Vermont Legislature Legalizes Gay MarriageFollow

Most inarguably, humans are defined by their genus and species. Going beyond that is to step into theories and debatable philosophies.

Too bad Pensive conceded.

I wanted to chime in that, according to philosophy of the sort taught in universities these days, babies are not humans. Philosophers describe "human" differently than biologists (or heck, regular people) would. When I took philosophy back in college we were taught they were are all **** sapien sapiens, which refers to what we are biologically. However, the key elements that make us "human" or "people" come from our heightening intellect and thinking processes. This is how philosophers describe humans. Thus, infants cannot be humans, and do not become humans until they start showing more intelligence later in life. This ties into Pensive's idea that everything is learned; we aren't even humans innately.

I personally think it's BS. I did then, and I do now. Philosophers need to put the world into context. They arrange matters of the world to fit their theories; as opposed to biologists who change their theories as they observe the world. This is why you have philosophical thought such as utilitarianism which makes genocide not only permissible in some cases but desirable. Or those folks who think anyone who stops working or is over a certain age or is depressed or any number of things should be killed because they burden society.

Philosophy is something fun to talk about in a bar, but it VERY seldom has a place in law because it so disconnected from reality. I feel the same thing about religion; which really is just an old-fashioned philosophy when it comes to Christianity. Horrible, terrible, and destructive acts of hate can be carried out SHOULD be carried out if you follow them. I'm not comfortable with that.

Edit: Also, if you buy into the pop philosophy definition of "humans," those with cognitive impairments such as retardation are not humans either. Again, scary territory, but philosophers deem it necessary to redefine terms to make their arguments. And from personal experiences, you can drive conservative religious folk up the wall by using good philosophical debates against them.

Edited, Apr 20th 2009 9:46am by LockeColeMA

Oh I'll still answer questions; i'm just not going to argue anymore in here.



That is because you can't have certain knowledge of things without being able to predict their outcome before ever having observed the event, and not all philosophers do this. Biology as you would have it practiced is not science. It is random groping in an attempt to latch onto some accidentally discovered truth. You must have certain principles set in place prior to the observation or you can't do science.



It's actually not. That was how Descartes described humans. What Kant did, and what I have attempted to convey however, was revolutionize the model of the mind. You have grievously misinterpreted what a philosophical view of the human is. I'm not just preaching this stuff for sh*ts and giggles. I believe it to be true as well as practical.



You have utilitarianism because deontology is just as @#%^ed up and can lead to just as stupid and absurd consequences, and no one takes @#%^ing virtue ethics seriously and there aren't a whole lot of alternatives. Jesus christ at least jophiel responds on point.



You do not know what philosophy is; you also seem to have a horrid grasp of what religion does. Why are you judging it?

Edited, Apr 20th 2009 10:02am by Pensive

That's not answering questions, that's continuing the argument.

I think you need a little more practice, but for giving it a go anyway.

Actually, I did not.

I responded with the fact that, whether a choice or not, homosexuality is a-ok. It was bsphil that initially provoked my other hat.



1) It isn't disconnected
2) Logic is philosophy; logic belongs in law
3) Read the critique of judgment


Kavekk I think it was told me a while ago that I was just going to have to accept the fact that I'm an extremely contrary person, and that's okay, but I really really do try not to continue these things. It's like some kind of horrible compulsion.

Edited, Apr 20th 2009 10:18am by Pensive

1) It also encompasses axiology, and more precisely ethics. Who do you think derives justification for all of those laws you hold so dear? Mainly, it's Rawls
2) You can't do phil without logic, you can perhaps do logic without phil, but to what end? Are you going to prove that A>B/A/:B all day? No, you are going to use philosophy to apply logic to the correct areas that need it.
3) It's a very good book; try it out

This whole page reminds me why, when it comes to both people and electronics, I am strictly a hardware person. Software is way too fuzzy for my tastes.

Like utilitarianism, the writings of Locke, over whether or not my perception of the world is the only thing that is real to me.

I also think you try to reference too many books on philosophy and should explain your own ideas rather than defer others to.... others.

This thread reminds me why, when it comes to both people and electronics, I tend to smash things with a sledgehammer and go back to my wooden abacus.

I have no idea what the "object of the matter" was. This is how you started your post, and it seemed to me that you thought you were "right" about the entire argument, the rest of us just hadn't realized it yet.

Or perhaps you were talking about your ridiculous "a baby isn't a human" debate, which again, is only arguing philosophy.

I think we are forgetting something incredibly important: "How is Babby formed?"

...



"Science!" isn't about making something up and then forcing the world to fit your predictions. That's creationism. Science is in fact groping in the dark for answers. You make a hypothesis, then test it's truth, and change what you are looking for depending on whether you are right or you are wrong. Then, little by little, you get a rough idea of how things work.