Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.religion.christian
Subject: Re: The Harumpheror's Old Clothes
Message-ID: <1281@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 22-Jul-85 09:58:19 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1281
Posted: Mon Jul 22 09:58:19 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 25-Jul-85 03:03:19 EDT
References: <1311@uwmacc.UUCP>
Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week
Lines: 77

Paul Dubois doesn't like my answer to the question:  "Why should we
care about our own survival?"  It seems that "a three year old could
have told you that".  Sometimes three year olds say the most pro---found
things.  (Really, I'll testify to that in court!)  And the so-called
adults just ignore the implications of what the kids have to say.
Didn't someone once describe to beauty of Christian faith as "childlike"
and thus as a wonderful thing?  Apparently that holds true until a
three-year old says something so "pro...found", the "new clothes" of
faith are rendered feeble by comparison.

> >>>Hardly.  Chances of survival, overall longterm benefits, life in general,
> >>>are optimized by cooperation.  Cooperation, and the maximal freedom and
> >>>benefit for all, are optimized by non-interference. [ROSEN]
> 
> To which Charley Wingate (among others) replied:
> >> Why should anyone care about survival, or maximal freedom, or optimized
> >> benefits?
> 
> Now, we may infer that Rich places a good deal of weight on the value
> of objective judgment, as evidenced by this:
> > To whom have you produced convincing evidence of your argument?  Yourself?
> > The reason no one can produce convincing evidence to support YOUR argument
> > might very well be that there IS none, in a real objective sense.
> 
> So we would expect that in the reply to Charley, we would
> see some reason and logic exemplefied.  But instead we find:
> > Because we happen to like those things.  Don't you?  Don't survival,
> > continuing to live, and acquiring benefits bring pleasure to living?
> 
> Thus, all the talk about objectivity, examination of presuppositions
> clung to in order to bolster a preconceived desired conclusion,
> wishful thinking, etc., etc. (many of you as well can no doubt mimic
> the usual phrases), is a complete smokescreen.
> Truly, Emperor Rosen has no clothes.  When pushed back to his real
> reasons, he says:  "because we like them".
> Because we like them.  Because we *like* them?  Yes, BECAUSE WE LIKE
> THEM!

Yup, because we like them.  That happens to be as objective a statement
as you'll ever see.  Why do WE value survival?  BECAUSE WE LIKE IT.  Because
it brings us pleasure to continue living and reaping benefits of life.
Death, I've heard, is a very painful experience, and after it happens, you
don't get to live life anymore.  Thus, we value survival because we like
living, because we gain pleasure (whether you believe a soul gains this
pleasure or that the chemicals of your body predispose you to it) from it.
Now that Paul has allowed me to zip up the philosophical pants I was
already wearing, what exactly does he find UNobjective about that?  And where
are HIS clothes?

> Pro......FOUND!!

Paul's new buzzword for what happens when someone states something so
obvious that he apparently has never considered.  Rather than think about
this obvious thing, he belittles the speaker with a "pro...found".  Have I
got it right?

> This is no more than the sanctification of desire.  Instead of "might
> makes right", Rich says we should follow "like makes right".

Who said anything about "making right"?  (You did.)  The question was why
do we value survival, why SHOULD we value survival.  Seems to me like a
very reasonable answer.  Why doesn't it seem that way to you?

> Any three-year-old could tell you that.

A twenty-nine year old just told YOU that.  Why didn't you listen to the
three year old in the first place when he/she told you that?  The kid sounds
a lot smarter than you, Paul.  :-?

> I think I will stop reading Rich's articles, if that's what it boils
> down to...

Oh dear, my life is shattered.  Do YOU have a "better" justification for
wanting survival?  Please, let's hear it, seriously!
-- 
"iY AHORA, INFORMACION INTERESANTE ACERCA DE... LA LLAMA!"
	Rich Rosen    ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr