Human Rights & Wrongs

Discussion of articles that appear in the magazine.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Nick_A
Posts: 831
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Human Rights & Wrongs

Postby Nick_A » Sun Feb 12, 2017 6:43 pm

Ansiktsburk wrote:
Nick_A wrote:I’ve avoided this site once I experienced that it was controlled by a clique seeking to destroy any suggestions that a reality exists higher than the one they function in. In other words, anything suggesting any concept of the dreaded G word must be condemned and driven away. Naturally no useful discussion is possible under these circumstances so it is better to just leave

But this question of rights has always interested me and since it was brought up again by Rick Lewis it may be possible to introduce an alternative that has been ignored within everything I’ve read pertaining to the editorial. Is the clique brave enough to destroy the editorial? But the fact that it is avoided as much as possible in real life assures that the potential for a free society is dead. It is all over but the shouting. It may be dead but we can at least know why. I’d like to introduce this alternative to the emphasis on rights for those who can profit from considering it. Who better to introduce it than Simone Weil as she did in her only book written as she was dying from TB: “The Need for Roots.” This is a translation from the original French.

"The notion of obligations comes before that of rights, which is subordinate and relative to the former. A right is not effectual by itself, but only in relation to the obligation to which it corresponds, the effective exercise of a right springing not from the individual who possesses it, but from other men who consider themselves as being under a certain obligation towards him. Recognition of an obligation makes it effectual. An obligation which goes unrecognized by anybody loses none of the full force of its existence. A right which goes unrecognized by anybody is not worth very much.

It makes nonsense to say that men have, on the one hand, rights, and on the other hand, obligations. Such words only express differences in point of view. The actual relationship between the two is as between object and subject. A man, considered in isolation, only has duties, amongst which are certain duties towards himself. Other men, seen from his point of view, only have rights. He, in his turn, has rights, when seen from the point of view of other men, who recognize that they have obligations towards him. A man left alone in the universe would have no rights whatever, but he would have obligations….” - Simone Weil, “The Need for Roots”

Rights then depend on obligations. There are two kinds: voluntary and forced. A tyrant will force obligations on his subjects to enable the rights he desires for them. Once his subjects are tortured in one way or another they will adopt their obligations for the sake of rights decreed by the tyrant.

Then there is the potential for the adoption of voluntary obligations which will enable the rights desired by a free society. We experience the battle over rights. We’ve heard of gay rights, women’s rights and a ton of other rights but have you ever heard or read of the battle over gay obligations or women’s obligations etc.? People become insulted and say you can’t discriminate in this way but somehow discrimination as it relates to rights is considered justifiable and noble.

Next the question arises why anyone would feel the value of voluntary obligations especially when living in a society which emphasizes self importance, pride, and vanity? Take what you can and run. Shoot first and ask questions later. Once again I turn to Simone Weil

"The combination of these two facts — the longing in the depth of the heart for absolute good, and the power, though only latent, of directing attention and love to a reality beyond the world and of receiving good from it — constitutes a link which attaches every man without exception to that other reality.

Whoever recognizes that reality recognizes also that link. Because of it, he holds every human being without any exception as something sacred to which he is bound to show respect.

This is the only possible motive for universal respect towards all human beings. Whatever formulation of belief or disbelief a man may choose to make, if his heart inclines him to feel this respect, then he in fact also recognizes a reality other than this world's reality. Whoever in fact does not feel this respect is alien to that other reality also." ~ Simone Weil


Now I know why John Adams wrote: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

Only the presence of the influence from the essence of religion can awaken people to the human perspective allowing for the societal attitude making freedom possible.

The majority will continue to argue rights. It is the progressive way, A minority will become aware of the necessity for the adoption of voluntary obligations in order to make rights possible within a free society. Can the influence of this minority ever take hold? I don’t think so but regardless I would always do what I can to support this minority in the cause of human consciousness and the quality of freedom it can allow.


