American election.

General chit-chat

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9612
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: American election.

Post by Immanuel Can »

commonsense wrote: Sat Nov 21, 2020 2:49 pm So you’re saying that human nature, and not PC nor socialism, is responsible for there being no equality under the law.
Almost.

I'm saying that human nature is such that no ideal we pursue is ever fully attained; yet we do our best by pursuing the ideal. "Equality before the law" is an ideal; and as such, it's no stroke against it if you say, "Well, we haven't got there perfectly." That's the point: we need to work harder at it, and the more equal we make the law, the better we'll be.

Interestingly, even the empirical objection "People are not being treated as equal before the law" presumes that they SHOULD be. (If not, it's no objection at all, right?)

Socialism is a different issue, but let's speak of it here, since you raise it.

We can discuss it conceptually or historically.

Historically, it has resulted in gross injustices, many derived from its conceptual preference for the collective over the individual. In Russia, for example, if you were declared an "enemy of the State," you were essentially treated as guilty until proven innocent, because it was presumed that harm to the collective was bound to be much worse than any harm the State could possibly do to an individual. Of course, this put an unjust and unmeetable burden on the individual, so not surprisingly, Russian gulags were full.

That's not justice, obviously. But our objection to that arrangement is founded on the supposition that the individual or minorities do, in fact, matter, and the collective is not always more important, and certainly not automatically right -- an anti-Socialist supposition.
Nick_A
Posts: 5349
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: American election.

Post by Nick_A »

commonsense wrote: Sat Nov 21, 2020 2:54 pm
Nick_A wrote: Fri Nov 20, 2020 8:22 pm
Belinda wrote: Fri Nov 20, 2020 6:51 pm
I hope I have learned a few lessons.
Did you learn why socialism denies the U.S Constitution
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
In these times of political correctness furthered by socialism, is there any equality under the law? No

Without equality under the law is domestic Tranquility possible when people fight for power? No

When socialism seeks to weaken the military and defund the police, can America provide for the common defense? No

Can America promote the general welfare When it prevents the Church from adopting its normal responsibilities of moral education while replacing it with the power seekers within socialism? No

Obviously America is losing its purpose to secure the blessings of liberty through the efforts of socialism. yes
What you’ve said elsewhere is that human nature, and not PC nor socialism, is responsible for there being no equality under the law.

Nothing that follows can be cogent.
Liberty in America is the attempt with the help of grace, to defy human nature.
John Adams in a speech to the military in 1798 warned his fellow countrymen stating, "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net.” . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
Clearly liberty is impossible without the help of grace. The quality of our being or human nature prevents it. Establishing the goal of statist slavery requires becoming closed to the help of grace.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 9355
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: American election.

Post by henry quirk »

Liberty in America is the attempt with the help of grace, to defy human nature.

I can't disagree more, Nick

liberty, freedom, the state of bein' free (self-direction & self-responsibility) is utterly natural & a normal for a person

'murica was, is, the first real attempt to preserve & codify this individual self-direction & -responsibility

overall, the 'murican experiment is a success (though an uneven one)

the threat to 'murica is the same as it always was: the slaver

today's woes & travails are just the latest iteration of that threat

the war, and -- yeah -- that's what it is, is between the free man & the slaver, between those who would self-direct & bear responsibility for themselves, & those who would leash others to profit off them or -- perversely -- to protect them

grace is needed not to defy human nature but to preserve it, to preserve what is birthright: the natural right to one's self, to choose, to make of one's self as one sees fit, to profit from one's labors, to suffer the consequences of one's bad choices

we are not fallen creatures but we are endangered ones, endangered by our fellows who'd use us as their own or who'd -- they believe -- save us from ourselves
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9612
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: American election.

Post by Immanuel Can »

henry quirk wrote: Sat Nov 21, 2020 6:18 pm we are not fallen creatures but we are endangered ones, endangered by our fellows who'd use us as their own or who'd -- they believe -- save us from ourselves
But that calls for a further question.

