The base and dirty act of sex is totally opposed to the wholesome product of producing a child
I was thinking about this lately in how comical it is how the world is made like that.
Sex is like a dirty thing. I am not talking about morals or culturally. Maybe it has something to do with it but I doubt any but the most liberated would be open to having sex in front of anyone. It is like someone watching you defecate. We know people do it, but we don't want to personally watch them - well in the form of porn yes which is what made me think of it.
Porn is totally divorced from the idea of producing babies, yet the act of sex is meant to make them. How weird is that?
Even 'vanilla' sex that leads to climax is an animalistic type of thing and the baby emerges down the line somewhere.
For 'square' type of people I wonder how they ever 'do the do' and actually have sex. I think of very reserved Brits such as Richard Dawkins, or just the idea of the 'stiff upper lip' Brit in general and think 'how did they ever manage to loosen up enough to have sex?' I think of them just being like the old cliche of 'lay back and think of England' where sex is a necessary evil that they must get over and done with to get to the important outcome of bearing progeny.
The idea of bringing up a child on the other hand is the most saccharin sweet idea in society.
I just find it so funny how the world is designed like that, where a 'loving couple' can be respected and all the family supports their union and you know they are doing 'the nasty'.
Sex is like a dirty thing. I am not talking about morals or culturally. Maybe it has something to do with it but I doubt any but the most liberated would be open to having sex in front of anyone. It is like someone watching you defecate. We know people do it, but we don't want to personally watch them - well in the form of porn yes which is what made me think of it.
Porn is totally divorced from the idea of producing babies, yet the act of sex is meant to make them. How weird is that?
Even 'vanilla' sex that leads to climax is an animalistic type of thing and the baby emerges down the line somewhere.
For 'square' type of people I wonder how they ever 'do the do' and actually have sex. I think of very reserved Brits such as Richard Dawkins, or just the idea of the 'stiff upper lip' Brit in general and think 'how did they ever manage to loosen up enough to have sex?' I think of them just being like the old cliche of 'lay back and think of England' where sex is a necessary evil that they must get over and done with to get to the important outcome of bearing progeny.
The idea of bringing up a child on the other hand is the most saccharin sweet idea in society.
I just find it so funny how the world is designed like that, where a 'loving couple' can be respected and all the family supports their union and you know they are doing 'the nasty'.
Comments (95)
:sweat: lol.
Quoting unimportant
Believe me, there are uptight introverts whose sex acts match their own personality. Are you a quiet personality and don't interact much? Then the way you are in bed with another person would mirror that.
You are basically claiming that there is an incommensurability between the act of sex and the effect of procreation. It's an interesting argument. My suggestion would be that sex is not as irreducibly bestial as it has come to be seen in our culture. In any case, this is another outgrowth of the fact that man is the strange amalgam that lies between the angels and the beasts.
Indeed.
Most things are of a like kind to produce more of the same.
Not sure how to articulate, but living a certain kind of way produces more of the same. If someone lives a life of abusing their bodies they can expect results in kind. If someone eats healthy they can expect healthy results.
I suppose what I mean is that sex is nasty by nature, and nasty in a good way, due to being naughty, but babies are like a wholesome thing. It is like a strange alchemy where one base material produces its opposite.
There is a difference between having thoughts and making them public. And babies are very special. The most special things.
Best thread on TPF in years, OP. :up:
It doesn’t surprise me that’s your opinion.
Quoting Outlander
Why turning to base trolling and name calling I would expect on other forums?
T Clark you are the one also made the 'low effort' "get help" response in the very productive Suicide thread that many are enjoying so not going to put much stock in your comment.
I am not saying the OP has the highest intellectual vigour and was rightly placed in The Lounge but there is no need for guttural replies as there it was an honest observation and don't see what is 'creepy' about it. If you want to say it is creepy then say why, as this is a Philosophy forum, not just a little hit and run insult.
Seems your delicate sensibilities are easily offended.
Again this bandwagoning is what I see far too much on other forums. As soon as one negative post comes, others seem to get their courage and pile on.
To be fair mine was written well in advance. And it was funny. The classic "everything's fine" in a situation where it's clearly not. You have people in this thread who relate to you and validate your premise(s), and you have those who don't. What more do you want? :chin:
Sure, I don't actually think it's the "best thread on TPF" but the fact that some people see that remark as wry humor (that's what it is: gentle, lighthearted absurdity not vindictive mockery or belittlement) addresses a common sentiment that does no good in ignoring or acting like the people (a majority) who hold it are inherently incorrect or out of touch, no?
Though, I do see your point. I withheld that remark not because I thought it was offensive but because it was non-serious. Whereas once a serious (potentially offensive) remark was made, I offered mine so as to lighten the mood with wry humor. This should have made you feel better and more confident in the face of the other person's more serious critique.
The Lounge is supposed to be a lighthearted place. It takes two to tango when it comes to negativity. So perhaps one might ask who it really is who isn't playing fair. :wink:
I don’t consider expressing my distaste for the OP as trolling and there was no name calling. I didn’t say anything about you, I only commented on the OP.
Quoting unimportant
I found it disgusting and I expressed that feeling. That seems reasonable to me.
Of course, because it shows what an animal who laps at the bosom of primal lust without any deep meaning really is. His is a scathing commentary on how humanity has failed to evolve. That despite all our machines and pleasantries we still value that which the animals value first and foremost, much like the same.
Some might have the self-respect and dignity to admit, yes, there are faults we have personally that should be exposed so as to result in a better society and state of mankind.
I think there's a view you're not considering, one which is probably closer to the way @T Clark sees things. I mean the view that sees the idea that sex is dirty or that the animal in us is something to be ashamed of or to transcend—that this idea itself is what is offensive, rather than sex or the "bestial". In other words, it is disgusting that people find sex disgusting.
The idea that our animal nature is "base" and "dirty" has deep links with philosophy and religion, of course. That's a problem for philosophy. If this discussion could go in that direction, that might be enough to raise it up out of the Lounge.
The traditional scheme is that the good is what is eternal, necessary, pure, and rational. The contingent, mutable, finite, passionate and affective—like life and love (real love, with sex and everything)—are relegated to inferior status, as belonging to the wordly realm that philosophy is meant to transcend.
I am very much against this binary scheme, and I like the philosophers who have challenged it. Nietzsche, Merleau-Ponty, Foucault, and Adorno. Generally, 20th century scepticism towards reason, and its inclusion of the body, saved philosophy from becoming a complete idiot.
One interesting angle is the possibility that a neurotically adolescent view of sex, as expressed in the OP (which is not to say it's unusual), might actually be founded on a long-standing philosophical tradition going back to Plato and Siddhartha Gautama.
