The quote i believe says so much.

@Deckard,

kennethamy;155711 wrote:

Had we come bearing gifts, they might very well have slaughtered us, and taken our gifts.

Of Course. That is a possibility. Usually alien strangers when meeting don't just try and kill each other. Perhaps that is something we have yet to learn in the exchanging of gifts when words can't express themselves one to the other.

William

---------- Post added 04-23-2010 at 06:13 PM ----------

Fido;155763 wrote:

I would not doubt that most turkeys were killed with a sort of trap the Indians devised, very simple, and effective, and it killed no animals but kept them penned until a man arrived with a club...

Fido, to kill who, the trapped animal or the Indian? Like I said those guns and clubs came later. As far as the Indian was concerned, after gold was discovered and Greeley said go west. That gold crap has cause millions of deaths. You can't blame that on any Indian. They lived very harmoniously with nature. And we call them savages.

Had we shared gifts first then leaned to speak, it could be that they would have more than willing to share the land they thought was theirs and all it's bounty.

Fair trade? It seems we have lost all concepts of what that means. If we ever knew what it meant to begin with.

William

0 Replies

@Deckard,

Deckard;155773 wrote:

---------- Post added 04-23-2010 at 03:34 PM ----------

I have spoken of both definitions. If you are going with "majority" meaning the quality of superiority then Jefferson quote makes sense. We can only guess that this is the way Jefferson used the phrase but the fact that he says "one man" suggests that he is at the same time talking about majority in the numerical sense.

Majority means having more. not have more quantity. when i say whites are the majority in America the real definition of majority meaning more still works perfectly. you just have to know enough grammar to know that that sentence really says whites are the majority (of people) in America. of people is implied as it is the only context that makes sense. No matter what you or webster says majority will always mean most/more. If you want this one to be misused like many others, that is your prerogative but let it be know that if so i believe that you are helping to bring about the newspeak that Orwell thought inevitable in a state of complete oppression.

0 Replies

@Fido,

Fido;155763 wrote:

You know, it seems like I just read that the other day, in Stone's book about the trial of Socrates...I will see if I can find it... How do you translate Arete???

---------- Post added 04-23-2010 at 03:57 PM ----------

..

As "virtue".....But who says that courage is the only virtue? What about honesty? What about self-control? Are they not virtues too?

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;155857 wrote:

As "virtue".....But who says that courage is the only virtue? What about honesty? What about self-control? Are they not virtues too?

would you say that it is possible for a person to Corageous without being honest, or having self control??? In a sense, if we look into any virtue we see out of all the others... It is many facetted...

1 Reply

@Fido,

Fido;156015 wrote:

would you say that it is possible for a person to Corageous without being honest, or having self control??? In a sense, if we look into any virtue we see out of all the others... It is many facetted...

Oh, I think all these virtues are probably related. But that does not make them the same thing. "In a sense". What would you do without that phrase?

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;156020 wrote:

Oh, I think all these virtues are probably related. But that does not make them the same thing. "In a sense". What would you do without that phrase?

I may as well say from a certain perspective, but in the case of the virtues, Virtue is the general and all the virtues are the specific expressions of virtue... They are not different, and yet they are all the same, in a sense; so what should one say??? Shall I say: In no sense is courage patience, or understanding, or hope??? One would better ask how you manage with no sense....

Every facet of the diamond is the diamond, and only the whole diamond is a diamond; and that is our job, more than any other, though the task is difficult with moral reality, but it is to find the connection between things, what we classify together as one, and why... If you can do this you have to be able to say, for an example, why a cat is not a fox, though they be similar, and perhaps related... Now; that is an easy task compared to qualities we presume of the moral world, but in any event, in morals is where the challenge lies, because there humanity is challenged...

1 Reply

@Fido,

Fido;156065 wrote:

They are not different, and yet they are all the same, in a sense; so what should one say??? Shall I say: In no sense is courage patience, or understanding, or hope??? One would better ask how you manage with no sense....

