my mind that she and her faith had perhaps some secret of moral unity and utility that has been lost. I don't feel guilty, and I don't feel that I need transcendance to give a justification to my existence. And I don't want the laws of my country being tied up with a pain-making judgemental philosophy. One wonders where then, you look, for the source of your country's laws. In Anglo-Saxon countries, we look back on tradition and precedent. It's on the continent where laws have had a habit of being tied up precisely with judgemental philosophy. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10089 Posts
On June 29 2010 13:23 Fontong wrote: In any case, it's still like saying that single parents should have their children taken away if you say that homosexual couples shouldn't be allowed to adopt children. Again, how do you come up with this analogy? It's so random and makes no sense whatsoever. Let's say a family has a child and the father is drafted to go fight a war. The father dies in the war and the mom is now a single mother. Because we deny homosexuals the right to adopt, that baby should be taken away from it's mother? That is logical to you? The army guys comes to tell the widow that her husband is fallen and then says "I'm sorry but we're going to have to take your kid because homosexuals can't adopt." | ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
Quite, a jump to conclusions there. That first sentence says not a single thing about how much thought has been put to the matter. Quite the contrary, in a predominantly religious nation one needs to put more thought into the matter to get beyond the common position of "Gays are icky", and/or "The Bible says Gays are an aberration. Like shellfish!" It's true that coming up with a nice simple sentence "I don't see any reason not to grant homosexual marriage" could mean the person hasn't put much thought into the issue, it could also mean that after a lot of research, thinking and arguments presented by both sides they don't see anything reasonable on your side of things. I confess that my assumption was no more than an assumption. However, there is something real in it. If a man tells me that he didn't steal my wallet while looking dodgy and nervous, I may reasonably assume him to be lying, even though it's no more than an assumption. However, I mean to prove to you how your response seems to justify my suspicions: My claim: "The argument never leaves its ideological first principles, which are permissiveness and isonomy. " Your rebuke: "It doesn't matter that adoption and such are not a natural right. We are talking about any rights which are afforded straight marriages that are not given to gay marriages just because of the sex of the couple." A statement predicted by the first argument I happened to make in this thread: "The absurdity of this claim, the monomania of their social philosophy is easily exposed by at once eying the inequality they mean to flatten. Marriage is not a natural right to be distributed rationally. Every marriage is its own superstition which is a prejudice by nature. Indeed, the greater the prejudice, the more constructive the institution." There has been one attempt to dispute this hypothesis, and I await the debater's reply. On your comment about the mediocre debating abilities of some religious fundamentalists: I suppose it's true, that the "God says gays are icky" crowd will have a difficult time proving their point in a debating club. However, there is one respect in which the fundamentalist is superior to the agnostic: he is essentially free to choose his own master. The fundamentalist will say: I don't care what you say, how eloquent, logical, sublime your words and arguments. I will believe what I believe. It is the religion of my birth, upbringing, and conviction, because its truth is consecrated not in the reality of sophistry, but in the reality of my life and my experiences. The rationalist will say: because of the eloquence, logic and sublimity of your words and arguments, I have no choice but to believe you. If I cannot dispute your reason, though my guts and instincts revolt against it, I must adopt your beliefs. The fundamentalist may be dominated by the spirit of the past, the inheritance of his blood, the richness of his circumstances, but he will never be dominated by any individual. The mind of the rationalist can be dominated by any clever charlatan. In truth, there is a little of the fundamentalist and a little of the rationalist in everyone. Much of the culture war is a battle of hot air. There is the jealousy of hating the intellectual whom we cannot outwit, there is the mockery from a bad conscience, which we as internet veterans, ought to understand amply. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7793 Posts
On June 30 2010 01:59 MoltkeWarding wrote: To untangle the metaphysical knot, the matter can be simply said using old jargon: Marriage is a state, and in its primary condition, it is a thing which has nothing to do with the law, for marriage exists independently of marital laws, but not vice-versa. Marriage before the law is a species of that primary state, and not an identical synonym. You know, I am not native english speaker. I takes me like half an hour to understand this kind of sentences. I gave you an example of people who have 1- lived "married" (in the sense of loving each other and living in faithfulness, building a family and tiding up their life together) without being married (the contract) 2- got married without it having any effect on their common life, projects, metaphysical connexion, etc... so, the other way round, married (institutionnaly) without marrying (making a step in the life in a meaningful way). So as much as I understand your point, I don't agree. Would have been very true 300 years ago, but not anymore. The dissociation of religious and contractual marriage is a fact. And the very proof of that fact is that if you ask laic people why they marry, they will answer you that it's for what the contract is designed for: be recognized as husband and wife by the law. On June 30 2010 01:59 MoltkeWarding wrote: Who today still speaks of marriage in the age of unilateral divorce as any kind of contract? If there is a contract at all, the contract is