[hide=EDIT]EDIT: But that's too easy, and there's a big but. Plato's dialogues are themselves motivated by desire and love, rather than being coldly, neutrally rational. So in a way he slightly undermines any strict hierarchy.[/hide]
Oh I'm absolutely sure of that. This is the Lounge after all. I enjoy taking my thinking cap off here, if that's alright.
Quoting Jamal
Right, that's not quite what I was getting at. Different strokes for different folks. However, if one has what a thinking society might consider an irrational (that is to say, what should be irrational due to the heavy contrast of what intelligence, restraint, and pursuit of higher [to some, "lofty"] ideals have produced) fixation or perhaps even obsession with the lowest levels of the human experience, well, perhaps one ought listen and hear out the opposing party. Again, the people who chastise or outright condemn the values that brought about everything said condemning people use everyday don't really have a right to turn around and say "oh that's nice that it gave me everything I use and take for granted, but now I'm going to talk down about it as something I don't need" when in reality it gave them everything they have. That's what I feel many people can rightfully pose an issue toward.
Perhaps it can be likened to eating. Everyone eats, they have to. We wouldn't be alive without eating. But when someone just can't control themself to the point it starts to negatively affect not only their own life but that of others (specifically others who can control, or perhaps simply do value concepts such as restraint and planning, and as such want neither deserve no part of the burden that those who cannot). I mean, there has to be a limit to over-indulgence and what is socially-acceptable as far as inflicting your willful lack of restraint (and resulting detriment) on unsuspecting upstanding members of society if they can easily make the choice not to. There's a limit to how much burden and moral degradation (and resulting social detriment) the average person should reasonably bear, especially in the context of anything possibly detrimental or likely to cause degradation being wholly and perhaps even easily avoidable.
But anyhow. Perhaps the OP's underlying sentiment can be likened to how coal (a crude, dirty material) is the only way that results in diamonds (highly valued and generally clean and pure material) from otherwise violent, messy, and mindless forces.
That seems a very charitable appraisal of them calling my post creepy. Seems you are assigning your own interpretation.
It seems the much more likely evaluation is they said it is creepy/disgusting simply because I am talking about sex in probably what they think is a puerile manner; one which they deem as socially inept which is usually the reason for calling something creepy.
I just shared what I found to be a biological observation that there is an incongruence between the base act of sex and the happy act of baby productions.
You are misinterpreting what I was saying. I am not saying sex is dirty in a Puritan type of way. I am saying it is nasty in the 'sexy' way. Like you want your girlfriend to be nasty in the bedroom. That is not to be prudish. Quite the opposite. It is to embrace the nastiness and revel in it.
I am not making value judgements about it. Sex is nasty by nature and that is all fine. I am only pointing out the juxtaposition between nasty sex and sweet coochy cooo babies which result from the act.
I had thought of another corollary which is salient. Manure is also thought of as nasty and yet that feeds the soil to produce good healthy crops.
Them? I see one post that mentions anything of the sort. Are you seeing double? People pile things on yes. But, many a time, it is but our own mind that plays tricks on us. Per past experience, of course. No shame. We all have our horror stories. However, one ought wish to make a fine distinction, a point of remembrance, a baseline of reality, when the illusions of one's own mind is made so glaringly evident.
You are not familiar with them being used to refer to a person in the singular?
Also let's not forget the 'new' none binary gender!
Rather than some noble interpretation that Jamal states I read it more in the "shutdown this line of enquiry because it deviates from the societal norm" in the cancel culture type of vein.
This is the one and I don't see anything creepy or disgusting about stating such.
Oh, okay. We refer to people whose gender is unknown and impolite to assume as "they." Yes, I do that too! My mistake. Sorry about that. Carry on. And relax! It's the Lounge. Have a drink, get comfortable. We're not going anywhere. :smile:
Though in the future, a simple "that person" might suffice. I was concerned since you had previously mistakenly mentioned my post as something derogatory, thus priming my expected use of "they" to include multiple persons as opposed to it's actual use. An understandable misunderstanding. As it were. :grin:
First time I am learning referring to someone as they is improper. Nowadays it is improper to assume gender and be told off of 'misgendering'.
Quoting Outlander
Doesn't make sense to me, perhaps a language difference thing? Nitpicking anyway to look further.
Quoting Outlander
Yes I see, no problem.
I’m shocked to find we disagree on this.
I think it might be better said "the act of procreation", specifically in times when 60% of children didn't survive past age 5, contrasted to modern times with the introduction of contraceptives, thus making the act of coitus into a past time or hobby (and to some a competition), has somewhat cheapened what was once a widely-revered occurrence. :wink:
And don't forget Rabbi Shneur Zalman's Tanya, Hasidic mysticism, pre-20th Century. The idea that our animalistic side is base or evil is not a universal religious doctrine.
Rabbi Chaim of Volozhin, who is said to have wept near the time of his death and explained:
"In the World to Come, I will no longer be able to put on tefillin or perform a mitzvah. Only in this world is that possible — and that is why I weep as I prepare to leave it."
Heaven is lesser because you can't carry out good acts without a body. A different perspective.
Quoting AmadeusD
This is the Lounge so I can say whatever I want. Not only are babies each special, but so is every child of God, regardless of age, and you are as well, each of us with a divine soul of infinite worth, regardless of whether you agree or not. We are not born into sin, but perfection.
My view is unapologetically theistic, but it's no different than what a secular humanist would say, minus the holy talk.
possibly - but my position is grounded in first principles. There's nothing inherenlty good about a baby being born. Its often bad for all involved.
To the extent this suggests some sort of objective basis for the determination of value in the sense there are agreed upon criteria that can be measured in some empirical sense, this strikes me as a category error. Value is not measured that way. If you don't see it as a category error, but you insist no distinction between value based judgments and empirically measurable ones, then it's just question begging, assuming what you've set out to prove, which is there is no difference between value judgments and empirical ones, placing within the premise your conclusion: humans are not special.
Give me a reason to think babies are 'special' beyond that they are God's little gifts?
I guess we're at an impasse, not understanding what one another are saying. Alas.
You seem to be conflating what is objectively useful from what society deems as valuable.
You can say the same about a beautiful woman. They are not valued outside of the human realm but most guys will drool over her, while she has her best reproductive value at least.
Also in turn society values them highly. If you think it is perfect egalitarianism go to a nightclub on your own on any weekend and see how you are treated by the bouncers compared to attractive an woman. Many other examples but that would be the most stark.
As the old saying goes 'women and children first'. That leaves men at bottom of the barrel.
I suppose I was discussing a fact of nature in my OP, so your response is a correct answer to my original query. However I was not aware at the time, that my value judgement of sex being dirty or whatnot, again not talking from a Puritanical point, just that it can be hot and nasty and also fun, is probably a societal view so perhaps better to shift the goalposts now to the societal aspect.
