Political Crossfire Forums

[Cato]

Quote: So, in short, my response to you Cato and others is that society is the tool of the collective. Societies are perfectly natural, as are our use of tools.

If society is a tool, it's artificial (something made) by definition. That we make tools, that is, our propensity to create, may very well be natural to us. This does not, however, make the tools we create natural. They are artificial, that is, created.

Society is a tool, as you've admitted, and is therefore artificial.

Here's an argument to consider:

Premise 1: Nature changes.

Premise 2: Society is a response to nature.

Conclusion: Therefore, when nature changes, so must society.

Quote: That you suggest that our use of tools separates from nature is most disturbing.

The very argument I'm making is that they do not. Society is a response to nature. Nature changes, and, thus, so too must society. The two are intricately linked.

PS: I don't really care what Locke has to say (for now), so why don't you just tell me what you have to say. If what you have to say is the same as what Locke has to say, that's great, I don't care. And keep your arguments clear and concise, please.

[The Impeacher]

Cato wrote:

Society is a tool, as you've admitted, and is therefore artificial.

no.

as communal creatures - humans being in tribes, packs, groups, gangs, and nuclear families is all very natural.

same is true for animals as simple as ants and as complex as primates.

are termite colonies, beehives, ant hills, and prarie dog mounds... unnatural?

do not wolves and pack animals such as lions have hierarchies and alpha males?

do you think anarchy is *natural* for nature? i don't, i see nature as the ongoing emergence of a form of order.

Cato wrote: Here's an argument to consider:

Premise 1: Nature changes.

Premise 2: Society is a response to nature.

Conclusion: Therefore, when nature changes, so must society.

Quote: That you suggest that our use of tools separates from nature is most disturbing.

The very argument I'm making is that they do not. Society is a response to nature. Nature changes, and, thus, so too must society. The two are intricately linked.

PS: I don't really care what Locke has to say (for now), so why don't you just tell me what you have to say. If what you have to say is the same as what Locke has to say, that's great, I don't care. And keep your arguments clear and concise, please.

i agree with your argument, and that is why consent is so important in terms of the social contract.

but i have a hard time finding fault with the notions of the Natural Rights of life, liberty, and personal possessions... and i particualry like how Rousseau embelished upon these notions with his argument of the general will.

however, unlike Rousseau, and less so with Locke, i think its a tad naive to stress that man's nature is "inherently good." i think the main point they were making is to keep the individual from seeing themselves as sinners, and as failures.

so, i think with Locke it's more about man trusting himself and his inner nature, as opposed to suggesting that man is purely benevolent which Rousseau seems at time to suggest.

my argument is Locke's, essentially, and i maintain that he is poorly understood - especially by anyone who claims his name under the guises of "capitalism;" when Locke was primarliy concerend with the Commons and not individual enterprise.

in other words, the violaton of the Commons by the Industrial movement was a prime violation of my Natural Rights to provide for myself from the Commons via my labor.

[Cato]

Quote: as communal creatures - humans being in tribes, packs, groups, gangs, and nuclear families is all very natural.

Yes; community may very well be natural (the human propensity to form such that is). Society, however, is artificial. 'Community' and 'society' are not interchangeable.

[The Impeacher]

Cato wrote: Quote: as communal creatures - humans being in tribes, packs, groups, gangs, and nuclear families is all very natural.

Yes; community may very well be natural (the human propensity to form such that is). Society, however, is artificial. 'Community' and 'society' are not interchangeable.

i find that differentiation to be both meaningless and incorrect.

apparently, modernity is unnatural to you?

what does that have to do with Locke, or Locke's argument?

[anselfir]

one cannot answer this question without setting up an ideal configuration fo the world. Since we cannot do that, we cannot give justification for freeborn rights. But you are welcome to believe in them.

[The Impeacher]

oneofthem wrote: one cannot answer this question without setting up an ideal configuration fo the world. Since we cannot do that, we cannot give justification for freeborn rights. But you are welcome to believe in them.

we wouldn't "know" an ideal world even if we already lived in it, which i think we already do....

we can of course give a justification, as long as its a contingent one.

[Cato]

Quote: apparently, modernity is unnatural to you?

... No, it's artificial; it's made. We built this society, it did not sprout from the ground for us. God did not wave a magic wand, and *poof* --- buildings, institutions, arts, laws. These we made; these are artificial in so far as they have been made.

[The Impeacher]

Cato wrote: Quote: apparently, modernity is unnatural to you?

... No, it's artificial; it's made. We built this society, it did not sprout from the ground for us. God did not wave a magic wand, and *poof* --- buildings, institutions, arts, laws. These we made; these are artificial in so far as they have been made.

is it not in our nature to make things? alternately stated, i feel what you call "artificiality" is natural for us, imho.

just because our tools have developed to these levels, does not change the fact that societies have evolved every bit a naturally as say, the Grand Canyon. any dynamic environment will accumulate change, and then events will come that will decide which of these developments will continue, and which will stop.

just because man makes it, does not make it unnatural.

