Vegetarianism is a Higher level View

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

MJA
 
Reply Sat 21 Mar, 2009 09:54 am
@nerdfiles,
"A spoon cannot taste of the food it carries. Likewise, a foolish man cannot understand the wisemans's wisdom even if he associates with a sage." Dalai Lama

A foolish man cannot taste the truth of equality with the blood of others still dripping from his lips.

=
MJA
 
nerdfiles
 
Reply Sat 21 Mar, 2009 10:13 am
@MJA,
I find it astonishing--in the descriptive sense, from the external point of view--that the persons in this thread have yet to flag you as a troll.

In case you be too blind to see it, this poster has made an explicit move to name-call. Because it's garbed in a quote by the Dalai Lama is no excuse for its content. You'd ban anyone else if this person just called me a "foolish twit" or insulted my intelligence. Heck, you warned me for being derisive and "combative."

"A foolish man..."

This is like saying, when a robber storms into a bank, "Some idiots just never learn..."

Does this statement any less mean THAT robber, THAT person, on the speaker's view is an idiot?

I realize this poster has an infirm grasp of English, its idiom and its characteristic way, but someone needs to warn this poster and not let it run awry.
 
Aedes
 
Reply Sat 21 Mar, 2009 10:25 am
@nerdfiles,
nerdfiles;54449 wrote:
There's no argument in the OP. It's just a drawing-a-line-in-the-sand between markedly different areas of thought.
Yes, I agree with this. I think a case can be made that there is such a thing as a morally "higher level view", but this is only in contraposition to pure moral relativism, i.e. all opinions are equally valid -- and therefore we will somehow validate an uninformative "Well, Hitler was good in Hitler's view" type of argument.

Still, It seems that the only terms by which we can rank a view as "higher level" or "lower level" (morally) are if we can either make a rank order of moral principles or a rank order of desired consequences, against which we can apply certain justifications for vegetarianism. And no, the OP did not attempt this.

Nerdfiles wrote:
It's a phenomena that so many here decided to start arguing for or against vegetarianism (and into various other topics such as what justification is). This (social) effect should be studied or remarked upon in another thread.
Well, as I'm sure you've observed, much of what happens here is popular philosophy and not formal philosophy. The OP opened up discussion points with appeal to people with different opinions. It's certainly not expressed in a way that will show up in academic journals.

But I'm sure as a philosophy scholar you occasionally wonder how to bridge a divide between academic philosophy and popular understanding. I think to do so requires engaging in popularly relevant topics in popularly relevant terms, and relaxing some of the argumentative standards that a formal treatise might require. The point is to get people to talk and think at all first -- but to guide and moderate their thinking second.

You're one of the best equipped here to do that, actually. So how can we take the original post and transform it into something more stringent or productive?
 
savagemonk
 
Reply Sat 21 Mar, 2009 10:26 am
@nerdfiles,
nerdfiles wrote:
I find it astonishing--in the descriptive sense, from the external point of view--that the persons in this thread have yet to flag you as a troll.

In case you be too blind to see it, this poster has made an explicit move to name-call. Because it's garbed in a quote by the Dalai Lama is no excuse for its content. You'd ban anyone else if this person just called me a "foolish twit" or insulted my intelligence. Heck, you warned me for being derisive and "combative."

"A foolish man..."

This is like saying, when a robber storms into a bank, "Some idiots just never learn..."

Does this statement any less mean THAT robber, THAT person, on the speaker's view is an idiot?

I realize this poster has an infirm grasp of English, its idiom and its characteristic way, but someone needs to warn this poster and not let it run awry.


Through the entire thread the OP has been making these comments. I don't think that it has gone on do to his arguments. But rather the congregation of the others discussing the many great points that have derived from this thread.

If you wish to try and get past MJA's poetic ramblings and actually get something out of it than this thread will probably go on for another 40 pages. Try it lets see what you can get out of him. I can bet you that it is going to sound like the first 40 pages.
 
MJA
 
Reply Sat 21 Mar, 2009 10:43 am
@Aedes,
Aedes wrote:
Yes, I agree with this. I think a case can be made that there is such a thing as a morally "higher level view", but this is only in contraposition to pure moral relativism, i.e. all opinions are equally valid -- and therefore we will somehow validate an uninformative "Well, Hitler was good in Hitler's view" type of argument.

