[subversion]

you speak of laws which will quell the violent. Laws themselves are a form of violence, when enforced. Thus the only true way to fight violence is with "justified" violence, just like how the most efficient way to fight fire is with "friendly" fire, but who decides what violence is justified and what fire is friendly? It seems violence, once it arises, becomes fundamental. People could stop having wars only if the violent willingly chose to not be violent, otherwise you'd have to use violence to persuade them, which would itself be a war.

And even once a state of peace has been established, violence will become necessary to keep the state of peace maintained. Thus we should not look at violence as something we can do away with, rather, it is the driving force of human civilization, whether we like it or not. What we really need is agreement on what violence is necessary and what violence is not. Generally, we think that any violence needed to stop unecessary violence is necessary. Again the question of what is justified comes into play.

Ultimately violence is natural, inherent, and indeed important. When overpopulation increases so does stress, and studies show that stress leads to violence, which leads to wars, which then lessens the overpopulation. Thus violence is a safety-check, a problem fixer. If you are passionate enough, you have a natural license to commit violence. In this light, violence on behalf of governments and law enforcement is not naturally ordained, because it is almost invariably driven by money, not passion. Money is the root of all evil, it turns violence into a frivolous affair. Violence on behalf of somebody's true passion is the most natural thing there is, as natural as sex and as natural as survival. Passion seeks to uphold a harmonious balance, which paper money that has no inherent value destroys.

[Guille]

Sub,

Well, I believe that ethics and morality are subjective, so I think it's impoosible to detemrine which violence is "correct" or "justifyed" and which not. Also I agree that laws can become viloent themselves, but again, this is a moral judgement. Becuase I Ccoudl say that the only law is "NO violence of any kind" which, according to you, would impply no laws. This is a paradox....And there are millions of pore paradoxes, that's why I have adopted the subjectivity position in ethics, because I'm too occupied with other philosphical pormels and scientificall studies as to start worrying about ethics, which is the porblem that leads to more problems.

[mkirkpatrick]

Can we know truth,become aquainted with it?Does it unfold further as our
consciousness expands!The Truth is embedded within all life,like a hidden Jewel,
you just have to dig,look within to find it,nobody can really show you truth or even tell you about it,we need to find it ourselves.each ofus are at differing levels of awareness,and perception,we each understand ourown level of reality.
Truth has nothing to do with education,Or Academia,truth is life itself and although we canand do understand much of life-truth,the rest is a Dark-flame,
where the intellect finds entry difficult.


kind regards michael.

[Guille]

Michael,

Socrates once said that truth is the shadow of reality

Descartes once said that truth is what ther eis between reality and the being

They both were talking about the same thing, in a difference of 2,000 years of time, and with different interpretations, and with differen axioms and methods, but they both arrived to the same conclusion. So did many others. So it must be accepted: turth is not reality it self, and neither is truth human itself. It's the connection between the two. Just like belief/hope/should/could are the disconnections of humanity and reality.

[Steve Hanson]

GUILLE:

The basic difference is that wittgenstein says "no tree and no falling, for me" whilst logical positivists say "no tree and no falling at all". I hope that you understand the whole importance of this argument.

This is a very important point, thank you for bringing it up.

So, if I understand this correctly, a logical positivist would say that a blind deaf man would not be in any danger if he fell asleep on a train track because in his world the train that is rushing down to crush him doesn't exist.

If that is accurate, then to all the people who've died because of situations like that, what? Do they get a 'do-over'?

[mkirkpatrick]

Within each of us is the answer we just have to look there,the truth is that there is No-Outside,that We are All-Within the vast ocean of consciousness
outside is an illusion,one that has tricked most of mankind for centuries,look within for theanswer to truth,forwe are all interconnected with the universe
as we begin to understand ourselves,then wewill unstand the rest,because we
are related to it,and being related there is nothing that is kept from us,the amount of truthyou are able to understand,depends on howwell you know
your-Self,at Depth,notjust a surface aquaintance of course! Know the truth and
it will set you free-from what-?the delusional idea that there is an outside to
Reality!!! thats What!!


kind regards michael.

[Guille]

Originally Posted by Steve Hanson

GUILLE: This is a very important point, thank you for bringing it up.

So, if I understand this correctly, a logical positivist would say that a blind deaf man would not be in any danger if he fell asleep on a train track because in his world the train that is rushing down to crush him doesn't exist.

If that is accurate, then to all the people who've died because of situations like that, what? Do they get a 'do-over'?

You are right, I believe, in your interpretation. Of cours,e nto all logical positivsts agree. Some, particularly the vienna circle logical positivists: Carnap, Neurath, Feigl and Waismann enter in the set of the logical positivsts that we ahve described (but even they had differences between each other).

In contrast, philosophers near to the vienna circle, such as Reichenbach and Hempel, didn't agree with that proposition. They believed that the objects are what they are to the perceptions of the person, and they are that, but to the person. It's dificult to explain. It's a sort of synthesis of the two views: wittgenstein's and vienna circle's.

Then there are Ajer, Quine and Popper, who are logical positivists in a form, but neither take wittgenstein's view or vienna circle's, or neither the synthesis.

[Steve Hanson]

And what is the name of the philosophy that says we exist within existence and we know what we observe? Our minds we use to identify truth and to build a model, hopefully correct, of the way things work. Everything outside of ourselves exists independent of us. We observe and perceive and hopefully comprehend that which we sense. In short, we are observation machines; sensory machines that assess what is in order to continue.

[Guille]

I think all philosophies agree with the statement that we exist in existance. In what they variate is that what is existing, what is existence, and how we exist.


About what we know is what we observe, that is from empiricists. Or from any science positivist.

[mkirkpatrick]

If we could know truth,I do not think that we could share it ,do you!Who would
believe you?Would what you had to say be so self-evident that it would be accepted by all?I think prehaps not,truth seems to arise within the individual
as and when they are able to stand it?I think that on rare occasions there can be a mass of arising truth,but thr tendency seems to favour the individual.It
would seem that the fulness of truth is around us,we just tap or unfold into it
as we unravel ourselves!



kind regards michael.