tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post5981343727083804984..comments2024-03-04T05:55:35.225-05:00Comments on Vital Remnants: Are reproductive organs for reproduction?Martin Cothranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16452612266051351726noreply@blogger.comBlogger86125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-56101397996754670602010-11-26T14:39:43.470-05:002010-11-26T14:39:43.470-05:00Martin,
I'm not KyCobb, but I assume that was...Martin,<br /><br />I'm not KyCobb, but I assume that was addressed to me.<br /><br />Geometric axioms, like purposes in natural law, are chosen to achieve the results we want to see. In the sense that we guide our choice by the desired result, the choice is deliberate, which I suppose means not arbitrary, as least in the sense of not haphazard. However, since we do not choose them from someOne Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-60057878982938178732010-11-26T11:14:34.005-05:002010-11-26T11:14:34.005-05:00KyCobb,
So geometrical axioms (regardless of the ...KyCobb,<br /><br />So geometrical axioms (regardless of the particular kind of geometry) are arbitrary?Martin Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16452612266051351726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-60423197453857172022010-11-26T09:52:25.207-05:002010-11-26T09:52:25.207-05:00It sounds like you are saying that axioms are not ...<i>It sounds like you are saying that axioms are not essential to geometry. Is that what you are saying?</i><br /><br />Euclidean geometry has axioms. Without those axioms (or some equialent set) it is not Euclidean geometry. If you are looking to perform calculations over a flat surface, you can use the assumptions (aka axioms) of Euclidean geometry to make calculations.<br /><br />One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-78803577619473273192010-11-24T16:33:48.462-05:002010-11-24T16:33:48.462-05:00'I maintain it is the primary purpose, not the...'I maintain it is the primary purpose, not the only purpose.'<br /><br />I understand that. My point in this regard was the following:<br /><br />1.) How do you decide which is the 'primary' purpose when you are presented with multiple options? It can't be correlation - I have given an example of a 'purpose' that would trump reproduction or heterosexual activity (Singringhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02180277470418724600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-83349501012576197032010-11-24T15:56:32.396-05:002010-11-24T15:56:32.396-05:00Singring,
I'll accept your professed reason f...Singring,<br /><br />I'll accept your professed reason for using the term, but if you were merely trying to use it as I was using it in the context of my argument it would be helpful if you actually articulated what I was arguing.<br /><br />As it is, you mischaracterized my argument. I never said I thought that reproduction was the <i>only</i> purpose of the genitals. In fact, I specified Martin Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16452612266051351726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-37000698182816155482010-11-24T15:49:56.157-05:002010-11-24T15:49:56.157-05:00'I'm trying to square this remark with you...'I'm trying to square this remark with your earlier assertion that things don't have purposes at all. Maybe you could help me.'<br /><br />Martin, I really am losing the impression that you are interested in any kind of rational or honest debate when you try picking at my posts in such a completely disingenuous fashion while completely ignoring their drive.<br /><br />As I have Singringhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02180277470418724600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-19774611156077705222010-11-24T15:13:09.604-05:002010-11-24T15:13:09.604-05:00Singring,
the genitals have multiple purposes
I&...Singring,<br /><br /><i>the genitals have multiple purposes</i><br /><br />I'm trying to square this remark with your earlier assertion that things don't have purposes at all. Maybe you could help me.Martin Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16452612266051351726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-13939063964581315212010-11-24T15:11:25.930-05:002010-11-24T15:11:25.930-05:00One Brow,
It sounds like you are saying that axio...One Brow,<br /><br />It sounds like you are saying that axioms are not essential to geometry. Is that what you are saying?Martin Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16452612266051351726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-79243365002771797372010-11-24T15:10:35.875-05:002010-11-24T15:10:35.875-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Martin Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16452612266051351726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-17772539833910402442010-11-24T14:52:48.642-05:002010-11-24T14:52:48.642-05:00Martin,
Geometry, in and of itself, has no compon...Martin,<br /><br />Geometry, in and of itself, has no components to be referred to as arbitrary. It's a general idea to study things in terms of physical placement.<br /><br />Now, you can add all manner of arbitrary components to geometry. For example, Euclidean geometry adds in some 20+ axioms, whiel projective, Riemannian and Lobachevsian geometries use a slightly different list. We canOne Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-39715004183783236342010-11-24T09:56:51.823-05:002010-11-24T09:56:51.823-05:00Martin, you are mistaking an internally consistent...Martin, you are mistaking an internally consistent moral system (though I would argue that it does not even fulfil that criterium) for an objective and absolutely valid moral system.<br /><br />It is not. It is rooted in relative, arbitrary decisions - just as mine is (only I have the guts and intellectual integrity to admit it).<br /><br />This would be wonderfully illustarted if you had Singringhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02180277470418724600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-17381354021883221902010-11-24T09:56:28.717-05:002010-11-24T09:56:28.717-05:00'If I say that the purpose of the eye is to se...'If I say that the purpose of the eye is to see, would you call that arbitrary?'<br /><br />That depends on how you define the word 'purpose'. If you use 'purpose' in the sense that the main biological function the eye provides is 'to see' (a very vague term anyway in my opinion), then no - that statement would not be arbitrary, it would be derived from observable Singringhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02180277470418724600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-81138677713956642542010-11-24T09:30:50.661-05:002010-11-24T09:30:50.661-05:00Singring,