Still, It seems that the only terms by which we can rank a view as "higher level" or "lower level" (morally) are if we can either make a rank order of moral principles or a rank order of desired consequences, against which we can apply certain justifications for vegetarianism. And no, the OP did not attempt this.

Well, as I'm sure you've observed, much of what happens here is popular philosophy and not formal philosophy. The OP opened up discussion points with appeal to people with different opinions. It's certainly not expressed in a way that will show up in academic journals.

But I'm sure as a philosophy scholar you occasionally wonder how to bridge a divide between academic philosophy and popular understanding. I think to do so requires engaging in popularly relevant topics in popularly relevant terms, and relaxing some of the argumentative standards that a formal treatise might require. The point is to get people to talk and think at all first -- but to guide and moderate their thinking second.

You're one of the best equipped here to do that, actually. So how can we take the original post and transform it into something more stringent or productive?


Oneday Aedes, = will make the cover of All the journals.
The philosophy of Truth will be equally popular that Way.
Equal unites truly All.,

=
MJA

nerdfiles wrote:
I find it astonishing--in the descriptive sense, from the external point of view--that the persons in this thread have yet to flag you as a troll.

In case you be too blind to see it, this poster has made an explicit move to name-call. Because it's garbed in a quote by the Dalai Lama is no excuse for its content. You'd ban anyone else if this person just called me a "foolish twit" or insulted my intelligence. Heck, you warned me for being derisive and "combative."

"A foolish man..."

This is like saying, when a robber storms into a bank, "Some idiots just never learn..."

Does this statement any less mean THAT robber, THAT person, on the speaker's view is an idiot?

I realize this poster has an infirm grasp of English, its idiom and its characteristic way, but someone needs to warn this poster and not let it run awry.


Did you take that personally?
I am sorry if you did. I was speaking only of those who foolishly or inequitably eat meat.
You don't, do you?
Be wise, be equal, be true,

=
MJA

savagemonk wrote:
Through the entire thread the OP has been making these comments. I don't think that it has gone on do to his arguments. But rather the congregation of the others discussing the many great points that have derived from this thread.

If you wish to try and get past MJA's poetic ramblings and actually get something out of it than this thread will probably go on for another 40 pages. Try it lets see what you can get out of him. I can bet you that it is going to sound like the first 40 pages.


Regarding poetry:


Poetry

When words have no rules or regulations
And a sentence has no bounds
That is where the poet hides
Where truth can still be found

The word is mightier than the sword they say
When words are truly free
Poetry is the words of a poet
Then the poet has the power of Thee

There is a lesson to learn in poetry
A remedy and a cure
For poetry are words of freedom
And in freedom the truth shall set us free

What is the truth One wonders
In the phrase and phrases of a rhyme
The true poetry of a free poet
Will bring equality to All in Just time

For freedom is equality
Unity of not only mankind
The true words of a poets' poetry
Is the beautiful true Oneness of All kind.


=
MJA

nerdfiles wrote:
I find it astonishing--in the descriptive sense, from the external point of view--that the persons in this thread have yet to flag you as a troll.

In case you be too blind to see it, this poster has made an explicit move to name-call. Because it's garbed in a quote by the Dalai Lama is no excuse for its content. You'd ban anyone else if this person just called me a "foolish twit" or insulted my intelligence. Heck, you warned me for being derisive and "combative."

"A foolish man..."

This is like saying, when a robber storms into a bank, "Some idiots just never learn..."

Does this statement any less mean THAT robber, THAT person, on the speaker's view is an idiot?

I realize this poster has an infirm grasp of English, its idiom and its characteristic way, but someone needs to warn this poster and not let it run awry.


"Run awry" with equality?
Well equal is the point of truth,
The infinite point of us All.
I would hope mankind runs not awry NF, but truly that equitable Way.:bigsmile:

=
MJA
 
Aedes
 
Reply Sat 21 Mar, 2009 11:50 am
@MJA,
MJA;54539 wrote:
Oneday Aedes, = will make the cover of All the journals.
MJA -- I for one am vicariously happy for you that you've had this kind of epiphany. But you're neither the first nor the last to have this point of view, and it's been expressed in highly articulate ways by others throughout our intellectual history. And it has not won everyone over because, frankly, it's too divorced from our experience of life to be meaningful. That's not to deny that it works for you, or for some schools of thought in Buddhism (which it most resembles).