So, either you "argue rights" while others "argue obligations", with the second group having some kind of "ask what you can do for America" pow. Right? Regardless of the persons you do refer to?

Is the concepts that interesting? Sounds to me like persons aloof from the mainstream of people theoretizising about "we" ought or don't ought to do. In reality there are numbers and choices. Can you give some contemporary example of what you are talking about?


You mention the choice of arguing either rights or obligations but is it possible for America in the cause of freedom to get past arguing the value of obligations and come to emotionally experience the value of voluntarily adopting them as opposed to arguing them? I agree it cannot happen. We've become far too educated to understand why. It seems that the more head knowledge we acquire, the more heart knowledge is lost. It is not surprising why eventually the goal of freedom will fall to the reality of tyranny. We've lost the feeling of what is necessary to sustain it.

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 9088
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Human Rights & Wrongs

Postby Arising_uk » Tue Feb 14, 2017 10:04 am

Nick_A wrote:You don't respect ideas. Of course I can use an ignore function but what good is that in relation to respecting ideas? The clique wants to destroy what they don't understand. Philosophers enjoy contemplating apparent contradictions. Once it was proven that the clique dominated the site the only joy comes from participating in the destruction of ideas. ...
And you appear to only want to hear ideas that suit yours.
“Who were the fools who spread the story that brute force cannot kill ideas? Nothing is easier. And once they are dead they are no more than corpses.” ―Simone Weil


I respect the deeper ideas too much to want to kill them. It isn't a matter of ignoring the dominant efforts to kill ideas by clicking on a button but not feeling comfortable participating in their destruction. To each his own.
She's talking about actual brute action not your whining about others words and imputations of 'cliques'. If these 'deeper ideas' are so easily killed then I think them not that deep at all.

You talk much about Weil so I'd be interested in what direct action you actually take in the world as she apparently took Marxist praxis quite seriously, have you?
Last edited by Arising_uk on Tue Feb 14, 2017 9:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 9088
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Human Rights & Wrongs

Postby Arising_uk » Tue Feb 14, 2017 10:14 am

Walker wrote:Since it’s always about something else with you,

and since Bush is Obama’s default excuse for involvement,
accepted by Progs without question or responsibility to Obama, ...
And avoiding responsibility is the repugs default position.

I thought Obama was voted in exactly to extract the yank from the repugs ME disaster and let's not forget that it was the repugs who set the condition that the US would have to leave when asked by the disaster of a govt they allowed to take power.
then it’s easy enough to make England the U.S.’s default excuse.

Blame England.
I do, Blair should be tried for war-crimes and given our history and experience in the ME we should never have joined the Yank in this affair. Not least because it was driven by Oil interests, the great-game and the Yanks need to get the infidel-army boot out of Saudi as it was causing them problems and I note you still have them in Iraq despite being asked to leave as it was in-part about the latter and killing a few birds(and a few million people) with one stone.

Nick_A
Posts: 831
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Human Rights & Wrongs

Postby Nick_A » Thu Feb 16, 2017 9:47 pm

Arising wrote:
You talk much about Weil so I'd be interested in what direct action you actually take in the world as she apparently took Marxist praxis quite seriously, have you?


This is why we cannot communicate on Simone. She took certain ideas within Marxism to be true but they become meaningless out of the context of the human condition. You probably have never questioned what makes for an objective human perspective. Without it, the goals of Marxism remain impossible without a dictator to assure that under the penalty of death everyone loves everybody. You want to parrot Marxism or secularism without having ever questioned its relation to an objective human perspective. The world is filled with non thinking parrots following a party line. It isn’t my way.