I am asking for a reason for the deeming of value. I can't understand it, without recourse to a fiction. If that's the case, that's fine. I am interested in something more.
Quoting unimportant
Definitely. But "special" is different from "beautiful". The latter is wholly subjective. There are no standards. We can say a woman is beautiful because she causes x feelings which are directly to do with beauty - sexual arousal, visual satisfaction etc..
I find it much harder to get an avenue of reasoning going for the value (intrinsic, that is) of a baby being born. Babies are surplus. They are often unwanted. Again, without recourse to a 'life is sacred' type line, I'm wanting some reason to think babies are special beyond "well, quite a few people think this".
I'm not really sure how hte nightclub thing relates here, so i'll leave it.
Quoting unimportant
Hmm, that's reasonable. I view sex similarly to birth: An alien coming across it would probably be horrified, not knowing it's probably one of the greatest experiences a human can have.
Are humans special? Are babies human?
I don't know of any other species which uses language, composes poetry, mathematizes the physical universe, develops vehicles to fly around within the atmosphere and even beyond, develops traditions which last for thousands of years and span civilizational epochs, and worships God. If humans aren't special then I don't know what is.
There are lots of charitable readings of the OP. One is that something as special as a human being could result from an act that is so similar to acts that all of the non-human animals engage in. There is also the fact that the sexually promiscuous person's life is liable to change quite drastically once they find themselves with a newborn baby.
My point is that any given baby is a drop in an ocean of noise. There's nothing 'special' about a baby unless you import something more than the fact of it's existence (perhaps it survived an incredibly difficult pregnancy?).
And yet an infant does none of the things you itemize, but it's still special. What makes it more special is that its worth is not tied to what it does, but what it is.
I think I largely agree with you. But I am hard wired to want to protect a baby once born. Not that I’d want to keep it myself if it were not mine. We emerge from a culture that venerates snd sentimentalises babies and childhood and we appear hard wired to nurture, rear and teach. Does this make it ‘special’? Probably no more than many other things. Personally when a young woman tells me she isn’t into children and doesn’t want babies, I feel pleased for her. I’ve known many older childless women and not one has ever regretted it.
The OP seems to express a familiar Protestant hatred of sex which Denis Potter beautifully expressed in The Singing Detective.
.
What it is is precisely something that will grow to be able to do those things.
What is your definition of "special"? I don't think it's arbitrary at all. I think I am adhering to the definition of 'special' and you are not.
Unless it won't, yet it still will have the same value.
Then you are committed to the claim that if human babies did not ever grow into human adults they would have the same value as they do given the current state of affairs, which is absurd.
Both the view that sex is good/bad and babies being special is subject to being a human. Of course some do not feel the same way such as asexuals, gays have different value of beauty, sociopaths will not care for babies or other humans, but by and large a normal example of a person in society is expected to view babies as valuable and special.
It is simply a product of the usual Darwinian urges is it not? like how humans are social creatures in general, and other rules of thumb that make up the traits of the species. As how fish are expected to swim and monkey expected to climb. There are exceptions where it isn't but by and large that is what is expected of the average human specimen.
A mother is expected to love her child and indirectly the larger society they are in are expected to see the baby as special because that is what keeps the species going. So it can simply be said it is natural selection because if that wasn't the case neither of us would be here typing and the mothers and societies that didn't see babies as special didn't continue their progeny.
Here you are glossing over/ignoring the many times I stated it is not MY view. I guess you just skimmed a couple of the recent posts.
Indeed, it is like buying stock with potential. They know that, as a human, it has value.
However I would not say that is why there is the urge to protect the baby. It is rather it is just an instinct. Likewise how a man finds a woman attractive it is not some rational calculation that she will provide good off spring. A man just finds her 'hot'. It isn't a calculation that a person who finds a baby 'cute' is saying to themselves 'one day they will maybe be the next Einstein'. They just have the instinct to protect them due to natural selection having favoured those before which did so.
No, the bit of mine you quoted was my reaction to the views put forth in the OP.
What gives human babies inherent value is their current status as humans, not that the majority of human babies go on to be adults or even that the expectation is that they will be adults.
It's not absurd to attribute humanity to babies unconditionally, refusing to accept your criteria that personhoid requires certain abilities either immediately or eventually.
Your position also demands that an embryo is a fully protected person, having the fully expected eventual attributes of a person. That is a position you can take, but its opposite can't be waved away as absurd. Your position is also inconsistent with traditional right to life positions in that it grants person status to embryos, not because of what they are, but what most embryos have the potential to be, even if we know this particular one may never be.
I also don't know what you make of the mentally incompetent person, who lacks your personhoid criteria and who will never achieve it, having personhood perhaps because his brothers and sisters had it.
I've never met a happy one, unfortunately. I think that stands to reason though - females are literally psychologically hardwired (on avg) to have children. Not having htem must be a burden of some kind, even if one can work through it.
Quoting Leontiskos
Then give hte definition you're adhering to. I'm seeing no reasons - which is what I've asked for. Is it "it's a baby"? Because that's not a reason. I need something more than the fact of it being a baby to care (in this context - I don't hate babies). The definition of special is "better, greater, or otherwise different from what is usual."
Babies are exactly not this.
Quoting unimportant
This is why "special" seems a random label designed for something, rather than reflecting something. I don't know why. That said, i am most closely aligned with antinatalism, so showing my hand a bit. I think you've got it right - we've inserted this term without sufficiently defining it so we can continue to have babies despite overwhelmingly good reasons not to, for the most part. Not a moral argument here - I just cannot understand the press to consider babies 'special'. They simply aren't. They're one of a billion and useless, without sucking out resources from the world around them. I want the reason that gets past this.
I note the two arguing against me are (most likely.. Don't want to put my foot in it) coming from theological positions. I accounted for that, so unsure I need continue answer those challenges without the reason I'm after articulated clearly.
You're neck-deep in strawmen. Again:
Quoting Leontiskos
That's a counterfactual claim. I am talking about a world where babies never mature into human adults.
No, it's not a counterfactual and not a strawman. You provided criteria for personhood (specialness), which if it can be shown certain humans don't possess, then you must either (1) admit humans are not special, or (2) admit your criteria are wrong.
Infants do not possess the criteria you itemized for specialness. You then said that since they will one day have that criteria, then that potential is sufficient for calling them special.
My point is not that there is a possible world where no infant grows up, so the counterfactual/hypothetical world disproves your position, but it's that right this second in this very world there are infants born that we know will never mature, never have any significant mental or physical capacity, and never do any of the things you claimed made humans special.
So why hold those beings of no current or future meaningful ability or utility special?
Oh, it definitely is. I should know: I'm the one who wrote it. Even in a grammatical sense the sentence is a counterfactual. You're starting to sound like Michael.