But I'd ask that if you want everyone else to listen to you, then you need to drop the attitude that your point of view MUST be right. That is not philosophy, it's polemics, and it disregards the points of view of everyone else who disagrees.

So where does that leave us?

We were talking about vegetarianism. There are those who agree with your ideas about unity. There are those who don't. Is there common ground for you to discuss vegetarianism and its moral implications with those who disagree? Or does your argument presuppose that everyone already agrees with your general philosophy?
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Sat 21 Mar, 2009 12:13 pm
@MJA,
There's nothing constructive about this thread, and it's clear MJA will speak over anyone that tries to inject some reason into the discussion.

I don't think he's a troll, I honestly think he's just given up discussing on a critical level and has decided to blindly believe in these notions. Some people don't enjoy introspection, or even applying logic to arguments: That's fine, I suppose, but why are they here? This evangelizing has me frustrated, and well, bored.

What are we wishing to accomplish here? Waiting for another poetic rambling from our host?
 
nerdfiles
 
Reply Sat 21 Mar, 2009 12:25 pm
@Aedes,
Aedes wrote:
But I'm sure as a philosophy scholar you occasionally wonder how to bridge a divide between academic philosophy and popular understanding. I think to do so requires engaging in popularly relevant topics in popularly relevant terms, and relaxing some of the argumentative standards that a formal treatise might require. The point is to get people to talk and think at all first -- but to guide and moderate their thinking second.

You're one of the best equipped here to do that, actually. So how can we take the original post and transform it into something more stringent or productive?


To the latter question, I highly doubt that I am equipped for such a task. Though I do not find it the least bit aggravating, but rather entertaining, to observe the lay person, a flesh and blood thinker, who philosophers so presumptuously argue on behalf on in their works. It reminds me most often that philosophy very much is a quasi-socio-anthropological study, if not rigorous under some scientific methodology. Perhaps most philosophers have to take on the Seinfieldian observational mood.

I personally see myself as rather Socratic, or perhaps Pyrrhonian, or perhaps Wittgensteinian. I have no substantive positive thesis of my own, and I much rather enjoy learning about, through connective analysis, the theses of others. An amalgam of quotes is no thesis; there is nothing to criticize or deconstruct or really build. Of course, there are arguments for vegetarianism. I entertained a few myself for a while, and even practised, but this is why I bring up the intent of this thread and my astonishment of its outcome.

The thread itself is not set out to defend vegetarianism but rather to "extend" the reach of the view on the presupposition that it is the right one. The OP has made this clear by his obscurantist quoting and unwillingness (or perhaps inability) to argue for his stance. Why? Because he's likely unsavvy to the idea that it has to be argued for. He's not in this mode of thinking. He's not in a mode of argument; he's in a mode of bandwagoning. And who are we to take his thread (in the sense to assume and appropriate his intent).

The dichotomy between philosopher and non-philosopher reminds me of a conversation I had the other day. A new fellow sat out our table and began to carry on about conspiracy theory. We tried to get him to understand that we were talking about a different matter. I was introducing a topic on physicalism/eliminative materialism insofar as these theses have something to say about belief statements. But our new fellow understood our use of "belief" to be in the wide sense, insofar as we might have "beliefs ont he big issues or far-reaching personal beliefs." Funny how the lay person and the philosopher alike can commit the error of taking common vocabulary and twisting it to his or her own liking. Nevertheless, we tried to guide this person to our conversation proper, but he was negative toward our "academic" approach. He thought we were doing homework and thought ill of our methods generally. But he certainly wanted to continue chiming in on the discussion. I thought it harmless but it was irritating to my companion. The point is: Our non-philosopher was not at all interested in taking on our principle of approach. And who are we to convince him otherwise? Take the lay person of popular topics: Does this person really need our guidance? Clearly in my scenario the popular topic was very much irrelevant to the philosophical one set before us. There would be no need to "guide" him to our discussion, our way of talking, because of the nature of the topics, but simply because we either wanted him to shut up or conform or some other normative grounding. What of this thread? Clearly the OP is not concerned with serious argumentation. Have we any justification outside our own biases and normative propensities to shift him to a discussion of vegetarianism proper?
 
nerdfiles
 
Reply Sat 21 Mar, 2009 12:27 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin wrote:
There's nothing constructive about this thread, and it's clear MJA will speak over anyone that tries to inject some reason into the discussion.

