Originally posted by lucifershammer
In any case, however, you choose to define (or not-define) yourself, it isn't going to change the essentials. You're not going to suddenly sprout wings and fly. Nor are other people going to treat you as anything different from what you are - a human being.

You say that you would rather "promote existence[sic] than destroy or consume it" - that is a value in itself. In holding to that value you are defining yourself.

I don't know what a human being is, unless it is a member of the species classified as homo sapiens, with an essence of water and chemicals. The point of intersection between spirit and flesh is as yet unknown to me. Be that as it may, people commonly treat each other in ways that are considered inhumane--slaughtering, torturing, sometimes consuming their flesh. So, that people will treat me as a human being means very little.

Promoting existence rather than destroying it is a preference, one whose usefulness I would seek to persuade others of, and which I learnt from others. It defines me in relation to other people, but not to myself: the pronoun "myself" is not useful in others' absence; if I start talking to myself, I don't know who I'm talking to.

Are you the same person today as you were when you were two years old? I should hope not.

BTW what's with the [sic]?

Originally posted by LemonJello
And you bring up a good point when you imply that the definition process may not be necessary at all. Theoretically, I don't think it is necessary. Realistically, though, when one is thrust into this world, where opinions concerning how you should live are a dime a dozen and pummelled at you from all sides, I think a case could be made that one is thr ...[text shortened]... into the process of defining oneself just as much as he is thrust into the process of existing.

Others are always attempting to colonise us, so we must resist. That often involves using masks and other magical implements.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I don't know what a human being is, unless it is a member of the species classified as homo sapiens, with an essence of water and chemicals. The point of intersection between spirit and flesh is as yet unknown to me. Be that as it may, people commonly treat each other in ways that are considered inhumane--slaughtering, torturing, sometimes consu as you were when you were two years old? I should hope not.

BTW what's with the [sic]?

1. Essence isn't matter. Indeed, in classical metaphysical terminology, 'essence' is closer in meaning to 'form' than 'matter' (which, in turn, is not the same as what we mean by 'matter'/'material' in the scientific sense today). Water and chemicals are not the essence of human beings, they are [part of] the matter. Indeed, a [fresh] corpse possesses the same chemical constitution as a [living] human being, but it is not a human being precisely because it lacks an essential attribute of a human being; viz. life.

That people treat each other in ways that are inhumane does not negate my point. You may define yourself as a chicken, but people cannot pluck your feathers because you have none. You may define yourself as a tree, but people cannot water your roots because you have none. Even if someone were to slaughter you as they would a lamb, it would still be a human being they are slaughtering and they would have to make relevant adjustments. They can choose to attach no weight or preference to your humanity, but they cannot ignore or side-step it. They cannot interact with you in a manner that is essentially impossible in the interaction of two humans.

As an aside, how can you claim to be nonplussed by the horror that greets moral relativism and still express [implicit] outrage at the way some people treat other human beings? If moral relativism is freedom, then slaughter and torture are expressions of freedom.

2. Whether "promoting existence[sic]" is a preference or a value, it is something that is part of your definition of yourself. That you seek to persuade others of its usefulness actually puts you in the position of Sartre's anguished man.

Besides, preferences/values are not just things you use to define yourself in relation to other people. It is something you use to define yourself to yourself, a basis on which your actions and mode of living are built. (It's perfectly possible that you want to be a hypocrite and use two different definitions; i.e. how you want other people to view you vs. how you view yourself - but that doesn't change the fact that you do indeed view yourself in a particular way). As soon as you begin to make your choices in a consistent manner, you are expressing your way of defining yourself. The only way you can avoid defining yourself is to make random choices, to forgo consistency. And that includes values.

This, of course, was what the existentialists proposed.

3. Am I the same person as I was when I was two years old? Essentially, yes - otherwise I could not speak of "myself" as being two years old. Naturally, many things have changed between then and now, but they are accidental.

4. I've used "[sic]" to refer to a term that I think is fundamentally ambiguous. What does it mean to "promote existence"? The existence of what?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
3. Am I the same person as I was when I was two years old? Essentially, yes - otherwise I could not speak of "myself" as being two years old. Naturally, many things have changed between then and now, but they are accidental.

Throw a lot of tantrums, do you? Believe in monsters?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
4. I've used "[sic]" to refer to a term that I think is fundamentally ambiguous.

That is incorrect usage, which is why I was confused.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
1. Essence isn't matter. Indeed, in classical metaphysical terminology, 'essence' is closer in meaning to 'form' than 'matter' (which, in turn, is not the same as what we mean by 'matter'/'material' in the scientific sense today).

Shall we agree to use "form", then?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Throw a lot of tantrums, do you? Believe in monsters?

"Wit is the salt of conversation, not the food." - William Hazlitt

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Shall we agree to use "form", then?

Why?

EDIT: I mean, what's wrong with 'essence'? It would be the more appropriate term in a discussion of existentialism.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
As an aside, how can you claim to be nonplussed by the horror that greets moral relativism and still express [implicit] outrage at the way some people treat other human beings? If moral relativism is freedom, then slaughter and torture are expressions of freedom.

Sadness and fear are what I feel, not moral outrage.

Freedom can't be predicated on another's suffering.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
"Wit is the salt of conversation, not the food." - William Hazlitt

Would you have understood this quote when you were two?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Why? EDIT: I mean, what's wrong with 'essence'? It would be the more appropriate term in a discussion of existentialism.

I don't understand "essence" in the same way as you, but we have the same idea about "form".

You might be having a discussion about existentialism. I am having a conversation with a couple of people. What do you think about vistesd's notion of a dialectic between Zen and existentialism?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Sadness and fear are what I feel, not moral outrage.

Freedom can't be predicated on another's suffering.

1. Moral outrage is but one step away from sadness and fear. Indeed, if sadness and fear are to turn into action that alleviates their cause, then moral outrage is a necessity.

EDIT: The cause of the events, not the emotions.

2. For a moral relativist, freedom can be predicated on anything you want to predicate it on. To say that freedom can't be predicated on another's suffering is to express a moral absolute, which the moral relativist explicitly rejects.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
1. Moral outrage is but one step away from sadness and fear. Indeed, if sadness and fear are to turn into action that alleviates their cause, then moral outrage is a necessity.

EDIT: The cause of the events, not the emotions.

2. For a moral relativist, freedom can be predicated on anything you want to predicate it on. To say that freedom can't b ...[text shortened]... her's suffering is to express a moral absolute, which the moral relativist explicitly rejects.

I think fear is enough to motivate people into action. Witness the actions of people burning "heretics" at the stake.

You can't be free to murder unless you have victims.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Would you have understood this quote when you were two?

I may not have understood the quote when I was two, but I possessed the potency to be an adult human being who does.

Bbarr would say that I possessed the capacity to understand it.

The point is that I cannot speak of myself being two if I don't recognise the identity of the being that was two and the being that is me now.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I think fear is enough to motivate people into action. Witness the actions of people burning "heretics" at the stake.

You can't be free to murder unless you have victims.

1. People burning heretics at the stake is very much an expression of moral outrage.

2. How is that relevant to your statement vis-a-vis freedom and another's suffering?