Here's the quote:
Quoting Leontiskos
You're telling me an infant is special because it grow to do those things. But what of those that don't?
Quoting Leontiskos
You are relying a persistent strawman of, "maybe some baby does not grow to be an adult, therefore that baby does not have value." The problem with your position has to do with the failure to understand the final causality of the baby, and this is the same error that @AmadeusD makes. You both want to talk about babies irrespective of their human nature and their human telos. In a long historical sense, babies are special because humans are special, not because they are nascent. If their nascency makes them special in some way, it is only because of the less restricted potential bound up with it ("He could become anything!").
(Or in a very simple sense, you don't think baby racoons are special. The difference-maker for what makes it special is its human nature, and it is silly to try to understand that human nature without reference to human maturity and human ends and capacities.)
The deeper problem here is that you're just appealing to your Moorean meta-ethic where 'good' (or 'special') is undefinable and therefore, if admitted, also mystical and esoteric. So you think that it must be impossible to explain why babies are special (or why anything at all is good), and that if someone does this then they must have said something wrong (hence trying to misconstrue what I've said counterfactually into something that is merely contingent and therefore less plausible). It also follows from this that "you can say whatever you want" (because everyone's claims about the 'good' and also the 'special' are basically unjustifiable anyway).
This is a representation of the sort of thinking that says, "I say babies are special, and you can't gainsay this because morality is about values not facts, and neither one of our views has any real grounds to support it." Despite being common, this approach to morality is banal and wearisome. It's basically the religious version of error theory, where one embraces the idea that moral utterances are intrinsically confused and lacking in intelligibility, but nevertheless keeps uttering them.
It's really not that complex. I'm simply pointing out that your definition of specialness isn't valid because it doesn't work when you evaluate specific examples.
Why we think human beings are special (which seems to refer to a "personhood" definition) can't be determined by some speculative historical analysis nor some post hac explanation. Norms are derived (whether they be moral, legal, basic manners, accepted social protocol) through complex social interaction over thousands of years, not necessarily reducible to a single guiding principle and not even necessarily consistent at any given time given the large amount of individuals involved and time that has transpired.
Of course an anthropologist can examine homo sapiens and describe their language skills, tool using skills, ability to plan for the future, learning abilities, etc. and point out how we're different from the other animals both in degree and type. You can't then use those observations and just declare that we must have created our moral systems based upon that. That is, just because we are different in ability doesn't mean that was the cause of our belief in our moral worth.
The reason you can't is because there are infants that don't have any advanced ability, plenty of cultures historically have held that slaves, women, and certain ethnicities are not of "special" status, and many cultures do not accept Enlightenment principles that "all men are created equally."
You also have no explanation for how embryoes work into your definition, being forced to declare it "silly" that some might not hold embryoes the same value as adults even though they have the potential to become adults. That is, your position isn't even fully accepted within modern society.
So, if I look at the here and now and ask why it is that infants are special, it's because we decree it so. It is a rule that governs our society regardless of where it came from. You can argue the origin of that rule came from certain principles and I can argue it came from God, but all that is an aside because mine is unprovable and yours is empirically invalid. I take mine as more valid because it doesn't pretend to be empirically derivable, but it is clearly axiomatic. It is axiomatic thelogically and secularly. Secularly, it is a principle upon which we have built our society, and enforced it as a non-debatable norm. Kantian dignity and secular humanism demand this principle as do Enlightenment principles of equality, historically responsive to tyranny and hierachical classism. You're just pretending to know why we've ended up where we are and have offered an overly reductive basis, as if we can explain all assignment of moral worth upon humanity to the fact that human ability is greater so we therefore assign humans higher moral worth.
As I've said, the facts are not with you. Humans have always had greater ability, but they've not always considered all humans of greater moral worth, and there are even some now that in the animal rights arena that challenge whether any humans have greater moral worth than other animals.
Your only argument is that babies are special because they are human (fair, in the sense that we're not talking about puppies.. but). I have already made it clear that is not a reason. That is tautology. That is simply a claim, and an extremely parochial one.
What makes humans special? Consciousness? Deliberation? Moral reasoning? Babies have none of these (in the sense needed to make "human" a special category). Babies are next to useless. There is no error here - you are just not giving a reason. Just state the reason - stop prevaricating. Give a reason that isn't circular for the "specialness" of babies - given that they do not meet any of the criteria for the intension of that word, i'm left wanting.
Quoting Leontiskos
It seems I have nothing to answer for here.
But you're just reiterating the error I've pointed to. I point out that humans are special and claim that babies are human. You concede that humans are special but claim that babies have none of the "special-making properties" of humans. Again, you're denying final causality. Human babies are special because they naturally grow into human adults, and we both agree that human adults are special. If that does not make human babies special, then pray tell what else naturally grows into a human adult. Even the strange person who denies that babies are human must still admit that they are special on this consideration.
(By the way, the reason I didn't respond to your more recent reply is precisely because it was not substantial, and did not address the issues that were being raised.)
I think it's spot-on. When you go on to continue in the same vein it just reinforces my point.
Quoting Hanover
I don't think you've managed anything of the sort. What is this counter-example you speak of?
Quoting Hanover
No. The significant differences between humans and other animals are not merely "derived" or "social constructs." Why not live in reality for a few minutes?
Quoting Hanover
I'm not sure where this "moral worth" is coming from? Do you take "special" to mean "having moral worth"? And surely "moral" is another undefinable Moorean term, no?
Quoting Hanover
Again, this is a rather silly denial of final causality. If you don't understand that human babies naturally grow into human adults, then I'm not sure what to tell you.
Quoting Hanover
My position isn't fully accepted within modern society? Is that supposed to be a rebuttal? Is yours? I am continually amazed at how bad the reasoning on TPF is.
Quoting Hanover
This is the Moorean confusion I pointed up.
Quoting Hanover
The problem with this is that it's all wrong. We are seeing secularism abandon the principle before our eyes. We have seen the society shift seamlessly away from Enlightenment fiat-axioms. And your religion is a case in point of the way that religious traditions shift, and some of them become unmoored and increasingly deprived of substance and rationale. The people saying, "It's so because we decreed it," are precisely the generation that is laughed at by the next after they abandon the arbitrary decrees. It's painful to watch the older generations justify their obsolescence.
Quoting Hanover
You've introduced this new concept of "moral worth" into the conversation as if it was there all along, and you will doubtless confess that you have no idea what you mean by that term. *Sigh*
I did no such thing, And i outright reject the notion that humans are special. I asked you for your evaluation with reasons. You have not done so.
Quoting Leontiskos
Then you are clearly not reading anything that might act as an objection, becfause you are ignoring the three key points:
1. You are explicitly wrong about what "special" means despite initially relying on it - you have ignored this.
2. You have given no non-circular reason for applying that word to babies (they are human? Great. Humans arent special in any sense of the word on paper -hence asking you to actually support your contention. You have not. And you have ignored this and simply repeated yourself.