I don't think he's a troll, I honestly think he's just given up discussing on a critical level and has decided to blindly believe in these notions. Some people don't enjoy introspection, or even applying logic to arguments: That's fine, I suppose, but why are they here? This evangelizing has me frustrated, and well, bored.

What are we wishing to accomplish here? Waiting for another poetic rambling from our host?


They're quite amazing at times, in the nature of their being (almost or exactly?) non-sequitur.

You know how you might watch an absurdist comedy simply to see the next non-logical leap? It's a wonder its origin.

The deep question here is why our host chooses the quotes he chooses. That's the thrill of it!
 
MJA
 
Reply Sat 21 Mar, 2009 12:33 pm
@Aedes,
Aedes wrote:
MJA -- I for one am vicariously happy for you that you've had this kind of epiphany. But you're neither the first nor the last to have this point of view, and it's been expressed in highly articulate ways by others throughout our intellectual history. And it has not won everyone over because, frankly, it's too divorced from our experience of life to be meaningful. That's not to deny that it works for you, or for some schools of thought in Buddhism (which it most resembles).

But I'd ask that if you want everyone else to listen to you, then you need to drop the attitude that your point of view MUST be right. That is not philosophy, it's polemics, and it disregards the points of view of everyone else who disagrees.

So where does that leave us?

We were talking about vegetarianism. There are those who agree with your ideas about unity. There are those who don't. Is there common ground for you to discuss vegetarianism and its moral implications with those who disagree? Or does your argument presuppose that everyone already agrees with your general philosophy?


Good and just comments like yours are most welcome with me.
Thanks,

That said, My point of view is the common ground of All that man seeks.
It is called truth and I'll wait for you here.
Nowhere else will ever due.
Not theories or faiths, or the uncertain measures that divide us All.
And for those who cannot yet see this simple truth of us All, the truth of equality that unites and frees us All, including the animals we so inequitably devour, I' ll keep trying to share the light I see and I know for the equitable good of All.
Until the One day mankind is united by the truth with the Universe itself, I'll keep trying to help.
All One can do is try,

=
MJA
 
MJA
 
Reply Sat 21 Mar, 2009 12:38 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin wrote:
There's nothing constructive about this thread, and it's clear MJA will speak over anyone that tries to inject some reason into the discussion.

I don't think he's a troll, I honestly think he's just given up discussing on a critical level and has decided to blindly believe in these notions. Some people don't enjoy introspection, or even applying logic to arguments: That's fine, I suppose, but why are they here? This evangelizing has me frustrated, and well, bored.

What are we wishing to accomplish here? Waiting for another poetic rambling from our host?


"In the land of the blind the man who can see gets stoned."

Who originated that line, does anyone know?

=
MJA
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Sat 21 Mar, 2009 12:40 pm
@MJA,
I have to believe you are delusional. It's the only way I can recoup whatever sanity I still feel you have left.
 
manored
 
Reply Sat 21 Mar, 2009 01:42 pm
@LWSleeth,
LWSleeth wrote:
I see all the intellectualization of it as people too much in their heads, and not enough in their hearts.
There is no such division, because you were, in your current opinion, overly rational in the past it doesnt means other people are nor, that they could ever change, nor that they would consider it a change for the better.

MJA wrote:
Sorry to differ Aedes, but a simple truth beyond arguement has been made on this thread many times, It looks simply like this: =
One cannot argue against the moral good right or truth of equality, and that's the proof!
I rest my case.:bigsmile:

=
MJA
I argue against the moral good right or truth of equality

See? Thats why this thread has over 40 pages.

