Natural Law and Self-Preservation

[eye_of_the_storm]

Self preservation regarding the collective...

Say like China before the "Cultural Revolution"

So the Self in this regard is the Chinese people

I have not even read Hobbes... I was looking for examples of Natural Law Theory, what I copy and paste is what I am in agreement with (from the link provided).

//

 

You still haven't answered "Natural selection is about science and evolution"? so you agree with some elements of Social Darwinism?

Edited September 11, 2013 by White Wolf Running On Air

[ralis]

Self preservation regarding the collective...

 

 

What do you mean by the above quote? That just proves you don't understand what Hobbes was referring to. Hobbes was referring to creating civil order at the expense of individual freedom.

 

You started the OP and I am challenging your premise, So far your narrative is based on faulty logic and cherry picking what you are in agreement with by citing Hobbes et al to prop up faulty reasoning.

 

I would suggest reading Leviathan and get back with us in 1 year!

Edited September 11, 2013 by ralis

[eye_of_the_storm]

// Ok, I will elaborate... though my position is near exactly the same as what i quoted... so pointless task really... but anyway...

> The laws of Nature are Divine law
> All humans are bound by them
> Natural law is self evident
> Preservation of the natural law is Good
> The natural laws direct the way to Good/ Harmony

Sounds Taoist to me??

So the way to harmony is following natural laws

and the way to chaos is going against natural laws

- That maintaining unique cultures/people is good/ harmonious/ organic and in alignment with natural laws as per self evident patterns found in nature... of which the pictures in the OP demonstrated.

 

//

So I guess by ignoring my question, you do agree with elements of Social Darwinism?

As you said... "Natural selection is about science and evolution"

you also made a premise ^ that I am questioning? in regards to a couple of pages ago... lol

So what? haha

Edited September 11, 2013 by White Wolf Running On Air

[ralis]

// Ok, I will elaborate... though my position is near exactly the same as what i quoted... so pointless task really... but anyway...

 

> The laws of Nature are Divine law

> All humans are bound by them

> Natural law is self evident

> Preservation of the natural law is Good

> The natural laws direct the way to Good/ Harmony

 

Sounds Taoist to me??

 

So the way to harmony is following natural laws

 

and the way to chaos is going against natural laws

 

//

 

So I guess by ignoring my question, you do agree with elements of Social Darwinism?

 

As you said... "Natural selection is about science and evolution"

 

you also made a premise ^ that I am questioning? in regards to a couple of pages ago... lol

 

So what? haha

 

 

 

 

 

Who or by what means are those 5 points enforced? Exactly why did you bring Hobbes into the equation when you have not read Leviathan. If you are to regard Hobbes as a source for your narrative, then it is expedient to not quote out of context but to understand the basis for the Hobbes 'social contract'.

 

Who is defining the so called natural laws?

[eye_of_the_storm]

Self evident

[ralis]

After you actually prove your point, then I may answer your question. However, you started this thread and I am challenging you to defend your narrative. To answer a question with a question such as what you are doing to deflect the real discussion here, is not what I will participate in.

Self evident

 

That is a cop out and you know it. Are you going to defend your Hobbes quotes or not?

[eye_of_the_storm]

After you actually prove your point, then I may answer your question. However, you started this thread and I am challenging you to defend your narrative. To answer a question with a question such as what you are doing to deflect the real discussion here, is not what I will participate in.

 

Seems to be your tactic...

 

A discussion would be nice, rather than an interrogation... maybe you have something worthwhile to offer? maybe you don't

 

Nothing you have said refutes what I have said... just sidetrack questions

 

So I guess you are in agreement but wanting to divert things for whatever reason?

 

Perhaps you are a marxist who does't believe their own BS? but doesn't want to admit it

Edited September 11, 2013 by White Wolf Running On Air

[ralis]

 

Seems to be your tactic...

 

A discussion would be nice, rather than an interrogation... maybe you have something worthwhile to offer? maybe you don't

 

You started the thread and all I ask is for you is to prove your points as opposed to being evasive.

[eye_of_the_storm]

The proof is in the 3 pictures I presented... it can't get more obvious than that... you just have to open your eyes.

A pictures says 1000 words

[ralis]

I would suggest reading 'The Republic'.

The proof is in the 3 pictures I presented... it can't get more obvious than that... you just have to open your eyes.

A pictures says 1000 words

 

How you interpreted the pictures with racism being endemic to the natural world is how I see your OP. That stands above all commentary you have made in this thread. Hobbes advocated white-supremacy.

Self-evident and proof of are two different things. The former needs no explanation and the latter requires extensive validation. That is the contradiction I see.

By asserting that racism in the natural world is somehow divine law then aberrant behavior can easily follow. History is replete with examples. That is where 'Social Darwinism' originates.

[eye_of_the_storm]

The title was a working title... as is the thread... the thread is more like play... than a static thing.

Can you demonstrate Hobbes advocating white-supremacy?

As you already know I am unfamiliar with his work, so unsure if that statement is true or not.

[ralis]

The title was a working title... as is the thread... the thread is more like play... than a static thing.

 

Can you demonstrate Hobbes advocating white-supremacy?

 

As you already know I am unfamiliar with his work, so unsure if that statement is true or not.

 

 

Since you were so quick to bring Hobbes into the discussion, why not read Hobbes for yourself. I read all that in college. I am not doing your homework for you!

[eye_of_the_storm]

Considering you are so knowledgeable on the subject I just assumed you'd be able to back up your statement rather easily...