3. Quoting Leontiskos You are continually being dishonest (it seems) about my position and what I've said. I have not said this, or assented to it at all and do not think it's true. If this is simply that you have misunderstood me, then I'm not sure what to say. Upon review, you must be extremely confused to have gotten that out of my responses. There's nothing I can see that could have been reasonably construed this way given i've said the opposite and then asked for your evaluation of why you take another view.
You might try re-reading my post, noting that your use of 'special' runs against its intension , that you do not have a reason which isn't circular (babies are human) and you are not accurately representing my posts at all.
You seem to be going on the assumption that society acts in perfectly rational ways and so why aren't they making the perfectly rational designation to devalue childbirth for the good of the greater society.
Most politics in populism. There is quite a bit of overlap with was discussed in my previous post a few weeks ago on humans following traditions, 'just because', when most times they are irrational.
Look at the stupid laws that stay in place like drug prohibition and euthanasia because of the puritanical views about both. No guys I am not a Puritan! as many here have accused me of being just from my OP.
Also on that note, for those who say it is Puritanism to say sex is somehow dirty, in the great words of Paulie Walnuts of Sopranos fame (paraphrased), "pi**ing, shi**ting, and fu**ing all take place within a few inches of each other, did you ever wonder why that is?" You can dress up having sex as much as you want, calling it beautiful love making or whatnot, but it is still getting pleasure from those waste expulsion orifices. That is a biological observation, not some theistic moral judgement.
As I have thought about this over the last few days there are many similar paradoxes in life - the union of the man and the woman begins in beautiful lovey dovey and can so easily turn to hatred, abuse and custody battles and even murder of the spouse.
Forgot the other examples but there are plenty when you think about it a bit.
I suppose it is just the age old yin and yang at play.
Quoting Leontiskos
Quoting AmadeusD
Quoting Leontiskos
Quoting AmadeusD
Both of those quotes from you seem to imply that humans are special. Your definition seems to apply especially to humans, given the considerations I listed.
And your reasoning doesn't make much sense:
I literally explained how humans are different from every other species, and you responded by saying that "we could call any species special" along with, "The definition of special is [...] otherwise different from what is usual." Not only do humans adhere to the definition you have provided, but you simply ignored the fact that I gave reasons why humans are different from every other species (and therefore we simply can't "call any species special" in the way I called humans special - humans are especially special). So yeah, I don't get the sense that you're trying very hard in this thread.
I referenced norms, not differences. Holding the door for the person behind me is a norm where I live, but not so up north. That's socially derived. If you're saying that people have hands and dogs have paws, I think we're in agreement, but surely you couldn't have thought I didn't know that. Quoting Leontiskos
We're talking past each other if you've missed this. I have all along consistently said that ability does not equate to worth. If all you're saying is that "special" means "different," then this conversation amounts to just itemizing the differences between two things. I already said that in my reference to what an anthropologist might note, all of which I'd agree with. "Special" connotes a positive attribute, which is why we're asking why a person is special. If special just means different, then we can say what is so special about cars versus trucks or whatever. Is that what we're talking about?
What I mean by special includes the concept of norm governed behavior surrounding the thing. That is, we can break a glass, but not kill a person. The specialness of the person demands it be treated differently and the social response to the behavior shows how the thing is considered. Quoting Leontiskos
I've been pretty openly attaching your specialness to moral worth. That's now been clarified. To the extent you were talking about something different, now you know.Quoting Leontiskos
Do you think I have difficulty in understanding that most infants grow to adults or that every adult was once an infant? Probably not, which means you must not be understanding me. I can take blame for not being clear, but I don't think you can believe that to be a reasonable interpretation of what I've said.
What I'm saying is that what makes a person special or not is what that person has within him that makes him special. It's a specific attribute of the entity. Your position is that the specialness derives from ancestory. That is, because human consciousness is "special," all humans are special even if a particular example of a human is not. For example, if being able to run an ultra-marathon is unique to humans, and I believe that makes them special, I am special even though I can barely run a 5k. Just for the fact that my kin is special, so am I. That's a tenable position I suppose if that's how you want to define special, but that's not how I define it. I require something inherent within the actual entity to designate it special.
Quoting Leontiskos
If you provide a definition of a term (here "special"), the test for its accuracy is by application to examples. My point was that your definition does not hold when applied.
Quoting Leontiskos
Regardless of generation, there will be axioms, first principles we adhere to. That is required, and we can root them in whatever we want, some strained logical rationale as you are attempting, in the eternal, or just declare them so. The centering of humanity as the object of moral worth doesn't strike me as a fleeting moral principle. If it is, I really don't think your specialness theory is going to save mankind.Quoting LeontiskosLet's look at use. I break a glass: I sweep it up. I murder a man: sirens, helicopters, dogs, questions, evidence gathered, lab tests, prosecutors, judges, juries, etc. Why are people "special"? Why isn't the dead guy just swept up? You can pretend it has nothing to do with their moral worth, but you'd be wrong.
They pretty obviously do not. If that was your interpretation, I am telling you: No. That is not what I said, intimated or meant. I was clearly making a quip about your incorrect use of 'special'. This is made explicitly clear by my actually giving the definition of the word 'special' and noting it does not, in any way, apply to humans or babies. I reiterated that multiple times. I am having a hard time now wanting to continue because it seems as if you're not clearly reading.
Quoting Leontiskos
They do not, in any way, adhere to that definition. If this is the basis for your argument, it is wholly rejected on first principle grounds. I cannot see how you have overcome this clear error. I suggest it is your theological bent that has you thinking this. If I am wrong, then I simply think you're making up a benchmark for the definition that doesn't make any sense. That is a disagreement, not something that can be resolved by 'reason'.
Quoting Leontiskos
If you could perhaps restate them - I have been pretty clear that no reasons have emerged from your posts. If you think they have, explicitly state them. It appears that your only argument is 'they are human' .which is an obvious tautology.
You've not acknowledge any of the clear mistakes you've made or any anything else of substance, yet you're claim is i'm not 'trying very hard'?? Good lord - If anything, you're not doing any work to have me understand you here mate. Its becoming tedious again.
Quoting unimportant
Forgive me, because I get this will be annoying - i have no idea where this has come from. Nothing I said seems to indicate anything about my thinking on 'society' behaving rationally?
This searches for a metaphysical distinction that can't be spoken, yet usage clearly dictates you're in error. What follows the murder of a person (police, investigation, trial, prison, etc) differs substantially from what follows the breaking of a glass (sweeping the shards away). You say there is nothing underlying special about the person, yet he's treated as so special. What do propose could be referred to prove the specialness exists outside our use of the term? If there is nothing that can be pointed to, then you're not saying humans are not special, but that "special" has no meaning. If that is the case, then why do I know what you mean when I say humans are special and glasses aren't.
