In previous centuries, people earned their living off the sweat of their brow, and if people fought battles, they fought them hand to hand. So physical strength was at a premium if you were going to survive, and it was more economical for women to be baby-making machines to make sure parents had people to take care of them when they were old. (More precisely, son-making machines). I'm not thinking here of justice, but rather of economics. When your survival is under constant threat, the question of "How can we survive" comes before the question of "What is fair?" With industrialization, this changes. I have never held a job a woman couldn't do as well or better than me.
So, I'm not inclined to be too hard on past cultures for their sexism. But I am hard on people who want to carry sexism into the present day.
So, I'm not inclined to be too hard on past cultures for their sexism. But I am hard on people who want to carry sexism into the present day.
212 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 212 of 212BenYachov said...
>The basics of natural law, according to Feser (by example):
Would Feser agree with this "characterization" of his actual views?
Probably not. I have no expectation that Feser's statements will be consistent with his example.
Have you asked him directly?
How would asking him directly change the example he has set?
If not then why should anyone here trust this simplistic "summery/mockery" of yours?
Good question. Why should they? They can look it up for themselves, if they are so inclined, and see whther the example feser sets is as I portrayed, or not.
You don't quote Feser directly so this summery of yours has no objective meaning.
When following someone else's example, you usually do not quote them directly, especially when the example does not comport with their words.
However, if my words had no objective meaning, you would not have disputed them, but dismissed them.
Until you prove these are in fact Feser's views
I did not claim they are feser's views. It's amusing how you keep asking me to prove what I have not stated. You and Ilion are like bookends.
Since in the last thread when I pointed out to you Feser was an ex-Atheist you retorted "Well I haven't read the book in a while".
What's your point? That I didn't recall some irrelevant fact? You must have quite a memory if you feel this is a significant point.
Thus this makes your claims even more dubious since you admit you memory is faulty.
Is your memory faultless? Or, are you saying that your claims are dubious?
BenYachov said...
OTOH BDK now that I rethink it in terms of subject consistency this is the wild west which is most likely what you meant.
Now, try meditating on what "by example" means. Take your time.
One Brow
You wrote:
>I did not claim they are feser's views. It's amusing how you keep asking me to prove what I have not stated. You and Ilion are like bookends.
But you originally wrote:
>The basics of natural law, according to Feser (by example):
>1) I use my judgment to decide on the primary purpose of an object.etc..
I reply: It seems it is now my fault entirely for trying to interpret your words in a fashion that would have made them relevant to the conversation.
>Is your memory faultless? Or, are you saying that your claims are dubious?
I reply: You seem to forget you own words not just Feser's and shortly after posting them.
Best work on that.
Additional:
One Brow I just thought you would like to know your use of the phrase "by example" was sufficiently opaque that any number of interpretations are possible.
BTW side note...what is with the shitty grammar and bad spelling?
That's my thing buddy stop trying to horn in on my act.;-)
BenYachov said...
One Brow I just thought you would like to know your use of the phrase "by example" was sufficiently opaque that any number of interpretations are possible.
Really? Name two significantly different interpretations for that phrase in that context. Because otherwise, that just looks like bickering out of embarrassment.
I reply: You seem to forget you own words not just Feser's and shortly after posting them.
Why would you think that? There was no inconsistency.
>Really? Name two significantly different interpretations for that phrase in that context. Because otherwise, that just looks like bickering out of embarrassment.
Rather why don't you show us how the statement taken at face value can have only one plain meaning? Any normal person who reads it would take it to mean you where giving a summery of Feser's view of Natural Law.
I'm sorry but you made the original claim thus the burden of proof is on you to show the statement can have only one meaning and that it is the clear meaning.
One Brow you always pull this nonsense. You make a factually false statement which you can't/don't back up (such as your mis-characterization of Feser on natural law) you then turn around and try to shift the burden of proof.
You do this to everyone. You change the meanings of your words at the drop of a hat. It's childish, tedious and you are impossible to understand or follow.
Man up for once. You made a factually bogus claim about Feser on natural law. If you now claim you meant something other that what you said then you need to be more clear.
Grow up will ya?
>Now, try meditating on what "by example" means. Take your time.
I have no idea. The examples of Feser alleged views of Natural Law(i.e. 1) I use my judgment to decide on the primary purpose of an object.
2) I reason out the appropriate behaviors based on that.etc...).