Instead I have to read the entire works of Hobbes to see if you are making a true or false statement? and at the same time constantly demand for me to prove me position?

haha @_@

Talk about double standards...

[ralis]

 

Can you demonstrate Hobbes advocating white-supremacy?

 

 

 

Reread this.

 

http://thetaobums.com/topic/31625-natural-law-and-self-preservation/page-3#entry476835

[eye_of_the_storm]

so in other words no?

[ralis]

so in other words no?

 

Click on the link to an earlier post and that will give you a place to start. Did you do that? The explanation is right there. Are you versed in critical thinking? I doubt it!

[eye_of_the_storm]

Your narrative is a bit fractured to say the least. You start with Hobbes and end up with Marx to prove what?

 

To quote Hobbes; "the natural state is" bellum omnium contra omnes or ‘war of all against all that the life of man without civilized society should be characterized as ‘solitary, poor, brutish and short." Hobbes professed the view that civilized society can and must be forced up the uncivilized world/primitive cultures. What I take that to mean are persons of other races. E.g. Africans etc. Hobbes also professed that it is a moral duty for the government to impose civilized order upon society via a rigid social contract. Hobbes work in my opinion is more on the order of racial white supremacy which is Hobbes view of a divine natural order. This is not about a preservation of individualism but the group order at the expense of the individual.

 

Hobbes doesn't say anything about race // Roman Christianity enforced it's beliefs upon the "Barbarians/ Uncivilized" in Europe... bringing it's own form of "civilization" ... it is you here implying that Africa is uncivilized/ primitive.

 

I am saying African culture should be preserved and left to pursue its own evolutionary path without the interference of such things like Christianity or Cultural Marxism imposing its artificial ideologies on organic cultures.

 

As I believe Christianity/ Islam Marxism should also depart from Europe as it is foreign/ alien to Ancient European Culture

 

Just as I believe Christian missionaries in Nepal should get the f**k out

 

Disagree?

[ralis]

 

Hobbes doesn't say anything about race // Roman Christianity enforced it's beliefs upon the "Barbarians/ Uncivilized" in Europe... bringing it's own form of "civilization" ... it is you here implying that Africa is uncivilized/ primitive.

 

I am saying African culture should be preserved and left to pursue its own evolutionary path without the interference of such things like Christianity or Cultural Marxism imposing its artificial ideologies on organic cultures.

 

As I believe Christianity/ Islam Marxism should also depart from Europe as it is foreign/ alien to Ancient European Culture

 

Just as I believe Christian missionaries in Nepal should get the f**k out

 

Disagree?

 

You are twisting what I wrote in terms of what Hobbes called uncivilized. Which means any uncivilized country. You are impossible to discuss this with. Goodnight!

[eye_of_the_storm]

One day I'll be a cultural hero like Gandhi and his fight for freedom/ independence from British Imperialism!! hahaa

How funny though with the number of Indians now living in the UK and other British colonies?

Quite confusing...

[Marblehead]

Exactly when was the title of this thread allowed to be changed? I thought there was still a 30 min. edit limit. Did I miss something?

Yeah, that happened while you were sleeping. Edit limit changes have been reversed.

 

Okay. I have to give y'all credit. You did try to have a constructive discussion.

[Apech]

Yeah, that happened while you were sleeping. Edit limit changes have been reversed.

 

Okay. I have to give y'all credit. You did try to have a constructive discussion.

 

 

How was the banana ice cream? Would you describe it as Hobbesian "cum fructus lactis algore" or simply a Marxist commodity?

[Marblehead]

How was the banana ice cream? Would you describe it as Hobbesian "cum fructus lactis algore" or simply a Marxist commodity?

Ha! I fell asleep last night and didn't even get to taste it. Also, I should have stirred it at least twice more while it was freezing but that didn't happen.

 

I did just now go taste it. Turned out great except that there was a little separation and crystalization of the water because I didn't stir it while it was freezing. However, the taste is great! Can't miss the banana taste - I used three ripe bananas.

 

I used only evaporated milk this time but it still has a nice, heavy essence. Likely if I had used half evaporated and half heavy cream it would have had less water crystalization and an even heavier essence.

 

Forget Hobbes and Marx. It is total Nietzschian. Heaven without the god.

[eye_of_the_storm]

you'd have to ask where does this perception of heaven come from though?

Does mind precede matter or does matter precede mind?

Edited September 11, 2013 by White Wolf Running On Air

[Apech]

Ha! I fell asleep last night and didn't even get to taste it. Also, I should have stirred it at least twice more while it was freezing but that didn't happen.

 

I did just now go taste it. Turned out great except that there was a little separation and crystalization of the water because I didn't stir it while it was freezing. However, the taste is great! Can't miss the banana taste - I used three ripe bananas.

 

I used only evaporated milk this time but it still has a nice, heavy essence. Likely if I had used half evaporated and half heavy cream it would have had less water crystalization and an even heavier essence.

 

Forget Hobbes and Marx. It is total Nietzschian. Heaven without the god.

 

"What does not freeze us makes us sweeter." - I think be said that.

[Marblehead]

"What does not freeze us makes us sweeter." - I think be said that.

I think you might have interchanged a couple of the words but, yes, he did say that.

 

I didn't over-sweeten it, fortunately. I would have a tendancy to do that as I love sweets.

 

And yes, Nietzsche would have gone along with the new title of this thread: Natural Laws and Self-Preservation. However, I think that in the above discussion "Natural Laws" were mis-used to include the laws of man which, IMO, do not belong in the same basket as Tzujan.