They are not the same: not in any sense. They are different. Just because they may be related, that doesn't make them the same. Not in any sense. I am related to my cousin, but that doesn't mean that my cousin and I are the same person. Not in any sense at all. So yes, in no sense is courage and patience the same. Although you may need patience to be courageous.

I am not saying that we should ban "in a sense" from our vocabulary, only that we should not use the phrase instead of thinking about the matter. In any case, as Bishop Joseph Butler wrote, "Everything is what it is, and not another thing".

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;156070 wrote:

They are not the same: not in any sense. They are different. Just because they may be related, that doesn't make them the same. Not in any sense. I am related to my cousin, but that doesn't mean that my cousin and I are the same person. Not in any sense at all. So yes, in no sense is courage and patience the same. Although you may need patience to be courageous.

I am not saying that we should ban "in a sense" from our vocabulary, only that we should not use the phrase instead of thinking about the matter. In any case, as Bishop Joseph Butler wrote, "Everything is what it is, and not another thing".

If courage and honor are both virtues, then they are the same, as related people are the same... We do not classify unrelated, or dissimilar qualities under the same name... And there are exceptions...A property right is not a right, but it is like a right, and is instead a privilage... To say property before right is a qualification, and it denies the equality of property rights with all true rights...

Of the Virtues there are no such qualifications except in name, which denotes a difference of species which distinguishes one particular facet from another... Yet, they are all the same, and all expressions of moral virtue...

Do you draw a line between black humanity and white humanity on the basis of some superficial differences??? All the species are the genus... House cats are not lions, but each is a cat, so they must be the same, and this does mean related, but it is not a casual relationship, but a relationship of form...

In Poetics, Aristotle make a statement which on its face is profound, and on second sight, ridiculous... He said that the line between good and evil is one which divides all of mankind... NOT TRUE...If it were possible to divide Mankind, as a species upon any line, we would not be mankind, but two different kinds, so the difference between the good and bad among us is purely superficial, just as the difference is between one virtue and another...

1 Reply

@Fido,

Fido;156081 wrote:

If courage and honor are both virtues, then they are the same, as related people are the same...

Res ipse loquitur. (It speaks for itself).

My female cousin, Mabel is not the same person as me. I think she would resent your saying so (in any sense). Why do you say things you know to be untrue?

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;156084 wrote:

Res ipse loquitur. (It speaks for itself).

My female cousin, Mabel is not the same person as me. I think she would resent your saying so (in any sense). Why do you say things you know to be untrue?

Read the whole post... How are people classified??? By their, genus,, their species, by their nations, by their Gens, by their phylums, which is your relationship with Mabel, by their famillies, and by their sexes... Did I leave anything out, because in each case, like is pared by like, the same with same... We, with our individual consciousness, and individual philosophy are trained to see ourselves as unique, but consider that the study of ethics was based upon custom, or character, which each person got from his group, and it was by ones group that one was judged, and not by the laws of strangers...What is ethical is what your nation does, and nothing more, and each person stands for his group...If you cannot say what morals are it is not likely you can say what virtues are...You do not stand for your family, for your family honor or virtue, and it is for this very reason that so many people see us as immoral...It is impossible for the individual to be moral...Courage is beyond us, as is virtue...

So you have told me you are alike with Mabel, and then you deny you are the same... You are not exactly the same, but you share a formal relationship with her, a common phylum...You are not so much saying what I say is untrue, but denying the validity of all of Western Philosophy's method of natural classification... If we are considered as human, we are the same... If any of the virtues are considered as virtues they are the same...

Only when we compare qualities under identities can their differences be relevant... And identitites are always equalities... All lines are the same, so we can compare them to determine length... We cannot apples with oranges because they are not the same... I did not say mabel was the same person any more than I said courage was honor... They must both be the same, as virtues, and their difference from other virtues is not so significant as to make them something other than a virtue...The difference is of quality, and not of kind...