Tell me what you need to see for specialness to be proven, not just that you don't have proof. I tend to think there is nothing there you want pointed at.
That means that my statement that people are special in a metaphysical way isn't vacuous, but that it exists yet can't be referenced.
But what does talk of norms have to do with the thread, or my claims? Why are you suddenly talking about norms?
Quoting Hanover
Okay, that is helpful. It sounds like you want, "The baby is special," to mean something like, "The baby has value." Still, I don't see how this functions in relation to my argument. The special nature of the human being that I outlined also brings with it a specific kind of value.
Quoting Hanover
"Moral" doesn't appear very often in this thread. It does appear in the OP, but only in the claim that what is being spoken about is not a moral attribute. So if you think the thread is about "moral worth" then I think the OP itself should correct that misunderstanding.
Quoting Hanover
That you've again misconstrued the position proves my point. We are talking about a telos of human babies, not "what mostly happens." If you actually understood what was being said, then your claim that it only "mostly happens" would entail that human babies sometimes grow into adult giraffes or oak trees or something other than mature humans.
Quoting Hanover
Nope. "Human babies naturally grow into human adults," does not come to, "The specialness of human babies derives from ancestry."
Quoting Hanover
No, that's not even close.
Quoting Hanover
Again, you deny final causality.
Let's pretend that the special-making quality of human beings has to do with their speaking of the Spanish language. I might say, "Humans are special because they can speak the Spanish language." Your rejoinder in this thread would be, "On that reasoning, only Spanish-speakers are special, and that's absurd." Or else, on this new reading, it has something to do with ancestry or kinship with Spanish speakers, but I don't know how to make sense of such a thing.
When evaluating a particular human being, you restrict yourself to what they currently possess. If they do not currently possess the ability to speak Spanish, then you will say they are not special. I do not restrict myself in that way. I am talking about human potencies, not human acts (energeia). I am saying that a human is special because they have the ability to speak Spanish, whether or not they currently exercise that ability. I think a thing can be special in virtue of potencies that it does not currently possess; you do not. You refuse to talk about a potency that the individual does not currently possess. That's the difference.
Quoting Hanover
But you're equivocating. An axiom and a first principle are two different things, and axioms are by definition not "rooted" in anything.
Quoting Hanover
The Moorean position does not turn on words, it turns on whether the [special]-making reason can be "empirical" (or more precisely, Lockean).
-
Quoting Hanover
It looks like you are saying something like, "Humans are special, and we can know this by the way that they are treated, and yet there is no reason why they are special." Do you see how odd that position is? I bring up Moore because I know you're influenced by him, and I don't think such an implausible position would ever be put forward apart from that sort of influence.
You're not saying "I think a thing can be special in virtue of potencies that it does not currently possess." You're saying a thing can be special in virtue of potencies it will never possess but that those like it likely will possess. If speaking Spanish makes something special, then I am special if I can one day speak Spanish. My counter is suppose I can never learn Spanish. I have no such capacity. Can I still be special just because most humans can learn Spanish?
Quoting Leontiskos
You use "naturally" here to mean "usually" and usually means what other infants have done in the past, which is known by how their descendants have done. Infants are special because adults are special and infants usually turn into adults. What of those that we know never will? That doesn't matter to you. It does to me.Quoting Leontiskos
Why?
Your premise is invalid, "If an individual never ends up possessing X, then that individual did not have a potency for X." You have a potency to play jazz music whether or not you ever actually do.
Quoting Hanover
This is a variant of the error I've already pointed out. The claim is not, "Every individual who will eventually speak the Spanish language is special," but rather, "Every individual who has the potency (or capacity) to speak the Spanish language is special."
A talent scout for NASA may have a goal of building rockets. They will seek out individuals with a capacity for rocket-building, not merely individuals who can currently build rockets. It would make no sense to object to their choice by saying, "But this person you picked can't currently build rockets, so it was a bad choice. They lack the specialness or value you are seeking." ...Nor would it make sense to claim that only individuals who have built a rocket have the capacity to build rockets.
Quoting Hanover
No, I certainly don't. Put Hume out of your head for a moment. A human infant does not grow into a human adult because this has happened in the past. A human infant grows into a human adult because of their telos; because their natural manner of growth has the term of human adulthood. If God made a human infant it would still naturally grow into a human adult, even if this had never happened in the past.
I don't follow. In my example, I said I had no capacity to learn Spanish. I therefore lack that potency. I just can't do it. It's not within my ability. It'd be like teaching a pig to sing. Quoting LeontiskosSome infants lack the capacity to ever develop.Quoting Leontiskos
No, that is what is infants usually do. I'm talking about an infant named Bob and Bob's brain is malformed, he has cancer throughout his body, and he has every other imaginable problem that will absolutely interfere with any ability for him to grow into an adult. That infant has infinite worth and to kill him would be murder. His abilility, potential, capacity is to never have any of the things a fully capable adult will have.
But that's not true, is it? You do have a capacity to learn Spanish, and you know it. Pretending you don't isn't to the point.
Quoting Hanover
If an infant is born deaf then we might say he lacks the potency to learn Spanish, but we might not. In one way he does, in one way he doesn't. The intelligent person would say, "This infant would be able to learn Spanish if he were not deaf" (even though Hume would apparently have trouble with that). What this means is that the infant has a potency to learn Spanish, but that potency is being impeded by an impediment, namely deafness. To say that an infant born deaf has no potency to learn Spanish isn't correct. It would be correct to say that a Maple sapling has no potency to learn Spanish, but not that the deaf infant has no potency:
Quoting Leontiskos
-
Quoting Hanover
Nevertheless, your position here is still wrong based on the metrics you have provided (common opinion, etc.). For example, common opinion deems it much more permissible to kill an unborn baby if it has certain disabilities, such as Down syndrome. Similarly, if the impediment in question is more easily removable, then the baby is deemed more "special." For example, a baby with the impediment of a heart problem that can be fixed by modern science is deemed more "special" than a baby with the impediment of Down syndrome.
The same thing happens at the end of life, where we literally call those who have irreversibly lost characteristic human functions and potencies "vegetables," and our ethical deliberation hinges on this distinction. So when you claim that, according to common opinion, all babies or all humans are treated the same regardless of their potencies, your claim is false as a matter of fact.
It's not pretending. It's stipulating. I lack the capacity to learn nuclear physics. That is true.Quoting Leontiskos
An infant born without a brain lacks any ability to learn Spanish ever. To say he has the potential to learn Spanish if he has a brain inserted and that is simply an impediment is to say the same of trees. If only the tree had a brain, it could speak Spanish.Quoting Leontiskos
No, I hold that the murder of a Down's Syndrome child is just as much murder as murdering one without that disability. And so does the law.