nearly impotent. There are no conditions within this contract which are enforcible by law except stipulations over property and children. The latter is irrelevant in the case of homosexual marriage. The former does not depend on the institution of marriage. Someone has made a post after the Calvin joke which expllains pretty well why this contract is, on the very opposite of what you say, a huge deal. On June 30 2010 01:59 MoltkeWarding wrote: How can one call a thing evil, which is stillness and order? To call a thing evil, there has to be a moral order which is a point of reference for one's ethics. This entire notion that the very concept of evil is evil, is an absurdity which has to be shaken out of the minds of moral relativists on the prowl today. If domination is evil, then motion is the thing which will most inevitably lead to evil, for the purpose of all things is movement towards excellence and therefore domination. If hierarchy is evil, then destruction of the social hierarchy is the greatest evil, for by it we are reduced to a hierarchy of nature, which has less pity for the downtrodden than even the most tyrannical of human constitutions. Politics is not philosophy, there is no multiple jeopardy. A man can harmlessly adopt an erroneous theory and then later change his mind with few injuries to the world. In politics, a grave error of conception, a fragile experience of human nature may be corrected after a path of a thousand corpses. This is why few ideological revolutions ever succeed to their essential purposes, whereas those revolutions which do succeed are essentially conservative revolutions. Look. You use arguments which are very good, I almost wonder if I am not reading Locke. Problem is that since then, there have been French Revolution, Marxism etc etc etc... which were all good and bad, but brought much to the understanding of politics (no gulag and Lenin argument, please, I got tired of them). In other word, the world have changed since the time we could have an utopic idea of the well oiled society where everybody and everything is at its place. So, well, there is still a political current that believe that a good society is a still, morally and socially ordered society, where the natural hierarchy of domination is not disturbed. That's called the right-wing. And my very personnal opinion about is, as was saying Marguerite Duras that: "La droite, c'est la mort". let's not talk about revolutions, it's not even the subject since you don't need a revolution to subvert / unndermine social order. Now politic and philosophy work hand into hand, since Plato to the XXth century most important philosophers. Not because philosophers make good theory, but because philosophy has the same object than politics, which is as I was saying, the battle for words, for concepts. On June 30 2010 01:59 MoltkeWarding wrote: The teaching of original sin is the teaching of human nature, not of a particular act. It's ultimate meaning is that evil is an integral part of human nature, and that contrary to the liberal denial of sin, there is such a thing as human taintedness. A liberal wishes to improve the world, but the thing he attempts to improve is always someone or something else. The teaching of original sin is merely this: the fault lies not in the stars, but in ourselves. The first task of morality is to overcome one's own flawed nature, and not the flaws of the impersonal world. That's a christian point of view and everytime I read something like that, I die a little bit inside. I don't see human nature as being guilty, and I don't believe there is such things as good and evil. That's true, the sin teachs us that the fault lies in the star, but it also tells us that in the star there is a legislator who judge us and declare us guilty. And that sucks. On June 30 2010 01:59 MoltkeWarding wrote: As much as I love reading his revolt against doctile morality, Nietzsche is hardly to be taken seriously in debate. One only proves his truths by living them. I quote from Chesterton's hilarious passage: I think on the contrary that Nietszche is probably the best analyst, with Feuerbach maybe, of christianity. It is not a revolt against morality, it's a revolt against all judgemental philosophy. Saying that Nietszche shouldn't be taken seriously is basically saying that he was not a great philosopher. Now about that extract, that's very good, but the fact that Nietszche did that or that is irrelevant and doesn't change anything to what he has written. And the comparison with Joan d'Arc is a poetic one but doesn't bring anything neither unnless we should start comparing Kennedy and Homer. His points on christianity, on moral, on transcendance are absolutely valid, and he remains a key figure of european philosophy. On June 30 2010 01:59 MoltkeWarding wrote: One wonders where then, you look, for the source of your country's laws. In Anglo-Saxon countries, we look back on tradition and precedent. It's on the continent where laws have had a habit of being tied up precisely with judgemental philosophy. I didn't know about that, and you are very very smart. But you talk about judgemental philosophy an other way than me, and you know it. Your objection is a sophism as you voluntarily mix up between two meaning of the word judgement in philosophy: -judgement in a kantian term as operation of claiming, denaying a propositionnal content and the particular current of the late XVIIIth century philsophy which is therefore called judgemental philosophy (the one you refer about.) -judgement as the judicial act of declairing peole guilty or innocent. The christian philosophy is judgemental, not in the kantian way, but because its god is a legislator. In another word I was talking about a judgental philosophy, not the judgmental philosophy. | ||
|
Romantic
United States1844 Posts
 I'm judging all of you for discussion judgmental philosophy. Take THAT! Go Iceland! | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7793 Posts
On June 30 2010 02:52 Romantic wrote: Oh lawd, who turned this into a philosophical discussion? I'm judging all of you for discussion judgmental philosophy. Take THAT! Go Iceland! Look, we are having huge fun! | ||
|
Alou
United States3748 Posts
| ||
|
[UoN]Sentinel
United States11320 Posts
| ||
| ||