"When a man joins a political party, he submissively adopts a mental attitude which he will express later on with words such as, ‘As a monarchist, as a Socialist, I think that …’ It is so comfortable! It amounts to having no thoughts at all. Nothing is more comfortable than not having to think." Simone Weil


I find it frightening when I watch political programs completely void of thought being expressed by people having lost the ability to think but instead have openly sacrificed it for the societal benefits of parroting. The clique likes to parrot. That is why it could never appreciate Simone. If anyone bothers to think even for a moment, the foolishness of the way the question of rights is presented would become obvious. You ask what I do. Doing has nothing to do with it. Simone illuminates the question of what we ARE. Once a person feels this, doing takes care of itself. I find it more beneficial to support those far greater than me who serve to promote the awakening experience rather than indulge in parroting party lines to achieve an imaginary sense of prestige..

Nick_A
Posts: 831
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Human Rights & Wrongs

Postby Nick_A » Thu Feb 16, 2017 10:14 pm

Since when have three young men lost the right to torture a turtle? They have the right to do so. What business is it of some Navy vet to try and save the turtle? He is denying the young men their rights. Is it any wonder they beat him up. Now these three young men will have to suffer the indignity of appearing in court to defend their right to protect themselves from this navy vet.

http://www.clickorlando.com/news/dayton ... police-say

We must defend our rights. Simone Weil wrote — 'One cannot imagine St. Francis of Assisi talking about rights'. There she is causing trouble again. Why can’t she just be a normal woman and demand her rights above all? We need more money for education. That will fix the problem.

Walker
Posts: 2508
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Human Rights & Wrongs

Postby Walker » Sat Feb 18, 2017 6:32 am

Nick_A wrote:Since when have three young men lost the right to torture a turtle? They have the right to do so. What business is it of some Navy vet to try and save the turtle? He is denying the young men their rights. Is it any wonder they beat him up. Now these three young men will have to suffer the indignity of appearing in court to defend their right to protect themselves from this navy vet.

http://www.clickorlando.com/news/dayton ... police-say

We must defend our rights. Simone Weil wrote — 'One cannot imagine St. Francis of Assisi talking about rights'. There she is causing trouble again. Why can’t she just be a normal woman and demand her rights above all? We need more money for education. That will fix the problem.

Perhaps removing the blockages in the little savages that prevent inherent morality to manifest as action, appropriate to conditions, would have saved poor turtle.


Of course this is scientifically inconclusive as an experiment, but it verifies what many people experience.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWphPYqJ35c

Nick_A
Posts: 831
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Human Rights & Wrongs

Postby Nick_A » Sun Feb 19, 2017 3:26 am

Walker wrote:
Nick_A wrote:Since when have three young men lost the right to torture a turtle? They have the right to do so. What business is it of some Navy vet to try and save the turtle? He is denying the young men their rights. Is it any wonder they beat him up. Now these three young men will have to suffer the indignity of appearing in court to defend their right to protect themselves from this navy vet.

http://www.clickorlando.com/news/dayton ... police-say

We must defend our rights. Simone Weil wrote — 'One cannot imagine St. Francis of Assisi talking about rights'. There she is causing trouble again. Why can’t she just be a normal woman and demand her rights above all? We need more money for education. That will fix the problem.

Perhaps removing the blockages in the little savages that prevent inherent morality to manifest as action, appropriate to conditions, would have saved poor turtle.


Of course this is scientifically inconclusive as an experiment, but it verifies what many people experience.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWphPYqJ35c



Removing blockages is a thread in itself. I believe Plato was right when he said that morality is the natural condition for the soul. Morality isn't about learning anything new but remembering what has been forgotten. But realistically, society has become so perverted that weak minds must lose that sense of inner worth making remembering possible. If you can suggest a pathway to remembrance in a society in moral decline by all means suggest it. I cannot see a way out.

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 9088
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Human Rights & Wrongs

Postby Arising_uk » Mon Feb 20, 2017 3:01 am

Nick_A wrote:Since when have three young men lost the right to torture a turtle? They have the right to do so. What business is it of some Navy vet to try and save the turtle? He is denying the young men their rights. Is it any wonder they beat him up. Now these three young men will have to suffer the indignity of appearing in court to defend their right to protect themselves from this navy vet. ...
Well they will be getting tried and prosecuted I assume but I'm not sure what your problem is as isn't it the right of every yank to pursue happiness. So what makes these thugs any different from the other yanks who go out and blow holes in defenseless animals with high-powered weapons for fun? Are they just not pursing the American Dream and the one who interfered infringing on their constitutional rights?

