Some contradictions I would like to have explained.

[PlatoByProxy]

You're making far too many unjustifiable assumptions about the nature of philosophers. Methinks this is a case of the whole "My profession is filled with only people that are upstanding and moral." syndrome. Philosophers are not inherently moral people. Get off your high horse.

Indeed, not all philosophers are moral; however, only moral philosophers (who also have sundry other favorable characteristics that are not endemic to philosophers as a whole) are fit to exercise power and can be trusted to arrive at wise conclusions.

[Kobrania]

You're making far too many unjustifiable assumptions about the nature of philosophers. Methinks this is a case of the whole "My profession is filled with only people that are upstanding and moral." syndrome. Philosophers are not inherently moral people. Get off your high horse.

Indeed, not all philosophers are moral; however, only moral philosophers (who also have sundry other favorable characteristics that are not endemic to philosophers as a whole) are fit to exercise power and can be trusted to arrive at wise conclusions.

Who is fit to judge morality?

[Flameswroth]

You're making far too many unjustifiable assumptions about the nature of philosophers. Methinks this is a case of the whole "My profession is filled with only people that are upstanding and moral." syndrome. Philosophers are not inherently moral people. Get off your high horse.

Indeed, not all philosophers are moral; however, only moral philosophers (who also have sundry other favorable characteristics that are not endemic to philosophers as a whole) are fit to exercise power and can be trusted to arrive at wise conclusions.

Who is fit to judge morality?

*raises hand*

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Indeed, not all philosophers are moral; however, only moral philosophers (who also have sundry other favorable characteristics that are not endemic to philosophers as a whole) are fit to exercise power and can be trusted to arrive at wise conclusions.

I'm going to assume for the sake of argument that you're not just engaging in self-serving ego masturbation.

Who determines which philosophers are moral and which aren't?

Also, when it comes to science, should philosophers be trusted to exercise authority? When it comes to the allocation of government funds, should philosophers or should economists be trusted with authority? When it comes to explaining human behavior, should one trust the psychologist or the philosopher?

[Czardas]

You're making far too many unjustifiable assumptions about the nature of philosophers. Methinks this is a case of the whole "My profession is filled with only people that are upstanding and moral." syndrome. Philosophers are not inherently moral people. Get off your high horse.

Indeed, not all philosophers are moral; however, only moral philosophers (who also have sundry other favorable characteristics that are not endemic to philosophers as a whole) are fit to exercise power and can be trusted to arrive at wise conclusions.

Who is fit to judge morality?

Ooh! Me! Pick me!

[Flameswroth]

You're making far too many unjustifiable assumptions about the nature of philosophers. Methinks this is a case of the whole "My profession is filled with only people that are upstanding and moral." syndrome. Philosophers are not inherently moral people. Get off your high horse.

Indeed, not all philosophers are moral; however, only moral philosophers (who also have sundry other favorable characteristics that are not endemic to philosophers as a whole) are fit to exercise power and can be trusted to arrive at wise conclusions.

Who is fit to judge morality?

Ooh! Me! Pick me!

Oy! I raised mah hand first. I get to the the Morality Judge first!

[PlatoByProxy]

what determines whether a desire is base or not?

Desiring sensory pleasure, in and of itself, is base.

but... but... what if they're gay or something? huh?

That's irrelevant. They should arrive at the decision to procreate by exercising their cognitive faculties; emotions (such as repugnance at having sex with someone of the opposite sex) should not be a factor.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Desiring sensory pleasure, in and of itself, is base.

Why is the pursuit of sensory pleasure inherently wrong?

That's irrelevant. They should arrive at the decision to procreate by exercising their cognitive faculties; emotions (such as repugnance at having sex with someone of the opposite sex) should not be a factor.

You know that philosophers are human and not gods, right?

[Czardas]

what determines whether a desire is base or not?

Desiring sensory pleasure, in and of itself, is base.

why?

but... but... what if they're gay or something? huh?

That's irrelevant. They should arrive at the decision to procreate by exercising their cognitive faculties; emotions (such as repugnance at having sex with someone of the opposite sex) should not be a factor.

you do realize that logic (cognition) and emotion are pretty closely tied to one another, right?

[Buxtahatche]

Those on the right, particulaly the 'Right to lifers', please explain why you judge a bunch of cells to be worth protesting for, but not the folks on death row or your nations enemies?

It's not a 'bunch of cells.'
Check the chromosomes- it's a human being; its developing, yes... but still genetically human. It is (important part) INNOCENT OF CRIMES and INCAPABLE OF DEFENDING ITSELF. As long as it can not defend itself and stands a chance of being born, it diserves my protection.

A criminal on death row has forfeited their rights. They did so of their own free will, and in such a way that proves they are little more than an animal (morally and socially). Thus, I have no qualms about seeing them caged and put down like a rabid dog. Actually, I probably pity the dog more, as it likely didn't do anything malicious when it got infected.

My enemies, well, they are just that. I may forgive them, and I may not wish to see them mistreated (as long as they behave civilly) but I will not allow them to overrun my nation and destroy my way of life.

[Rhodmhire]

Who is fit to judge morality?

*virtually inaudible shouting from back of the silent audience*

Ohhh! Me!!! Pick Me!!!!

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

It's not a 'bunch of cells.'
Check the chromosomes- it's a human being; its developing, yes... but still genetically human. It is (important part) INNOCENT OF CRIMES and INCAPABLE OF DEFENDING ITSELF. As long as it can not defend itself and stands a chance of being born, it diserves my protection.

It's as much a human being as one of my blood cells is. Every cell in my body meets your criteria. Not one of my cells is guilty of a crime, regardless of whether or not I, as a whole, am. Am I trillions of humans?

[Czardas]

Those on the right, particulaly the 'Right to lifers', please explain why you judge a bunch of cells to be worth protesting for, but not the folks on death row or your nations enemies?

It's not a 'bunch of cells.'
Check the chromosomes- it's a human being; its developing, yes... but still genetically human. It is (important part) INNOCENT OF CRIMES and INCAPABLE OF DEFENDING ITSELF. As long as it can not defend itself and stands a chance of being born, it diserves my protection.

A pimple is genetically human, innocent of crimes, and incapable of defending itself. Do you protest if someone tries to remove it from their face?

My enemies, well, they are just that. I may forgive them, and I may not wish to see them mistreated (as long as they behave civilly) but I will not allow them to overrun my nation and destroy my way of life.

Yet you will allow an unwanted child to overrun another person's body and destroy their way of life?

[Kashindahar]

But you do support war, exicution and the easyness of getting your hands on items of death?

You don't have good reading comprehension skills do you?

You do not have to be a theist to support war execution and freedom of arms.

Specifically on the freedom to bear arms:

Contrarywise to what Michael Moore has to say in Bowling for Columbine, the United States of America doesn't have either the highest rate of firearm homicides in the world, or the highest number of firearm homicides in the world. That distinction belongs to South Africa, with eighty people per 100,000 being shot to death, and with roughly 32,000 firearm deaths a year. In comparison, roughly 2 in 100,000 people will be shot to death in the United States. These statistics also ignore total homicide rates: again, the United States is not the leader. In many countries, especially those without easy access to firearms, homicides are mostly performed using knives, clubs, bricks, whatever. These statistics also ignore non-homicide statistics: the country that your car is most likely to be stolen in? Australia. Which country are you more likely to be raped in out of Canada and the USA? Canada, and your chances have doubled.

Further, the vast, vast majority of weapons used to commit crimes are illegally obtained; meaning that the ability of the average joe to buy a gun doesn't really factor into whether or not crime is raised or not.

In short, there is no statistical support for any total bans on firearms, or anything even approaching that; the only reason to do so is because it will make certain groups feel better. I don't think that that's a justified reason for removing freedoms from law-abiding citizens, do you?

[PlatoByProxy]

Who determines which philosophers are moral and which aren't?

Prospective philosopher-rulers should be submitted to a battery of tests in their childhood to determine whether they are of the requisite character and intelligence to pursue such a career. To prune those for whom avarice is a motivator, such a lifestyle should necessarily be ascetic and austere, disconnected from worldly pleasures. In general, however, wisdom and morality are inextricably linked.

Also, when it comes to science, should philosophers be trusted to exercise authority?