Because taken at face value and assuming you are a plain spoken person(which you are not) it clearly means you are giving examples of Feser's views on Natural Law.
A two word phrase is not an example of linguistic perspicuity.
At best it's ambiguous at worst you just don't want to own up to your mis-characterization of Feser's views on natural law.
Like someone else here said your use of the phrase "by example" was sufficiently opaque that any number of interpretations are possible.
BenYachov said...
>Really? Name two significantly different interpretations for that phrase in that context. Because otherwise, that just looks like bickering out of embarrassment.
Rather why don't you show us how the statement taken at face value can have only one plain meaning?
I can give one plain meaning. I'm not sure how anyone can prove it has "only one plain meaning". That seemsw to be a cop-out based on your inability to supply more than one.
When we learn by example, we learn by observing people perform activities, by following their method. I put examples on the board every lecture for just that reason. I work very hard so that my description of how to do things and my examples of how to do things are in accord. Some people are not as careful as that.
For example, there is the classic case of the chain smoker telling his kids not to smoke; they learn smoking is acceptable by example while learning iit is not acceptable by description.
When I referred to the depiciton of natural as being by example, it meant that is how the doctrine is practiced. Feser does have the advantage of centuries of people performing the trail-and-error of the process before he did, so he seldom needs to engage in it now. However, that is the process used to derive natural law.
I'm sorry but you made the original claim ...
Which claim? It's hard to keep track of all the claims you say I am making. The one where only one meaning was possible for "by example"? No, the original claim than many interpretations were possible was make by you, August 31, 2011 9:35 PM. I don't acutually expect you to justify your claim, because you seem to be just bickering for the sake of bickering.
If you were really interested in what I mean when I say something, I rthink you'll find polite polite questions are much more effective than insulting declarations. I see no reason to think of the hypothesis of that conditional as being true.
Like someone else here said your use of the phrase "by example" was sufficiently opaque that any number of interpretations are possible.
Why did the Ben Yachov posting at September 01, 2011 9:46 AM refer to the Ben Yachov posting at August 31, 2011 9:35 PM as "someone else"?
>I can give one plain meaning. I'm not sure how anyone can prove it has "only one plain meaning".
Then why waste time challenging me to give other meanings? Simply man up and admit what you wrote was unclear at best badly written at worst.
>When we learn by example, we learn by observing people perform activities, by following their method.
So you are now claiming "by example" refers to the method by which Feser comes to conclusions? How does one get that esoteric meaning from a two word phrase and a set of examples of views?
They can't it's ambiguous at best at worst badly written.
The plain interpretation IMHO was you where giving examples of Feser's views on natural law.
>It's hard to keep track of all the claims you say I am making.
It's impossible to interpret what hidden secondary meanings you have in what you say. Welcome to my world.
>I don't acutually expect you to justify your claim, because you seem to be just bickering for the sake of bickering.
Pot calling the kettle black alert.
>If you were really interested in what I mean when I say something, I rthink you'll find polite polite questions are much more effective than insulting declarations.
When you stop playing word games & speak plainly I will consider it.
Say what you mean for once.
BenYachov said...
>I can give one plain meaning. I'm not sure how anyone can prove it has "only one plain meaning".
Then why waste time challenging me to give other meanings?
You said there was more than one, in fact that there were so many that it was hard to number them. Sure, you were trying to quote me at myself, but that only works when the quote is appropriate.
Simply man up and admit what you wrote was unclear at best badly written at worst.
>When we learn by example, we learn by observing people perform activities, by following their method.
So you are now claiming "by example" refers to the method by which Feser comes to conclusions? How does one get that esoteric meaning from a two word phrase and a set of examples of views?
I don't know. How does one get that conclusion? Since you completely snipped the following paragraph, where I explained how the term was being applied in this par4ticular context, it apparently didn't come from a careful and thoughtful reading of what I wrote.
You are right that I too often bicker for the joy of bickering. However, I'm trying to wean myself off. In light of that, given the rest of your post was pure bickering, I'll stop here.
If you have any serious questions, I'll answer them.
>You are right that I too often bicker for the joy of bickering. However, I'm trying to wean myself off. In light of that, given the rest of your post was pure bickering, I'll stop here.
That is refreshingly honest one your part.
See it's not so hard.
I have never been anything but honest.
Post a Comment