If I say that the purpose of the eye is...Singring,<br /><br />If I say that the purpose of the eye is to see, would you call that arbitrary?Martin Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16452612266051351726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-3933369346812968412010-11-24T09:28:59.980-05:002010-11-24T09:28:59.980-05:00One Brow,
So you would classify geometry as arbit...One Brow,<br /><br />So you would classify geometry as arbitrary?Martin Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16452612266051351726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-16406642152652467972010-11-24T09:24:43.245-05:002010-11-24T09:24:43.245-05:00Martin,
I don't think every possible philosop...Martin,<br /><br />I don't think every possible philosophical position is arbitrary by virtue of being a philosophical position. However, at its heart philosophy is a formal system, and formal systems need starting positions upon which to work their calculus, which positions, by the very nature of a formal system, do not come from within that system. Such positions are commonly chosen One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-19448247152177699972010-11-24T06:54:27.797-05:002010-11-24T06:54:27.797-05:00'And an account of morality that invokes Singr...'And an account of morality that invokes Singring's "personal opinion" is not a coherent account of morality.'<br /><br />As opposed to what? Martin Cothran's 'intuition' about the 'purpose' of the penis that then dictates the 'telos' of man?<br /><br />Come on...how stupid do you think your readers are? <br /><br />'I'm saying that the Singringhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02180277470418724600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-75015911821715082912010-11-24T06:54:09.612-05:002010-11-24T06:54:09.612-05:00'I pointed out that the only way to even have ...'I pointed out that the only way to even have a moral position is to assume there is such a thing as man-as-he-is and that there is such a thing as man-as-he-would-be-if-he-achieved-his-telos'<br /><br />Fine. But how do YOU know what the telos of a man is any better than I do? This is again just a game of semantics. You are pushing back your assertion one step, but it is still an Singringhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02180277470418724600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-4688764570532464682010-11-24T00:31:41.224-05:002010-11-24T00:31:41.224-05:00Singring,
I fail to see how you can derive an abs...Singring,<br /><br /><i>I fail to see how you can derive an absolute moral value (homsexual activity is always morally wrong) from an empirical correlation (reproduction appears to involve the genitalia in the majority of cases). </i><br /><br />I'm not deriving it from an "empirical correlation" I'm deriving the moral position from an account of men-they-are and Martin Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16452612266051351726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-11588148919253068862010-11-24T00:22:35.170-05:002010-11-24T00:22:35.170-05:00Singring,
In pother words, I reject the way you b...Singring,<br /><br /><i>In pother words, I reject the way you bestow importance and validity upon your intuitions and derive moral positions from them and especially how you then critique the morals of others.</i><br /><br />I'm not critiquing the morals of others; I'm saying that the positions called moral positions are not moral positions since they can give no coherent account of goingMartin Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16452612266051351726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-71033243575563665532010-11-23T22:51:24.702-05:002010-11-23T22:51:24.702-05:00Singring,
You have to actually make additional ar...Singring,<br /><br /><i>You have to actually make additional arguments as to WHY your purpose derived from 'intuition' is a better guide to morality than anyone elses.</i><br /><br />I did. I pointed out that the only way to even have a moral position is to assume there is such a thing as man-as-he-is and that there is such a thing as man-as-he-would-be-if-he-achieved-his-telos, and the Martin Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16452612266051351726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-18030301694949401892010-11-23T22:41:48.473-05:002010-11-23T22:41:48.473-05:00One Brow,
You seem to assume that if something is...One Brow,<br /><br />You seem to assume that if something is a philosophical position it is therefore arbitrary. On what grounds do you say that?Martin Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16452612266051351726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-44902185610589339152010-11-23T14:00:45.046-05:002010-11-23T14:00:45.046-05:00... the belief that there are natures and purposes...<i>... the belief that there are natures and purposes is a philosophical belief and not only hasn't be shown false by scientific evidence, but can't be.</i><br /><br />I agree completely with you here. This type of philosophical position can never be refuted by scientific evidence (and therefore, never be supported by it, either). In fact, this is one of the reasons I have been One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-59779191177776075862010-11-23T13:53:42.560-05:002010-11-23T13:53:42.560-05:00Martin,
I ws confused upon what you meant by the ...Martin,<br /><br />I ws confused upon what you meant by the paragraph below. Could you clarify it, please?<br /><br />To finish that last thought: what I was making the argument for was the moral position having to do with acts that are obviously associated with same sex "marriage" which if any acts are contrary in purpose to one another, they are.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-39904563256658845532010-11-23T13:50:39.527-05:002010-11-23T13:50:39.527-05:00And no, human animals cannot naturally reproduce w...<i>And no, human animals cannot naturally reproduce without sex, </i><br /><br />My inference is that Martin Cothran wishes to not have graphic details in his blog comments, so I will not include any in this comment. Feel free to send me an email or make a blog comment if your knowledge, imagination, and reasearch skills are insufficient to the task of learning a couple of natural ways that One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-45955809009033834222010-11-23T13:49:59.735-05:002010-11-23T13:49:59.735-05:00One Brow, your comments amount to a list of assert...<i>One Brow, your comments amount to a list of assertions and proclaimed failings on my part without any actual arguments in support of this. </i><br /><br />E.R. Bourne, when the failing under discussion is the failure to produce a supporting argument, I am not aware of any evidencde that can be provided which goes beyond essentially saying you have provided no evidence. When you provide One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.com