To say every virtue is identical is not to say every virtue is equal...

0 Replies

@Doubt doubt,

Doubt doubt;155588 wrote:

The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.
Thomas Jefferson

We have effectively disregarded the constitution. We follow it when it fit's into our plans - sort of by coincidence.
Socialist statists, elitist statists, statist statists, nobody wants that outdated liberty stuff any more.

1 Reply

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero;160908 wrote:

We have effectively disregarded the constitution. We follow it when it fit's into our pans - sort of by coincidence.
Socialist statists, elitist statists, statist statists, nobody wants that outdated liberty stuff any more.

Liberty is a moral form that no on can define or agree on...The reason we have the word is to reference a thing no one can live without, and to talk about how to get enough of it to survive...As I have said: Jefferson talks about forms in the Declaration of Independence... What he refers to is the social forms we build out of our moral forms to achieve the good for which they are created...He recognized that old forms grow obnoxious, and still people do not change them without good cause...

Yet, almost from the moment they are formed, people begin to turn their forms to their advantage...And it is this ceasless self serving human activity that in the end renders forms useless...Law is a form, and there are many unjust laws that restrain people from achieving justice, even when justice is one of the reasons for which the constitution was written... It has been argued that no law that is unjust is law in fact, but if it is enforced as coersion, it does not matter what it is called, for justice will not grow out of it...For those who write unjust laws, and those who enforce them, and those who suffer them, eventually law becomes meaningless; and it is when old forms lose their meaning that they are doomed...Our old social form, the constitution has had its meaning bled right out of it, and the people to have been bled...Laws are judged against the constitution, but the constitution is never judged against its preamble...

Extra constitutional changes have wrecked the ability of government to respond to the will of the people, or to give it voice...and those changes will not ever go before the Supreme Court, and the supreme court will never consider the intent or the ends clearly stated of the constitution... The government does what it wants even when that will in time lead to civil war, and the destruction of the whole society...They wave the flag, and act with all formality, but the form is dead...

Those who consider the law against the constitution should consider the whole constitution; and they should consider well the Declaration of Independence because that founding document could serve us as well in our time...

1 Reply

@Fido,

Fido;160928 wrote:

Liberty is a moral form that no on can define or agree on...

No, liberty is a pretty simple concept, which had a clear meaning until about half a century ago; freedom from coercion. It is anti-liberty movements that have re-defined the term to spread confusion about it's meaning to effectively defuse it as a charge against them. Orwellian doublespeak.

Fido;160928 wrote:

Yet, almost from the moment they are formed, people begin to turn their forms to their advantage...And it is this ceasless self serving human activity that in the end renders forms useless...Law is a form, and there are many unjust laws that restrain people from achieving justice, even when justice is one of the reasons for which the constitution was written... It has been argued that no law that is unjust is law in fact, but if it is enforced as coersion, it does not matter what it is called, for justice will not grow out of it...For those who write unjust laws, and those who enforce them, and those who suffer them, eventually law becomes meaningless; and it is when old forms lose their meaning that they are doomed...Our old social form, the constitution has had its meaning bled right out of it, and the people to have been bled...Laws are judged against the constitution, but the constitution is never judged against its preamble...

I suppose I agree.

Fido;160928 wrote:

Extra constitutional changes have wrecked the ability of government to respond to the will of the people, or to give it voice...and those changes will not ever go before the Supreme Court, and the supreme court will never consider the intent or the ends clearly stated of the constitution... The government does what it wants even when that will in time lead to civil war, and the destruction of the whole society...They wave the flag, and act with all formality, but the form is dead...

What has wrecked the will of government to follow the constitution, and act in the interest of the people, is that the people no longer care about the constitution. They want their welfare, and be enlightened.

Fido;160928 wrote:

Those who consider the law against the constitution should consider the whole constitution; and they should consider well the Declaration of Independence because that founding document could serve us as well in our time...