Quote: The notion of labour is fundamental in Marx's thought. Basically, Marx argued that it is human nature to transform nature, and he calls this process of transformation "labour" and the capacity to transform nature labour power. For Marx, this is a natural capacity for a physical activity, but it is intimately tied to the human mind and human imagination:

A spider conducts operations that resemble those of a weaver, and a bee puts to shame many an architect in the construction of her cells. But what distinguishes the worst architect from the best of bees is this, that the architect raises his structure in imagination before he erects it in reality. (Capital, Vol. I, Chap. 7, Pt. 1)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx#Marx.27s_philosophy

[jawsome]

Impeacher-

If I might chime in quickly: I think you must understand the difference between "artificial" and "unnatural," that have been given by Cato (and others) as it seems you might have a different definition. I don't mean to speak for the others, but I believe (correct me if wrong) that, though our tendencies to create tools, communities, societies, etc. are natural (they are innate; we are born with such tendencies), our actions (the actual act of creating and forming these tools, communities, societies, etc.) result in artificial things.

Hopefully, that makes sense...I've had a little bit of wine but I don't think I'm too far off. :wink:

[The Impeacher]

jawsome wrote: hough our tendencies to create tools, communities, societies, etc. are natural (they are innate; we are born with such tendencies), our actions (the actual act of creating and forming these tools, communities, societies, etc.) result in artificial things.

wine is good for the soul. :)

let me state i used to think more like cato and A.D when i was a tad younger, but i've come to see things differently over time - so yes, you are on the right track.

it's like this, does not Cato's argument imply that a beehive is artificial? god did not just wave a wand and *poof* BEEHIVES FOR BEES!

but, the point should stick to the essence of rights... and so do the bee's have an innate WHATEVER to make a beehive? and so it goes....

the other point is that all too often something is called "unnatural" when it seems to be in what we would otherwise call a state of disharmony with nature. i really do not think that something that "fails" as it were, or carries no adaptive advantage - or in fact leads to a disadvantage - is "unnatural."

in other words, its natural to fail. just look at the evolutionary tree if you dont follow my gist... lots of dead ends on that thing. so i argue its natural for mankind to go against nature in the sense that Cato is claiming, and manipulate his environment. that is the power of the mind, the imagination, that Marx is refering to - and i concur.

even though i clearly understand humans to be animals, i do think we are a unique species and need to be evaluated relative to what makes us unique.... our minds.

now then, if one wants to take the argument about the natural rights only being valid in so far as they "promote" the sucess of the species as it were, then they can - i will not. my only point is that these natural or innate rights suggest to me that human themselves are a part of the laws of nature and those laws are also innately a part of them - and thus the "rights" are then mental construction, or perhaps the cognitive reconstruction and self-reflected awareness of... our instincts.

[Cato]

The Impeacher wrote: it's like this, does not Cato's argument imply that a beehive is artificial? god did not just wave a wand and *poof* BEEHIVES FOR BEES!

Excellent argument! Well, let's look at Marx's quote, shall we...

Marx wrote: But what distinguishes the worst architect from the best of bees is this, that the architect raises his structure in imagination before he erects it in reality.

Can it not be said that what is artificial is a product of the imagination? That is, bees have a natural industry, where man must invent his. Bees build hives by impulse; men build societies by both impulse and imagination.

The industry of bees will change, as the bee evolves. But man's industry doesn't require man's physical evolution to change, it evolves in man's imagination. Man's industry is thus independent of his physical evolution. Granted, like the bees' industry, man's must be relative to his environment. I can't make the floating city in my imagination a reality because it isn't practical.

Anyway, in short, what makes man's creations 'artificial' is that they first exist in his imagination. That man creates is natural, but what he creates is not. (I admit that this may simply be a semantical argument over the value of the word 'artificial'. Mind that the above is the definition I would give it, currently.)

What do you think?

[The Impeacher]

Cato wrote: The Impeacher wrote: it's like this, does not Cato's argument imply that a beehive is artificial? god did not just wave a wand and *poof* BEEHIVES FOR BEES!

Excellent argument! Well, let's look at Marx's quote, shall we...

Marx wrote: But what distinguishes the worst architect from the best of bees is this, that the architect raises his structure in imagination before he erects it in reality.

Can it not be said that what is artificial is a product of the imagination? That is, bees have a natural industry, where man must invent his. Bees build hives by impulse; men build societies by both impulse and imagination.

The industry of bees will change, as the bee evolves. But man's industry doesn't require man's physical evolution to change, it evolves in man's imagination. Man's industry is thus independent of his physical evolution. Granted, like the bees' industry, man's must be relative to his environment. I can't make the floating city in my imagination a reality because it isn't practical.