If human nature is just fine as it is, how did we ever get to a situation where some of our "fellows" endanger us? It shouldn't have been possible. From pure good, nothing but pure good can come. And from good human "fellows" no such thing should have been possible.

From where did the evil of the "slaver" or other originate, if not from human nature?
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 9355
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: American election.

Post by henry quirk »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Nov 21, 2020 8:38 pm
henry quirk wrote: Sat Nov 21, 2020 6:18 pm we are not fallen creatures but we are endangered ones, endangered by our fellows who'd use us as their own or who'd -- they believe -- save us from ourselves
But that calls for a further question.

If human nature is just fine as it is, how did we ever get to a situation where some of our "fellows" endanger us? It shouldn't have been possible. From pure good, nothing but pure good can come. And from good human "fellows" no such thing should have been possible.

From where did the evil of the "slaver" or other originate, if not from human nature?
free will...bad choices...swollen appetites

and: I never said human nature is fine, I only said it's natural & normal for man to be free

we're not robots: our moral compass only points...we have to decide to take it up & go north
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 9310
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: American election.

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

henry quirk wrote: Sat Nov 21, 2020 8:45 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Nov 21, 2020 8:38 pm
henry quirk wrote: Sat Nov 21, 2020 6:18 pm we are not fallen creatures but we are endangered ones, endangered by our fellows who'd use us as their own or who'd -- they believe -- save us from ourselves
But that calls for a further question.

If human nature is just fine as it is, how did we ever get to a situation where some of our "fellows" endanger us? It shouldn't have been possible. From pure good, nothing but pure good can come. And from good human "fellows" no such thing should have been possible.

From where did the evil of the "slaver" or other originate, if not from human nature?
free will...bad choices...swollen appetites

and: I never said human nature is fine, I only said it's natural & normal for man to be free

we're not robots: our moral compass only points...we have to decide to take it up & go north
If it were 'natural and normal' for humans to be 'free' (in the sense you mean) then we would still be living in the jungle (or wherever 'free' humans lived). No animal enjoys being free if there is a comfortable, safe, enjoyable alternative, where all their needs are met.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9612
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: American election.

Post by Immanuel Can »

henry quirk wrote: Sat Nov 21, 2020 8:45 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Nov 21, 2020 8:38 pm
henry quirk wrote: Sat Nov 21, 2020 6:18 pm we are not fallen creatures but we are endangered ones, endangered by our fellows who'd use us as their own or who'd -- they believe -- save us from ourselves
But that calls for a further question.

If human nature is just fine as it is, how did we ever get to a situation where some of our "fellows" endanger us? It shouldn't have been possible. From pure good, nothing but pure good can come. And from good human "fellows" no such thing should have been possible.

From where did the evil of the "slaver" or other originate, if not from human nature?
free will...bad choices...swollen appetites

and: I never said human nature is fine, I only said it's natural & normal for man to be free

we're not robots: our moral compass only points...we have to decide to take it up & go north
I agree with you. But I think it's still an interesting question how our choices turn out to be "bad," or our appetites "swollen," which certainly, they do. If the sunny predictions of those who think morality is equivalent self-interest were true, then this just wouldn't happen at all.
Nick_A
Posts: 5349
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: American election.

Post by Nick_A »

henry quirk wrote: Sat Nov 21, 2020 6:18 pm Liberty in America is the attempt with the help of grace, to defy human nature.

