Arguing about Naturalism with a Commenter
I am going to challenge the comment of Person223 that he placed on another thread about naturalism. I thank him for at least giving something approaching a substantial claim, something that many detractors over the last few days have singularly failed to do:
A chair is a chair. Not everything that can be sat upon is a chair. People sit on cars, staircases, brick walls, riverbanks, tailgates, farm tractors, motorcycles, horses, fences, tree limbs, lawns, beds, computer hard drives in mobile x-ray trailers (although she was fired for that), kitchen counters, desks, roof peaks, etc.
This shows that language is functional. We call a chair a chair when something is being functionally used as a chair. Except many people don't. If I sat on a TV, then some might argue it is a chair, others not. This shows the descriptive nature of language and how we arrive at definitions, in dictionaries, by descriptive consensus. If we used TV in place of the words chair for a few years, as a society, then it would enter the dictionary with that definition. There is no objective definition of words that exists outside of the collective conceptions of humanity. This is the evolution of language. That kind of representation and meaning is subjective. We strive for what I call universal subjectivism, where we all agree by consensus on what are effectively subjective ruminations (on language, morality, politics etc.).
None of these things are chairs. This is the most pointless and thus worst sort of semantics.
This is arguable. Who defines what a chair is? The word "literally" now also literally means non-literally. It is a contranym and has joined the long list of contranyms in dictionary definitions to mean the opposite of what it traditionally means. He was literally on fire on the football pitch. Dictionaries and definitions reflect language usage by consensus. Now apply this, say, morality, whilst throwing in a whole lot more rational argument.
A cat? Give me a break. Cats understand to drink and eat when hungry, exhausting it out the other end and it's reproductive drive and that's about it. A chair is still a chair to a cat.
No it's not. It lies on a chair, usually. A chair is more like a bed to a cat. Get it?
That's like saying a car isn't a car to a cat even though a car driven by a human still gets the cat to the veterinarian.
A car is a car to anyone who conceives it and names it as such. You could even differentiate the conceptual idea from the simple label. For example, a child might label a car or a policeman from a picture or the real thing, but now know what they do, or not accurately know what they do. Indeed, they could be defined differently by people in general. This is why legal dictionaries come in handy. And the cat will have no idea about being driven to the vets, as the human will. Most of the time, the car will probably actually be a bed to the cat or a cage container.
To say that ideas aren't transcendent is the very way in which you say rights don't exist.
Ontologically, yes, unless you can show otherwise without the usual recourse to mere assertion. They do, however, exist in important ways: human conception, human law, societal convention, cultural milieu, and so on. This is what makes us, you know, human.
BUT, but but, it doesn't mean they are written into the fabric of the universe, out there in some aether. They are properly meaningful when codified into an enacted law. And you can change them. Americans have a Second Amendment that enables them to lawfully own guns (with caveats, which already shows this to not be universal or "inherent" but dependent on the government and society). I don't have that "right", so it is not inherent in any meaningful way. And, to boot, I am thankful I don't have it. I don't want it, and nor do I want my fellow citizens to have it.
Such people as Person223, however, will try to argue by assertion (rarely is there a defence in terms of philosophy and ontology) that the right is inherent, and it's just that my government is impeding my inherent right. Well, we're got a right to do anything in this manner. What this means is that there must be some kind of moral lawful structure to the universe. Enter stage right God. This is just a hop and a skip to shoehorning God into the equation.
The Second Amendment was an amendment to a piece of paper - an edit, a change - and that piece of paper can be equally changed back. It's about democratic consensus political machinations, the law of the land and so on. These re human conceptual ideas, arguably built on a bedrock of morality evolved throughout time.
Thinking that way is still a recipe for tyranny. A fundamental truth is still true even though technology and other things change with time. One must concede that certain things are axiomatic in order for logic to work. I don't think anything is axiomatic in your world.
Only if you allow it to by tyranny. This is why democracy is important. In fact, since the Enlightenment when ideas like natural laws were more frequently challenged, and in countries where such challenge is encouraged, we have had fewer tyrannical regimes. Freethought, eh!
He might need to expand on axioms and logic to make a case for, for example, logic to be a priori. The argument of a priori and a posteriori is pretty fundamental to philosophy. See Philosophy 101 (philpapers induced) #1: a priori knowledge: yes or no? and Philosophy 101 (philpapers induced) #4: Analytic-synthetic distinction and Philosophy 101 (philpapers induced) #10: Knowledge: Empiricism or Rationalism, for example.
I think it is good to question stuff but, like most things, it can be taken too far.
Special pleading. Only too far when it's inconvenient for you and your beliefs? This sounds like a non-response and one that substitutes for not having a good response.
If we stopped and questioned why every single thing we encountered in the course of a day was the way it was we'd never get anything productive done.
Or we could, for example, challenge the ontology of the basis of the Constitution in order to more easily adapt it to modern life for the betterment of society. Just saying.
To some extent, we have to trust that what those came before settled on was for a reason. Generations of wisdom are wrapped up in that.
Fallacy - Appeal to Tradition. Mere assertion. I would argue that what he is probably talking about isn't wise.
A lot that has been questioned starting in the 1960s has resulted in a lot of destruction since. It turns out that things weren't all that arbitrary after all. Not saying things were perfect, but there was a throw the baby out with the bathwater mentality that took over in the 1960s instead of fine tuning. The war protestors, as a little aside, weren't selfless as they are portrayed to be. They weren't protesting until 1968 when their student deferments were expiring.
Red herring. I don't know, take that up with Trump would you? Ask about his bone spurs.
They didn't mind a bit when others were being drafted. One of my philosophy teachers said society works on trust. If we can't trust people it tears the fabric to the breaking point. If we couldn't trust that the airline pilot isn't going to fly us into the side of the mountain.
Sure, trust is important. Not arguing with that. In fact, I can give you some good evolutionary arguments to support this (see Steven Pinker's excellent How the Mind Works for more on that).
It is, perhaps, a dramatic example but imagine the effect on society if even 1 out of a thousand airline pilots might be prone to that. The older people in my family and friends thereof very much value honesty in people and I'm starting to understand why. It's a real PITA and inefficient that so many can't be taken at their word, to be constantly wondering what ulterior motives someone might have in seemingly innocent interactions. Especially for those one is around a lot such as co-workers where they play a sort of long game.
And then we start going off topic.
I'm amazed at the group think and lock step around this blog. I see this mutual backslapping. That's a great point. You're so brilliant, but I might add... Your point is equally brilliant, and I might add.... Insert puking sounds here. What I don't see is anyone really challenging each other.
There are people here who agree, and some who don't. I wouldn't call it groupthink, but a consensus of thought based on using similar inputs to put into a similar function machine to get similar outputs. The problem is when you start from the output and try to work backwards. Whether this be believing the Bible to be true and then arguing backwards, and round again until you are concluding the Bible is true...
Or whether it be arguing from wanting and liking to carry a gun back through the Constitution to your beliefs about the ontology of human rights. This is what produces groupthink, just like the mutual lovefest that is the pro-gun lobby commenting on my threads here, amongst many places.
Actually, I think that I'll leave it there, without continuing on this subject. I'll save that for another post...
Stay in touch! Like A Tippling Philosopher on Facebook:
A Tippling Philosopher
You can also buy me a cuppa. Please... It justifies me continuing to do this!