Anyway, in short, what makes man's creations 'artificial' is that they first exist in his imagination. That man creates is natural, but what he creates is not. (I admit that this may simply be a semantical argument over the value of the word 'artificial'. Mind that the above is the definition I would give it, currently.)

What do you think?

did the bee's sit back, take a look at various protoypes for beehives, consider the evidence, and then decide which one was best for them? i think we can agree "nature" chose for them, evolutionary style.

man's industry is the environment he is adapting to, man is driving his own evolution. marx was one of the first to postulate a form of "cultural determinism" - and i think its prescient.

and much as man industry is relative to his environment, must not his instincts be so? do you not see how natural/innate rights are just that? we are no longer driven by instincts as we once were, do you not see how this is a danger?

innate/natural rights are an attempt to return us to nature, not isolate ourselves from it...

[garyd]

Society isn't at it's most basic a response to nature per se but a response of sentient creatures to each others presence.

The difference between bees chimps and ants as one group and men as the other is that nature has far more direct and violent means of insuring order in the societies of bees ants, ants, and chimps than do men as a general rule.

These two groups also form societies for much different reasons if you can even apply the term reason for why animals form societies.

In the wolf pack or the lion pride might always makes right and none of the creatures within the pack ever question whether or not this is they way things should be it merely is and they are content with that.

Men and women on the other hand tend to value other things as well.

If we could translate the language of animals we'd find no great philosophers. We find words for sex, for mine, for food and in a few case where's junior and in some case juniors dead here's food. You would not have words for love, for hate or for why?.

[Cato]

Quote: did the bee's sit back, take a look at various protoypes for beehives, consider the evidence, and then decide which one was best for them? i think we can agree "nature" chose for them, evolutionary style.

That's exactly what I'm saying. So, perhaps we can agree that what man creates is artificial for the reason that it exists in man's imagination before in nature?

[The Impeacher]

Cato wrote: Quote: did the bee's sit back, take a look at various protoypes for beehives, consider the evidence, and then decide which one was best for them? i think we can agree "nature" chose for them, evolutionary style.

That's exactly what I'm saying. So, perhaps we can agree that what man creates is artificial for the reason that it exists in man's imagination before in nature?

no, it ceased being ARTIFICIAL once he made it physical and material.

how can something material be artificial? i think you are confusing "organic" with "synthetic." i understand how an artificial sweetener is not a natural sweetener... but i fail to see how a man-made dam is any different than a landslide and some lava - or even a beaver's natural labor...

i think you are confusing anything mad does as by default not being natural? that's silly. i guess the beaver is unnantural as well?

man digging a hole in a wall and calling a cave his home is no different than putting up 4 walls and a roof and calling that his home. the difference is we can make the abstract real by choice and intention...

again, how is man having intention UNNATURAL? that is in man's nature!

[Cato]

Quote: no, it ceased being ARTIFICIAL once he made it physical and material.

No. That's absurd.

Quote: how can something material be artificial?

What?! So, only non-existent things are artificial..? That makes LOADS of sense! No. Natural things occur naturally, while artificial things are produced artificially.

Look, the act of planning something is called an art; my art is designing buildings, I am an architect. What is produced from our art (or craft, technique, etc.) is artificial; I follow these plans, and build this artificial structure. Of course what we build is made from naturally occurring material (metal from the earth, wood from trees, etc.), but what we build is not naturally occurring itself, and is therein artificial...

Again, a building does not grow out of the ground, nor do I naturally walk out of my home and mindlessly build buildings when some natural impulse impels me. A building is the product of an architect's plan, and the labour of builders. The building is artificial, not natural. To suggest that it is the latter is absurd, plain and simple.

Again, just so there's no more confusion, the propensity (tendency) to create may be natural in man, and the materials man uses are, to be sure, natural. But what is actually built by man we call artificial, because the process of planning and building it are themselves man-made.

There are nuances here, please, note them; I truly hope you're capable of nuanced thinking!

[Cato]

Quote: man digging a hole in a wall and calling a cave his home is no different than putting up 4 walls and a roof and calling that his home.

The very fact that a man in the state of nature may build a stick-structure, or dig a hole in a cliff-face, or make a structure out of ice, etc. should indicate to you why we call the products of man's labour 'artificial'.

Bees make hives; beavers make dams; and birds make nests. Have you ever known bees to make anything other than hives? or beavers who build things other than dams? or birds who build something besides nests? Do you know of a single bird who creates nests, and now ice structures, and now lives in a cave, and now hunts for prey, and now farms? NO! The industry of the bird, bee, beaver, ant, etc. is innate, it is a natural industry. The bird builds a nest by the same impulse that tells it to fly. Only man builds with his imagination before the building has actually commenced. Only man creates arts (that of building, that of thinking, that of acting, etc.) before he creates objects. The objects created from arts we call artificial objects.