I can't disagree more, Nick

liberty, freedom, the state of bein' free (self-direction & self-responsibility) is utterly natural & a normal for a person

'murica was, is, the first real attempt to preserve & codify this individual self-direction & -responsibility

overall, the 'murican experiment is a success (though an uneven one)

the threat to 'murica is the same as it always was: the slaver

today's woes & travails are just the latest iteration of that threat

the war, and -- yeah -- that's what it is, is between the free man & the slaver, between those who would self-direct & bear responsibility for themselves, & those who would leash others to profit off them or -- perversely -- to protect them

grace is needed not to defy human nature but to preserve it, to preserve what is birthright: the natural right to one's self, to choose, to make of one's self as one sees fit, to profit from one's labors, to suffer the consequences of one's bad choices

we are not fallen creatures but we are endangered ones, endangered by our fellows who'd use us as their own or who'd -- they believe -- save us from ourselves

liberty, freedom, the state of bein' free (self-direction & self-responsibility) is utterly natural & a normal for a person
As I see it Henry, there are two kinds of freedom for an individual: inner freedom and external freedom
Freedom is the ultimate goal of all traditions, consciously or unconsciously. There are two freedoms; the greater freedom--freedom from outside influences; the lesser freedom--freedom from inner influences. The two chief obstacles to the lesser freedom are self-pride and vanity.
--G.I. Gurdjieff
You refer to freedom from outside influences. But for a free society to be possible, its citizens must be aware of the passions arising from the negative emotions of pride and vanity. They will come into conflict if people cannot govern themselves

grace is needed not to defy human nature but to preserve it, to preserve what is birthright: the natural right to one's self, to choose, to make of one's self as one sees fit, to profit from one's labors, to suffer the consequences of one's bad choices

we are not fallen creatures but we are endangered ones, endangered by our fellows who'd use us as their own or who'd -- they believe -- save us from ourselves.


Without lessening the effects of pride and vanity, can a free society sustain itself or will it fall victim to self destruction from the passions John Adams described?

Is it our birthright to take advantage of others as we pursue the power to make oneself as one sees fit? A free society encourages its citizen’s to become themselves rather than becoming slaves of those you’ve described as those who believe they are saving us from ourselves.

What prevents humanity as a whole from getting beyond the dominant negative emotions of pride and vanity and opening to the necessity for the help of grace on our psyches in order to be free?
"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
A free society is only possible when its citizens as a whole feel their connection with their source while giving them the potential for inner freedom. But this quality of attention exists in humanity as a whole as a potential. Can it be actualized in the future? The world struggles against it and appears to be winning.

Is freedom from external influences possible without a sufficient number of people consciously free from negative inner influences working together to keep it alive in the world or must it descend into the battle decided by “might makes right?” and the loss of freedom
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 9355
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: American election.

Post by henry quirk »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Sat Nov 21, 2020 9:02 pm
henry quirk wrote: Sat Nov 21, 2020 8:45 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Nov 21, 2020 8:38 pm
But that calls for a further question.

If human nature is just fine as it is, how did we ever get to a situation where some of our "fellows" endanger us? It shouldn't have been possible. From pure good, nothing but pure good can come. And from good human "fellows" no such thing should have been possible.

From where did the evil of the "slaver" or other originate, if not from human nature?
free will...bad choices...swollen appetites

and: I never said human nature is fine, I only said it's natural & normal for man to be free

we're not robots: our moral compass only points...we have to decide to take it up & go north
If it were 'natural and normal' for humans to be 'free' (in the sense you mean) then we would still be living in the jungle (or wherever 'free' humans lived). No animal enjoys being free if there is a comfortable, safe, enjoyable alternative, where all their needs are met.
we're not in the jungle exactly becuz we're free (self-directing & self-responsible)

and: no man ever accepted the well-appointed cage over freedom (if he recognizes the cage for what it is)
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 9355
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

inferior duplicate deleted

Post by henry quirk »

here, have a 🍪
Last edited by henry quirk on Sat Nov 21, 2020 11:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 9355
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: American election.

Post by henry quirk »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Nov 21, 2020 9:05 pm
henry quirk wrote: Sat Nov 21, 2020 8:45 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Nov 21, 2020 8:38 pm
But that calls for a further question.

