Posted on 05/05/2004 11:31:33 PM PDT by tpaine
The idea that our rights were "endowed" by our "Creator" is described by Jefferson in the Declaration as "self-evident" truth, not mere "subjective experience". Perhaps you see some difference between "endowed" and "granted".
Cordially,
Agreed, Patrick. With one small addendum -- we are probably entitled to think that something definitely happened to Joan, though we don't know exactly what it was, or if it was as she described it -- i.e., the Voice of God. For all that her experience was "subjective," the objective effects were truly astonishing, utterly extraordinary -- utterly inexplicable by any physical cause that we know of. That is, this insular, ignorant, inexperienced country girl somehow acquired the virtues of a successful military commander -- seemingly "overnight."
I can't explain this by means of any kind of rational proof. But there it is all the same.
Incredibly, that ~was~ agreed upon in 1787 & in 1791. One wonders why we still have to argue about it.
The idea that our rights were "endowed" by our "Creator" is described by Jefferson in the Declaration as "self-evident" truth, not mere "subjective experience".
I have no problem with Jeffersons choice of words. We can all have our own views on 'creators', correct?
Perhaps you see some difference between "endowed" and "granted".
I used the word 'granted' because, if memory serves, Betty used it earlier in insisting that 'God granted our rights', or something very close to that phrase.
It is self evident that man has inherent, natural rights.
"Many call them God given rights. Regardless of the source recognized, they are identical."
['spunkets', FR.]
Why do you feel a ~need~ to argue about this, Diamond?
t:I have no problem with Jefferson's choice of words. We can all have our own views on 'creators', correct?
Diamond, tpaine, if I might stick my nose into this exchange: It seems to me NO, we cannot "all have our own views" without limit about things. As the wise man said, we are all entitled to our own conclusions; but we are not entitled to our own facts.
b: Perhaps you see some difference between "endowed" and "granted".
t: I used the word 'granted' because, if memory serves, Betty used it earlier in insisting that 'God granted our rights', or something very close to that phrase.
bb interjects: a "grant," "endowment," or "gift" all refer to the same thing. They are synonymous terms.
Then spunkett said this:
"It is self evident that man has inherent, natural rights. ... Many call them God given rights. Regardless of the source recognized, they are identical."
Personally, I have to disagree with this statement. How can two things be identical, when one either outright denies, or maybe simply has amnesia about its basis in reality, and the other freely acknowledges it has such a basis, and embraces it?
These cannot be "equivalent" things.
Not only that. Truth is independent of observation. It is the rule against which observation must test itself. So to speak.
And it "lives," whether observed or not, let alone acted upon.
We humans need it; but it doesn't need us. To put the matter crudely, fancifully, whatever.
I guess it must be time for bed! Good night, y'all!
It is amazing, but not unique. Ghengis Kahn came from nowhere to rule the biggest empire on earth. Alexander Hamilton was a bastard from the Carribbean island of Nevis, yet he co-fathered the Constitution and wrote most of the Federalist Papers. I won't dwell on Mohammed, but he too seems to have come from nowhere and ruled an extensive empire that he conquered. Charlemagne, although probably born to a tiny kingdom, and allegedly illiterate, did rather spectacularly for himself.
My point in all of this rambling is that sometimes, seemingly ordinary people do extra-ordinary things. It's happened often enough that although it's always impressive, by now we're sufficiently accustomed to it that we shouldn't always leap to the explanation that it's a miracle.
I am going on record here to note that it wasn't I who was first to use the "M-word" in this conversation.
Myself, I can't just go "ho-hum" over the truly extraordinary.
And so it is interesting to me that you want to set Genghis Kahn and Alexander Hamilton on the same plane as Saint Joan. They may each have had their unique, individual genius; but of the three of them, only Joan explicitly understood herself as the servant of the Lord.
Which may not exactly be a "category of human existence" that you think highly of, as a rule.
But I'm not going to think any more about this tonight. I'm sleepy and so am going to bed.
Good night, Patrick!
As an observation, I would like to add that we value irrevocable gifts differently from things which we earn or claim.
Those who figure they have earned or claimed "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" are living out a survival of the fittest, deterministic, metaphysically naturalist, story line. IOW, such rights are seized and are therefore never unalienable by a competitor. Seems to me that attitude devalues all the foundation principles: the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Rather than a sacred right, in that mindset everything is negotiable.
Personally, I have to disagree with this statement.
Why Betty? Why is it important to you to quibble over how our rights came to be?
How can two things be identical, when one either outright denies, or maybe simply has amnesia about its basis in reality, and the other freely acknowledges it has such a basis, and embraces it?
You seem to be insisting, yet again, that your vision of God giving us our rights is the only reality. Why is this such an issue with you?
"Regardless of the source recognized, our rights are identical."
These cannot be "equivalent" things. Not only that. Truth is independent of observation. It is the rule against which observation must test itself. So to speak. And it "lives," whether observed or not, let alone acted upon. We humans need it; but it doesn't need us. To put the matter crudely, fancifully, whatever.