But anyway, I thought there was more confusion here than there was. You truly didn't follow my counterexamples. The reason I reject your claim that human specialness is linked to the complex intellectual capacities found in human adults is becuase many humans lack those characteristics, both currently and in the future.
Is it, though? I think you're just saying something like, "It would be really hard, therefore I lack the capacity." I think this is another invalid claim.
Quoting Hanover
But you're just reaching at this point. You're pretending that it makes sense to talk about infants born without brains, as if human beings could live without a brain. You've fallen into a form of eristic. If someone without a brain comes out of the womb then it would not be valued in the way you say all babies are valued, because we do not value dead things equally with living things.
Quoting Hanover
Well you claimed that you wanted to talk about common opinion. Now it turns out that you don't, because it doesn't help your point. You've abandoned the standard that you yourself erected when it became inconvenient, and this is a sign of bad faith argumentation.
Quoting Hanover
Lol, you're just reiterating your confusion and your strawmen. You're still failing to address the idea of final causality and falling into Humean probabilistic thinking.
Usage does not dictate reality. "literally" used figuratively shows that semantics cannot resolve this issue. Why are humans special? Because other humans care about them? If so, this is contingent on a human making hte statement (assuming i grant hte premise). I don't think I need to explain the lack there of any metaphysical implication?
If it can't be spoken, and is contingent on a shoddy perspectival context (note: I don't agree with you, and I am human) the i suggest it's essentially nonsense (though, when I say that I do not mean "meaningless". I mean it lacks a sense in which it could be considered metaphysical, or 'factual' let's say). This should make it clear I have taken account of 'usage'.
Quoting Hanover
This seems to dance around the point - perhaps purposefully. In turn:
1. That humans adhere to the definition we have for 'specialness' (or a similar word - I could take a semantically analogous word, and if it fit there I would resile. But this word specifically wont do on it's face);
2. Well that would run up against 1. Special has a meaning that doesn't apply to humans.
It's possible that you're describing the special reaction humans have to other humans. That's fine. We mostly feel that. However, when i was sociopathic I couldn't care less. Makes you wonder whether you're operating on a generalization that wont hold, evne if it's reasonable (which it is. Not denying that).
Quoting Hanover
This is an obviously theological bent to the argument, though, even if that's not your basis for reasoning. "It's there, but you don't get if you don't get it" is the same thing "grace" amounts to in most theologists thinking. If the suggestion is that it cannot be referenced, but is somehow true, that is vacuous in my view. I didn't think that was quite what you were trying to say though, so I apologise if previous comments weren't taking you correctly.
Quoting Leontiskos
Fwiw, This is also roughly what I got from you. I've not canvassed further comments in that chain yet.
You seem to be saying that humans don't need to meet the criteria to be considered 'special' and Leon seems to be saying that actually they me the criteria. Neither seems realistic to me. Maybe we just odn't have more to say to each other on it.
Right, and I would say that you and @Hanover are very close on these sorts of issues. You share all of the same premises but simply fall on a different side of the issue. In this case you both think the question of whether something is "special" is arbitrary and generally undecidable in any serious way. Hanover says, "I say babies are special, and you can't gainsay this because the whole question is arbitrary and undecidable." You say, "I say babies are not special, but none of this really matters because 'special' is an arbitrary concept that could mean anything and everything."
That's not quite it. Special does mean something and we've been given that definition in this thread, and applying the label can be accurate or inaccurate. I just happen to think its inaccurate here.
More to your point, picking out the species that we are to claim that species is special seems a bit misguided to me. IT doesn't touch on whether or not the criteria are met, it just is given as an axiom. I wanted a reason. If the answer is "Well, there isn't. We simply are humans and that's special because its 1 out of x species that we get to be" Cool, but that's not for me. (that's Han's position, as I take it).
Yours just rests on us not seeing eye to eye on humans as a basic entity in the world, I think.
Okay, so:
Quoting AmadeusD
Quoting Leontiskos
This is to support my claim that you denied:
Quoting Leontiskos
Pretty sneaky Edit: Please read my responses below. They pertain directly to this and clarify.
We also don't lick our own arses(cats), live in trees(Howlers), see in the dark(Owls), breathe underwater(Sharks) etc.. etc.. Picking out hte species we are simply because it is the species we are is... hehe...specious. Using this definition, literally any species could be called special. That is precisely how that word loses meaning.
I do thank you immensely for tying me down and crystalizing all ofthis.
Now that is only special to us because we can appreciate it but perhaps other species with similar intelligences could also appreciate it as special. From a none (relatively higher) consciousness being's perspective it would not be special. Any of the animals you stated above of course would not see it as special.
So I suppose the question of special is, to whom? and only those species with similar traits would see those traits in other species as particularly special.
Some interesting debate has been had from a so called 'creepy and disgusting' thread eh? :)
I do think it's knowable in a serious way. I think human worth is infinite, regardless of the utility of the human, as a matter of belief. That you think faith based reasoning isn't serious just exposes your bias. You can't derive meaning from logic or empirical evidence. That's not to say you can't arrive at reasons to explain why your faith might be, but even if you can't arrive at those reasons doesn't negate it.
Surely you can envision there being an infant born today who will not have the capacity for higher thought of any type.
Reaction is all we can gauge, which is just to say that if meaning is use, then that's how we define the word. The lack of referent isn't critical because it's not the referent that determines the meaning necessarily. This isn't to suggest that an infant cannot have a metaphysical component that elevates its value. It just doesn't speak to it and it accepts the inability to speak directly to it, but that has to do with language and definitions and not metaphysics. I'm not denying the value of the infant because we can't point to that specialness and I'm not suggesting that the specialness is dictated by the word. I'm just saying that when you point out that specialness doesn't exist because it can't be identified that you're creating the category error or mixing language with metaphysics.
For human minds, humans are ipso facto special as the one species who is itself (from their perspective). Thats fine.
The above probably half-answers this post, but yeah I don't deny the premises of what you're saying, i just deny entirely that it gives us any metaphysical comments to make. It's true that for a human, other humans are special by being either of a kind with the entity observing them, or by having hte same unique traits (consciousness etc..). These are all contingent. Something metaphysically special would be, for instance claiming that Earth is special because we are unaware of any other life in the entire universe. That's a better argument to my mind.
Quoting Hanover
So this makes sense and seems to confirm roughly what I saw behind your comments. That's not in any way meant to be a negative. It means you're being coherent and true to your beliefs.
You can't "simply disagree" when I give a formal argument using your own definition. You have to actually address the argument, and claim that a premise or inference is incorrect.