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 9088
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Human Rights & Wrongs

Postby Arising_uk » Mon Feb 20, 2017 3:09 am

Nick_A wrote:This is why we cannot communicate on Simone. She took certain ideas within Marxism to be true but they become meaningless out of the context of the human condition. ...
And yet Marx based his HM on exactly the human condition?
You probably have never questioned what makes for an objective human perspective. ...
Being human I'd have guessed but personally there's just inter-subjectivity not objectivity with respect to an 'objective human perspective'.
Without it, the goals of Marxism remain impossible without a dictator to assure that under the penalty of death everyone loves everybody. ...
Where does Marxism advocate this?
You want to parrot Marxism or secularism without having ever questioned its relation to an objective human perspective. ...
Pray tell what this "objective human perspective" is?
The world is filled with non thinking parrots following a party line. It isn’t my way.
And yet all I hear from you is the words of another?

"When a man joins a political party, he submissively adopts a mental attitude which he will express later on with words such as, ‘As a monarchist, as a Socialist, I think that …’ It is so comfortable! It amounts to having no thoughts at all. Nothing is more comfortable than not having to think." Simone Weil
True. But then there's your thinking party members. You obviously have no idea of why people join such things.
I find it frightening when I watch political programs completely void of thought being expressed by people having lost the ability to think but instead have openly sacrificed it for the societal benefits of parroting. The clique likes to parrot. That is why it could never appreciate Simone. If anyone bothers to think even for a moment, the foolishness of the way the question of rights is presented would become obvious. You ask what I do. Doing has nothing to do with it. Simone illuminates the question of what we ARE. Once a person feels this, doing takes care of itself. ...
So what is it that you do, as Weil took praxis very seriously.
I find it more beneficial to support those far greater than me who serve to promote the awakening experience rather than indulge in parroting party lines to achieve an imaginary sense of prestige..
So basically a servant mentality. You parrot her lines all the time.

Nick_A
Posts: 831
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Human Rights & Wrongs

Postby Nick_A » Mon Feb 20, 2017 5:01 am

Arising wrote: You want to parrot Marxism or secularism without having ever questioned its relation to an objective human perspective. ...

Pray tell what this "objective human perspective" is?


If you are open to how Simone Weil describes the human perspective necessary for some goals of Marxism, then you'll understand the objective human perspective I refer to. Once a person has experienced the inner vertical conscious direction leading to something greater than themselves it opens us to new qualities of comprehension.

Marx wrote of equality and the elimination of the class system. But this is obviously impossible voluntarily since one of Man's chief motivating sources is prestige - the need to feel superior. Simone asserts an objective human perspective which would enable a person to feel something greater than the need for prestige:

"The combination of these two facts — the longing in the depth of the heart for absolute good, and the power, though only latent, of directing attention and love to a reality beyond the world and of receiving good from it — constitutes a link which attaches every man without exception to that other reality.
Whoever recognizes that reality recognizes also that link. Because of it, he holds every human being without any exception as something sacred to which he is bound to show respect.
This is the only possible motive for universal respect towards all human beings. Whatever formulation of belief or disbelief a man may choose to make, if his heart inclines him to feel this respect, then he in fact also recognizes a reality other than this world's reality. Whoever in fact does not feel this respect is alien to that other reality also."~ Simone Weil. the need for Roots.


An objective societal human perspective begins with the collective psychological awareness of a level of reality greater than our own within which worldly facts can be experienced. The growing secular world will not allow it. Its survival requires the need for prestige to be dominant followed by tyranical rule to guide and control it. Consequently, only a relative few will ever acquire an objective human perspective


Return to “Articles in Philosophy Now”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest