Re: POLITICS: Kefilli mystery

[Guest guest]

On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 23:07:02 -0800

Heidi Schuppenhauer <heidis@...> wrote:

>Here goes that Boolean thing again. The " human organism " is a

>complex, multi-faceted entity that defies any one stereotype or

>philosophy. Most of the economic philosophies -- Fascism, Communism,

>Libertarianism -- are so shallow! It is like trying to understand " organisms "

>by learning their Latin names.

>

>Again, I don't think there is such a thing as " rights " as a real entity.

>I have no fundamental, existential " right " to exist, much less to

>be happy or to be free from interference.

Heidi,

I'm curious about something.

How is it on the one hand you can say " The " human organism " is a

complex, multi-faceted entity that defies any one stereotype or philosophy. "

And then in the very next paragraph say:

" I don't think there is such a thing as " rights " as a real entity.

I have no fundamental, existential " right " to exist, much less to

be happy or to be free from interference. "

If that isn't a philosophy, I don't know what philosophy is. And it was

one of my majors!

Seems to me you are committing the very " error " you seek to criticize.

Superhero Bush Rescues Marriage

http://tinyurl.com/yvrn6

[Guest guest]

>>Here goes that Boolean thing again. The " human organism " is a

>>complex, multi-faceted entity that defies any one stereotype or

>>philosophy. Most of the economic philosophies -- Fascism, Communism,

>>Libertarianism -- are so shallow! It is like trying to understand " organisms "

>>by learning their Latin names.

>>

>>Again, I don't think there is such a thing as " rights " as a real entity.

>>I have no fundamental, existential " right " to exist, much less to

>>be happy or to be free from interference.

>

>Heidi,

>

>I'm curious about something.

>

>How is it on the one hand you can say " The " human organism " is a

>complex, multi-faceted entity that defies any one stereotype or philosophy. "

>

>And then in the very next paragraph say:

>

> " I don't think there is such a thing as " rights " as a real entity.

>I have no fundamental, existential " right " to exist, much less to

>be happy or to be free from interference. "

>

>If that isn't a philosophy, I don't know what philosophy is. And it was

>one of my majors!

>

>Seems to me you are committing the very " error " you seek to criticize.

Well, my disbelief in a fundamental set of " rights " granted

to me by the universe is certainly a philosophy. But it also

certainly doesn't describe the complete human organism! I

don't recall claiming that it did. I was saying in the first paragraph

that " philosphies " such as Libertarianism, economics, Marxism,

etc. don't describe the entire human being any more than

the Latin name describes a human being.

I don't recall being against philosophy either ... I sit here

and philosophise all the time. I just like to draw a line

between " philosophising " (how many angels can dance

on the head of a pin?) and " science " (getting out a

microscope and counting the angels.)

Economics is a science that covers PART of human

endeavor, and you can run experiments with it,

so it's not quite a philosophy. Marxism was mainly

a philosophy, never put to any real scientific test.

Belief or disbelief in " innate rights " and " innate morality "

is primarily philisophical. When it comes to discussions,

I like them better when people stick to science, but

that is mainly my own bias. Arguing philosophy or

religion might be fun sometimes, but it's a little like

arguing about which version of Star Trek is the " best " .

-- Heidi