From the standpoint of justice, science is neutral and therefore (along with scientists) unnecessary.

When it comes to the allocation of government funds, should philosophers or should economists be trusted with authority?

Philosophers, as they cannot be swayed by cupidity -- they seek not to maximize wealth, but rather cultivate virtue (and these two goals oftentimes conflict).

When it comes to explaining human behavior, should one trust the psychologist or the philosopher?

The philosopher should have an adequate understanding of human nature. More intricate topics, such as the interpretation of dreams, needn't be pursued.

[Hayteria]

you do realize that logic (cognition) and emotion are pretty closely tied to one another, right?

I'm guessing PlatoByProxy is either unaware of it, or if aware, is just trolling. See my earlier post where I asked him/her if that's what he/she was doing.

[PlatoByProxy]

Why is the pursuit of sensory pleasure inherently wrong?

It isn't, but those who expressly focus upon reason (i.e., ideal philosophers) will not indulge in sensory pleasure as they search for a more abstract sort of beauty. Inferior individuals, however, can freely engage in frivolous activities without this behavior being termed "wrong."

[The Norse Hordes]

Why is the pursuit of sensory pleasure inherently wrong?

It isn't, but those who expressly focus upon reason (i.e., ideal philosophers) will not indulge in sensory pleasure as they search for a more abstract sort of beauty. Inferior individuals, however, can freely engage in frivolous activities without this behavior being termed "wrong."

Hows welfare treatin ya?

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

The philosopher should have an adequate understanding of human nature. More intricate topics, such as the interpretation of dreams, needn't be pursued.

If you're not aware of how much complexity there is to understanding humanity and how it can't be understood without actual scientific investigation, then you're not really worth my time. I tried, but I can't take you seriously anymore.

[Kashindahar]

Why is the pursuit of sensory pleasure inherently wrong?

It isn't, but those who expressly focus upon reason (i.e., ideal philosophers) will not indulge in sensory pleasure as they search for a more abstract sort of beauty. Inferior individuals, however, can freely engage in frivolous activities without this behavior being termed "wrong."

ahahahahahahaha oh wow

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

It isn't, but those who expressly focus upon reason (i.e., ideal philosophers) will not indulge in sensory pleasure as they search for a more abstract sort of beauty. Inferior individuals, however, can freely engage in frivolous activities without this behavior being termed "wrong."

I'll just make this last comment and then that's it. You have no logical basis upon which to declare the pursuit of abstract knowledge as "above" or "better" than hedonism. This is pure ego stroking and has nothing to do with reason.

[Czardas]

you do realize that logic (cognition) and emotion are pretty closely tied to one another, right?

I'm guessing PlatoByProxy is either unaware of it, or if aware, is just trolling. See my earlier post where I asked him/her if that's what he/she was doing.

Seems like it. He's obviously trying to represent a strict Republic viewpoint, with a fair amount of success.

[PlatoByProxy]

why?

Because it has no object other than self-indulgence. I consider this to conform to the definition of "base" ("devoid of high values or ethics").

you do realize that logic (cognition) and emotion are pretty closely tied to one another, right?

On the contrary -- they are antithetically opposed to one another. However, they do coexist in most, if not all, individuals and may be engaged in titanic struggles for supremacy.

[Hayteria]

The philosopher should have an adequate understanding of human nature. More intricate topics, such as the interpretation of dreams, needn't be pursued.

If you're not aware of how much complexity there is to understanding humanity and how it can't be understood without actual scientific investigation, then you're not really worth my time. I tried, but I can't take you seriously anymore.

Now you're going overboard. PlatoByProxy's arguments are severely absurd, (and he/she has yet to answer my question about whether or not he/she means them) but this is the message board of a politics-themed MMORPG. Posting on this site to begin with is arguably a waste of time anyway.

[PlatoByProxy]

If you're not aware of how much complexity there is to understanding humanity and how it can't be understood without actual scientific investigation, then you're not really worth my time. I tried, but I can't take you seriously anymore.

Fastidiously scouring every inch of the human psyche is a gargantuan task, certainly, but an unnecessary one. To create and maintain a just society, however, one requires merely a firm grasp of human nature (one that may be informed by experience as well as scientific inquiry).