Quoting AmadeusD
Then you disagree with your own definition, but I already pointed out what you are saying and you denied it:
Quoting Leontiskos
Quoting AmadeusD
...and now you're back to saying that 'special' is an arbitrary concept, "Using this definition, literally any species could be called special." Well it's your definition that we are using, so if you have a problem with the definition then that's on you.
I quite literally did. Focusing on my use of the word 'simply' is .... weird.
Quoting Leontiskos
What are you talking about? It's not 'my own' definition, I don't disagree with it and it is not incompatible with what I've said. What is going on with you lol..
Quoting Leontiskos
No, I am not, and I never was. I do not know how many times I can be bothered correcting your misreadings. Actually address what I've said - you continually do not. You're so stuck on semantics you're not even seeing that there is knocks downs aplenty on this page alone. I shall avoid this discussion if the next response doesn't significantly improve.
Let's look then:
Quoting AmadeusD
"The others work but I can't see how that makes us special." The argument is literally explaining to you, step by step, how it makes us special. I don't know how to make it any easier for you. It's mind-boggling to me that I even had to write out such an obvious argument. Here it is again with the language part removed for your benefit:
Quoting AmadeusD
It is your definition (link). I asked you for your definition of 'special', you gave it to me, I constructed an argument showing that humans are special according to your own definition, and now you are trying to backpedal out of your conundrum.
And I'll believe you as soon as you replace "think" with "know" and "as a matter of belief" with "as a matter of knowledge," in that second sentence.
That is not all I said.
Your version of "what is usual" is specific to humans meaning you could just as well list stuff other animals do uniquely and run the same argument. But this would violate using hte term special. So, we're back to where I was before that reply. Not having fun in this thread, so will leave off.
I asked you for a definition of 'special' and you that definition. Did you give me a definition you do not accept? :yikes:
(Just so you know, the level of quibbling and evasion that you are engaged in within this thread is precisely what gets people onto my ignore list. So if you enjoy our conversations I'd suggest upping the ante.)
That is all this is about I think for the subject matter set out in the OP.
No cause for searching for immanent reasons, it is just that humans see other humans as special.
Oh and I was thinking, back on the topic of special/valuable, for a baby, they only maintain that status for the few years they are babies. Back to the hierarchy of values: If a baby becomes an adult male, they would no longer be seen as special: ripe for cannon fodder in a war or such. If a very attractive women, or even just being any woman, relative to men, they keep their specialness. Also this actually feeds back into the original criteria. Why are women seen as relatively more special than men? because they produce those special little things called babies! Back to evolutionary explanations, men only have to provide the seed so not special. Making a baby takes about 9 months.
I noticed that is his standard 'ace in the hole' lol. Used it a lot when debating with the formidable @Boethius.
There is no quibbling here. I have given you a very specific, substantive reason that your use of 'special' is not apt. Ironically, you have unimportant agreeing while:
Quoting unimportant
If you had said something like this, we would, a long time ago, have ended up with "I think you're using hte word wrong, but that makes sense in context".
You didn't do anything even remotely clear enough for this type of end to our exchange. I continued to challenge the claim i saw wanting. You continued to, apparently, try to defend it by almost solely quibbling. Cannot make this stuff up my guy.
Feel free to ignore me. I enjoy our exchanges but you routinely come to these weird dead ends that are no fun at all.
But if you are adhering to it, then what is wrong with the argument I provided you?
Think about it, Amadeus. You claimed that humans are not special. I asked what you meant by 'special'. You gave me a definition of 'special'. I gave you an argument showing that, according to the definition you provided, human beings are special. Then in response you start waving your hands around in the air, as is too common on your part.
If you accept the definition you provided, then what is wrong with my argument?
I've treated it. In response, you essentially made the claim that certain novelties of being human is what supports the label, right? If that's wrong, correct me and I'll have another go. If that's right:
We only have two options:
1. "special" is human-centric (i.e to do with only the human lens on the world, let's say). In this case, Humans are the norm. Babies are the norm. Nothing special going on; or
2. it's not human centric and choosing specifically human attributes to support use of the label reverts to a sneaky form of using 1. It also violates the definition, eventually, as if all beings (or most) beings on Earth carry with them specificities and uniqueness not shared by others, then that is normal. Nothing special about being unique.
So in any case, It doesn't seem humans are special outside of the (totally fine, reasonable and acceptable) parochial, contingent and non-metaphysical use.
It is extremely tedious having to walk through this again in the face of claims like this:
Quoting Leontiskos
Because you didn't do this. You claimed it. The argument didn't work. I have "thought about it" a lot.
Why not? Again, in order to claim that a formal argument did not work, you must show that a premise or inference is incorrect. The only attempt you made at such a thing was your claim that other species use language, and so I revised the argument (because it never depended on that isolated claim anyway). So what premise or inference is incorrect in my revised argument?
Quoting Leontiskos
I can draw this out if it's really necessary. My argument could be summarized as follows:
[*] L2. Humans are different from what is usual
[*] L3. Therefore, humans are special
[/list]
Your response is something like, "If everything is special then nothing is special," which results in the notion that this idea of 'special' is . This is your argument:
[/list]
The problem is that you've made your argument an enthymeme by omitting A3, and this is significant given that A3 generates your self-contradiction. Namely, A3 is a rejection of a particular definition of 'special', and that definition is the one that you yourself provided. Hence my complaint. (Note that A3 contradicts (2) in my own argument.)
You keep implying that the definition that you picked out is insufficient:
Quoting AmadeusD
The more rational route would be to simply admit that you want to revise your definition, namely by omitting that final clause, "or otherwise different from what is usual." This would result in a definition such as, "better or greater than what is usual." But that still leaves you with a difficult argument to make, namely the argument that humans are not better or greater than what is usual.
L2 is false (it is usual to be unique, and choosing human traits above others is arbitrary).
Quoting Leontiskos
Yep. It's not that the definition is inadequate or that 'special' is arbitary under those terms - it's just meaningless. which leads me to believe only the anthropocentric use matters. If that's the case, I have no problem(which I've noted) but this is entirely contingent and we cannot say that humans are special, other than in this contingent, parochial sense.
Quoting Leontiskos
I do not. As above, L2 is false under this definition. I do not need to revise it at all. I cannot follow you, because you're not making much sense.
So, to run again the claim you made that "babies are special". The support was that babies become adult humans, and humans are special.
As noted, if this is a claim contingent on being a human, looking at other humans(seems that it is, by your elaborations) - humans can be special in the contingent sense outlined above, but babies cannot. They are entirely usual for a human.
Humans are only special insofar as the majority of beings are special. Is that hte type of 'special' you mean? If so, it's pretty empty to me. If you genuinely mean humans are 'special' per definition, I think you're committed to the anthropocentric use which to me, precludes babies being special.
Quoting Leontiskos
Not hard at all for a non-theologist.