[The Impeacher]

Cato wrote: Quote: man digging a hole in a wall and calling a cave his home is no different than putting up 4 walls and a roof and calling that his home.

The very fact that a man in the state of nature may build a stick-structure, or dig a hole in a cliff-face, or make a structure out of ice, etc. should indicate to you why we call the products of man's labour 'artificial'.


no, we call them man-made, as in not naturaly produced by nature. something man-made is not necessarrily "artificial.' on what basis do insist on maintaining this bizarre assertion?

if you cannot see how its the nature of communal/social animals to "labor" and build things, i just know what to tell you.

if the labor is natural, so is its product.

i would agree that much of what man specifically makes with his labor can be deemed unnatural in the sense that it may conflict with inherent nature of the ecosystem in terms of causing undue harm, but that is not an intrinsic property of either the labor or the products of labor in and of themselves. that is only determined by the specific thing that results from the act of the labor, and the environment it is in.

i suppose next you'll arue that evolution is not also natural? :lol:

like i said, man's mind changes the consideration and scope of what it is in his nature to do, and i also have said that not all things that are done by either man or other species will necessarily benefit their survival.

now just in case this "nuance" is still not connecting with your grey cells, i am saying it is also in man's nature to destroy nature itself. thus, man must use his gift of reason, his gift of imagination, and thus this gift of both creation AND destruction with responsibility. thus, it is clearly in man's nature to destroy himself, if he does not use his gift of reason to do otherwise.

it is by this gift of reason that we recongnize, as beings that are a part of nature, that we must act in accordance with what we perceive to be the natural laws of nature itself.

otherwise, we are at license to do anything, and for any or no reason. that is worthless, nihlistic chaos and i want no part of that. nor can a human or civil society cound be said to exist in this "condtion"....

now then, if you are some nihlistic, unethical relativist who thinks man has absolute license to unleash his will upon any one, and do anything, for any reason - kindly do me the favor of not discussing this subject any further with me.

i believe life has value, intrinsically, and possbily a very simple form of purpose - and that that value can be discovered and maintained only by introspection and reflection, aka reason.

and the name for the those values are our natural rights.

[Cato]

TI wrote: no, we call them man-made, as in not naturaly produced by nature. something man-made is not necessarrily "artificial.' on what basis do insist on maintaining this bizarre assertion?

if you cannot see how its the nature of communal/social animals to "labor" and build things, i just know what to tell you.

if the labor is natural, so is its product.

Bizarre assertion!? YOU, my friend, are a text-book example of a sophist!

Again...

Cato wrote: . . . Just so there's no more confusion, the propensity (tendency) to create may be natural in man, and the materials man uses are, to be sure, natural. But what is actually built by man we call artificial, because the process of planning and building it are themselves man-made (artificial).

You are rather obtuse, frankly...

The definition of 'artifical' (Dictionary.com): 1. Made by humans; produced rather than natural.

Gee.. 'Made by humans'.. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that the politically correct version of, ". . . We call them man-made, as in not naturaly produced by nature." Your words. This is really a no-brainer...

TI wrote: i suppose next you'll arue that evolution is not also natural?

'artificial' does not mean 'unnatural'! Artificial means 'created through art'; only humans create arts, so all things 'artificial' are, perforce, human made.

Again: Cato wrote: There are nuances here, please, note them; I truly hope you're capable of nuanced thinking!

Either you're not, or your just being a sophistical rhetorician and wasting my time.

[Cato]

TI wrote: . . . I am saying it is also in man's nature to destroy nature itself. thus, man must use his gift of reason, his gift of imagination, and thus this gift of both creation AND destruction with responsibility. thus, it is clearly in man's nature to destroy himself, if he does not use his gift of reason to do otherwise.

This really has nothing to do with the above semantical argument, but, agreed.

Quote: otherwise, we are at license to do anything, and for any or no reason. that is worthless, nihlistic chaos and i want no part of that. nor can a human or civil society cound be said to exist in this "condtion"....

Nature is not benevolent. In nature, survival is all that matters. Survival means continuity, that's it. For instance, Salmon swim upstream, against horrendous odds to their sure-deaths every year; nature has no mercy. If the species can perpetuate, it does, if it can't, it's an anomaly. There's no 'right way' in nature, there's only survival, continuity.

If nature was benevolent, she would have a mind, she would ensure order. But, nature choses only survivers, it does not possess pity, or duty, or any other characteristic of modern man.

What's more, nature is mutable; what one does to survive today is not necessarily what one does to survive tomorrow.

Quote: and the name for the those values are our natural rights.

"All things must pass." -- Harrison