If human nature is just fine as it is, how did we ever get to a situation where some of our "fellows" endanger us? It shouldn't have been possible. From pure good, nothing but pure good can come. And from good human "fellows" no such thing should have been possible.

From where did the evil of the "slaver" or other originate, if not from human nature?
free will...bad choices...swollen appetites

and: I never said human nature is fine, I only said it's natural & normal for man to be free

we're not robots: our moral compass only points...we have to decide to take it up & go north
I agree with you. But I think it's still an interesting question how our choices turn out to be "bad," or our appetites "swollen," which certainly, they do. If the sunny predictions of those who think morality is equivalent self-interest were true, then this just wouldn't happen at all.
well, like I say, we each have a compass...we choose to abide it or not

there ain't nuthin' wrong with self-interest in the context of self-direction & self-responsibility

naked self-interest, however, is license & greed

all comes back to the compass, I think
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 9355
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: American election.

Post by henry quirk »

You refer to freedom from outside influences.

no

I speak of man's natural, normal condition as a being who belongs to himself...this ownness is innate, consistent, coherent and independent of the recognition of others...to be free, to self-direct, to be self-responsible, is not about the world but about what a man is


Without lessening the effects of pride and vanity, can a free society sustain itself or will it fall victim to self destruction from the passions John Adams described?

a free man is a humble one...he recognizes his limits as much as he recognizes his strengths..he recognizes that it's not always about him...lessen them passions through a (moral) realism (I am my own, I'm responsible for the mark I make, others are like me, each is his own, each is responsible for himself), and come to that (moral) realism through recognizin' god
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9612
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: American election.

Post by Immanuel Can »

henry quirk wrote: Sat Nov 21, 2020 11:49 pm well, like I say, we each have a compass...we choose to abide it or not

there ain't nuthin' wrong with self-interest in the context of self-direction & self-responsibility

naked self-interest, however, is license & greed

all comes back to the compass, I think
Again, you and I are agreed on things like freedom of choice and the "compass," for sure.

And maybe that partly answers the question. "Free" means able to choose the good, but also free to choose the bad. And if that's right, then human nature isn't all good...it's capable of evil, and in some cases, even attracted to evil. Even if we have a "compass" inside, it seems very evident that we can choose to abide by it or not, as you say. And many people choose the "not" bit -- as do all of us for some things, as we all know there are things we sometimes, by "compass" ought not to have chosen, which nevertheless, we did.
Walker
Posts: 7414
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: American election.

Post by Walker »

commonsense wrote: Sat Nov 21, 2020 3:16 pm
Walker wrote: Sat Nov 21, 2020 2:59 pm Fairness is in human nature.

Unfairness, such as inequality before the law, violates human nature.
And it isn’t circular to say then that PC and socialism are unfairness?
You could say they are afflictions of the mind.

The body can be injured but injury is not human nature. Injury is an affliction of the body. Unfairness can injure fairness, but unfairness is not human nature, no more than a broken leg is human nature. Unfairness is an affliction of the mind, a delusion caused by self-cherishing. Unobscured, undistorted, unafflicted human nature is fair.

So too is the US Constitution fair. Sympatico.
Belinda
Posts: 4313
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: American election.

Post by Belinda »

Walker wrote: Sun Nov 22, 2020 5:04 am
commonsense wrote: Sat Nov 21, 2020 3:16 pm
Walker wrote: Sat Nov 21, 2020 2:59 pm Fairness is in human nature.

Unfairness, such as inequality before the law, violates human nature.
And it isn’t circular to say then that PC and socialism are unfairness?
You could say they are afflictions of the mind.

The body can be injured but injury is not human nature. Injury is an affliction of the body. Unfairness can injure fairness, but unfairness is not human nature, no more than a broken leg is human nature. Unfairness is an affliction of the mind, a delusion caused by self-cherishing. Unobscured, undistorted, unafflicted human nature is fair.

So too is the US Constitution fair. Sympatico.
Walker defines human nature :roll:
Post Reply