We get the government we deserve. A government naturally grows, takes more power, becomes oppressive. It is the people that have to keep it in check. But we are so busy watching american idol, we want the state to take care of us from cradle to grave, and we want to feel enlightened about being 'compassionate'. We neglected that responsibility, we get the government we deserve.

0 Replies

@Doubt doubt,

I 'll have to get back to you after I discover a nice way to tell some one they are full of gas... Stay tuned...

0 Replies

@Doubt doubt,

Be as unfriendly as you want, the moderators aren't very active on this forum.

0 Replies

@Doubt doubt,

I am not being unfriendly... These forms, these moral forms are not concepts in any strict sense of the word... Consider that numbers can be related to objects, or to space or to weight... That is a concept, something that represents a physical being... But no freedom can be weighed, or measured or counted... Freedom is something we all have a sense of and a subjective sense at that...Ask a thousand people what feedom is and you will get a thousand definitions, and no less examples of freedom... We cannot define freedom because it is an infinite, and it is, for an example, never the same twice... So say it is a simple concept... So is God by your understanding of concept, but that does not stop people from being killed over their inevitable differences of opinion... You do not have a concept of God, or freedom... You have an opinion...

1 Reply

@Fido,

Fido;161001 wrote:

I am not being unfriendly... These forms, these moral forms are not concepts in any strict sense of the word... Consider that numbers can be related to objects, or to space or to weight... That is a concept, something that represents a physical being... But no freedom can be weighed, or measured or counted... Freedom is something we all have a sense of and a subjective sense at that...Ask a thousand people what feedom is and you will get a thousand definitions, and no less examples of freedom... We cannot define freedom because it is an infinite, and it is, for an example, never the same twice... So say it is a simple concept... So is God by your understanding of concept, but that does not stop people from being killed over their inevitable differences of opinion... You do not have a concept of God, or freedom... You have an opinion...

You are understanding freedom in a different meaning that the very tenable political meaning, which simply is the ability to be uncoerced.
Of course the feeling is something that's different for everybody. But the word has a clear, positive meaning in a political context.

1 Reply

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero;161007 wrote:

You are understanding freedom in a different meaning that the very tenable political meaning, which simply is the ability to be uncoerced.
Of course the feeling is something that's different for everybody. But the word has a clear, positive meaning in a political context.

You know, Hitler once defended his war in Russia as defending German Freedom... If Freedom for the master is slavery for the slave, do you suppose we could ever agree except in the most gross, general and superficial fashion on the subject...

And while I am here, about people getting the government shows no understanding of complex suocial forms and the way people grow up with them, and knowing no others feel they have no choice in the matter...Revolutions occur but seldom and are needed almost all of the time...But people also fear change to such an extent that they will bear evils while they can be born just to know what tomorrow will look like... People do not change because they cannot, but their forms evolve, and when they can no longer stomach their forms because the form take more energy out of them than it gives to them, then, they change their forms of die trying...What happens with these dying forms is that they demoralize people, and rob them of their sense of right and wrong... They wish their troubles onto others and so empires are built our of war... A few people lose their houses or their jobs or their kid gets killed in a war, and everyone says glad it was not me... There is no moral strength, and no standing up for justice, or right so that people are sheared, sometimes to the point of death, removed from their rights, and everyone seeing that puts their head down and works all the harder...It is not that they deserve it... They get used to it and cannot see an alternative, so they do what they can do, and that is usually to wish their miserable lives away... They wish for the weekend...They wish for payday...They wish for a vacation... They wish for retirement, and some day they find themselves wishing for death... That is the big advance of capitalism: To make people wish their lives of which they have but one, away... It makes us hate our lives, and yes if people knew their power they would change things, but they do not even understand what needs changing...

All human progress demands a change of forms...It might be the form of your dwelling, or the form of your diet, or even the form of your communication... If you must have change to survive you will find a way... The fact is, that to be happy means more than just survival, and most of us are just surviving...It is not what they deserve, but what they were born to...

0 Replies

The quote i believe says so much.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know