Sorry Betty, but those meaningless lines are just more of your baffling wordplay, imo.
I guess it must be time for bed! Good night, y'all!
Sweet dreams kiddo.
Adler begins [in Ten Philosphical Mistakes] by reexamining John Locke's postulate that our ideas (derived wholly from our sensual perceptions) indirectly refer to the world, yet at the same time they are subjective and arise individually in our consciousness. In Locke's words, ideas are "objects of understanding" that fill men's minds when they think. The mind processes sensual perceptions and comes up with ideas. While "the world" that the mind thus processes remains a constant (an important interpretation of Adler's, one that places him squarely outside the postmodern camp), the "ideas" airse individually, and thus there is no guranatee that your ideas will be similar to mine. There seems to be a contradiction here, sys Adler: the private experience of processing sensual perceptions cannot gurantee that the "ideas" will be the same for you and me. If one accepts Locke's terminology, one has to accept the proposition that everyone has a different set of ideas, rendering communication virtually impossible, and yet, we do communicate.Adler's way of dealing with theis paradox is to consider ideas as the means by which we apprehend objects that are not ideas. He points out that Locke's usage is imprecise: ideas are not objects of apprehension but only tools by means of which we apprehend "objects of thought." Ideas are signs that point us to objects of thought and to the real world. "We apprehend objects of thought, but never the concepts by which we think of them."
The "splitting" of Locke's ideas into objects of thought and signs by means of which we apprehend these objects of thought allows Adler to avoid the abovementioned contradiction between subjectivity of thought and objectivity of the world. Without this distinction, Locke's (and Hume's) positions lead either to skepticism concerning the possibility of acquiring any knowledge common to all, or to solipsism (as in those linguistic theories that assert that language is ultimately self-referential and it says nothing about the world; indeed the experience of "the world" is a purely subjective experience). This skeptical and subjectivist approach has dominated twentieth-century philosophy, and it allowed for the appearance of such ultimate skeptics as Jacques Derrida or Richard Rorty. We have grown so accustomed to the minimalists yields offered by the recent philosophers that we came to believe with Soren Kierkegaard that religious faith requires an irrational leap, and that religion is private and subjective.
Adler points out that the disitnction he proposes allows us to avoid the pitfall of subjectivism and skepticism and express in theory what we kinow from practice: that common knowledge is indeed possible, that when two peope look at an object and think about it, they are thinking about the same object, even though their ideas may differ. Thus Adler returns to the famous maxim of Thomas Aquinas who was the first to emphasize that our ideas are that by which we apprehend, not that which we apprehend. This is not splitting hairs. This is fundamental.
'We the people' proclaimed, in the 14th amendment, our rights to life, liberty, and property. You somehow object, A-Girl? Why? Tis a strange view for a conservative.
IOW, such rights are seized and are therefore never unalienable by a competitor.
What's that mean? Our 'competitors' can risk violating our rights, of course. What else is new?
Seems to me that attitude devalues all the foundation principles: the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Rather than a sacred right, in that mindset everything is negotiable.
You pose an 'attitude' that no one rational takes, then declare it a 'negotiable mindset'. -- Poor, confused straw man, imo.
And, -- what purpose does such a weak argument serve? You attitude puzzles me.
I don't, but the mention of politics is curious. For politics has always been understood in contrast to nature. Nature, that is, left by itself, gives no laws, for necessity requires no laws. The ancient distinction between nature and nurture (explained by Strauss in the introduction to his History of Political Philosophy) points to an interesting tension: the argument of the good. Or, the problem of evil.
I am convinced that the minute we think that death is not good, we are on the way to becoming human.
Miracles, when they occur, usher in a new reality which has to be dealt with. Thus, when they occur, we may rejoice for a moment, or a few days, but very quickly we get caught up in the demands of the new reality, and very quickly its back to business as usual. The new reality has its own set of worries, its own dangers and troubles which have to be managed.
And very quickly the new circumstance begins to seem inevitable, and how it was and how it very nearly went get lost in the press of everyday life. Its just human nature.
There is a glass on the table. It is the same glass for many observers that correctly note it's qualities. Some of the observers fail to correctly note it's qualities.
The ones that correctly ID the qualities are now stuck with determining how the glass got to be there. See none of them created the glass, even though a few were glassmakers, nor did any of them put it on the table.
It's about recognizing the glass as having a unique and characteristic essence, regardless of where it came from. The same goes for rights. It is the same unique and characteristic right, regardless of where it came from.
Concerning the attitude... in my view, a sacred right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" as then manifest in the Constitution etc. cannot become negotiable by definition (i.e. the rights are sacred, unalienable, endowed by the Creator).
OTOH - again, IMHO - if one does not consider the rights sacred then he can persuasively argue that the Constitution, etc. can and should be reinterpreted or rewritten from time to time.
BTW, I wasn't speaking to the 14th amendment. I was speaking to the Declaration of Independence.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.