MJA wrote:
"A spoon cannot taste of the food it carries. Likewise, a foolish man cannot understand the wisemans's wisdom even if he associates with a sage." Dalai Lama

A foolish man cannot taste the truth of equality with the blood of others still dripping from his lips.

=
MJA
Is ever fool unhappy?
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Sat 21 Mar, 2009 03:33 pm
@MJA,
MJA wrote:
"In the land of the blind the man who can see gets stoned."
Can you not see the elitist attitude eluded to here?

You're throwing pity arguments my way, wishing me to catch them and give you sympathy for your own lack of discussion. This delusional martyrdom, your 'higher level view', your dismissive attitude towards any post that even makes you reconsider your viewpoint -- This is the problem. You're not on some greater mission to spread the 'truth'. Drop the act, take yourself off the pedestal. You write of peace, unity, equality, and yet you speak like every religious fanatic I've ever known, one that does not regard themselves as an equal but rather as one who "Knows it all!". You're not getting ridiculed because you advocate vegetarianism, and you never were. This is what you fail to realize; We are ridiculing you for the manner in which you are posting.

You've reiterated your equality scheme quite literally over 50 times. Yes, I have counted (I'm in astonishment, actually). You quoted dozens of people from all different walks of life, all different eras of human history, bending, twisting what they say (or may have said: many of the translations aren't even clear!) to make it comply with your delusions. My friend, I haven't a clue what to say to you to make this thread more constructive, to get you to consider, to even rationally think about all you have written. You turn a blind eye to any consideration I've seen in response to you. This "I have it all figured out" seems to bring you peace, and that's fine, everyone needs some peace of mind at times, but why did you make this thread? If you want to evangelize, go here: Talk Jesus | Christian Forums & Chat - Powered by vBulletin

Here's a recent posting: "praise the lord every1....i m being burnt in the flame of HOLY SPIRIT...........plzzzzzzzz pray for me"

My greatest fear, and I already see it coming: You're about to type out another poetic response (outdentation and all), googling quotes from various 'Oners' (seemingly this entails you to type in the search box, "Famous Vegetarians"). Clearly it does not matter the content of the person's post, you will just mindlessly respond with whatever pops into your head relating to the equal sign. It's like speaking with one of those old aim bots of the late 90's.
 
Joe
 
Reply Sat 21 Mar, 2009 05:15 pm
@Zetherin,
So im reading a book right now, yeah! Its called "Justification w/out Awareness: A Defense of Epistemic Externalism". I'm taking it slow, because I tend to misread things but, I'm wondering if MJA is a internalist?

Does that make the arguments against MJA from a Externalist point of view?

If this Thread is becoming a Moral Justification between the two, I think people should at least explain it as such, and perhaps MJA can elaborate further. Maybe drawing definitive lines will help?

I dunno, Im not much for labeling and constructive philosophy, but Im not into the arguments that keep pointing at one person with hostile frustrations. Patience is a virtue, if you think you know something.
 
LWSleeth
 
Reply Sat 21 Mar, 2009 06:54 pm
@manored,
manored;54563 wrote:
There is no such division . . .


I read your views on morality . . . take for yourself whatever you can get away with. After hearing that, it is hard to see anything you says as other than self-serving.


manored;54563 wrote:
. . . because you were, in your current opinion, overly rational in the past it doesnt means other people are


I don't assume others are like how I was, but I do observe the generally selfish focus of human beings.


manored;54563 wrote:
. . . nor, that they could ever change, nor that they would consider it a change for the better.


I can't see how any of that has the slightest relevance to my point that there is a "natural" morality which stems from feeling an underlying unity with all life.
 
Aedes
 
Reply Sat 21 Mar, 2009 07:53 pm
@MJA,
Shall we take votes on whether I should close this thread?

My son dropped a bottle of milk on the floor today, and there were little strings and drops of milk that exploded in all directions.

That's where the thread is at this point... and even in the beginning the bottle was already on its way down.

nerdfiles;54551 wrote:
What of this thread? Clearly the OP is not concerned with serious argumentation. Have we any justification outside our own biases and normative propensities to shift him to a discussion of vegetarianism proper?
Perhaps not. But he's not the only participant, and whether or not he wants to come along from the ride, the fact that he's introduced vegetarianism as a moral topic affords us the opportunity to approach it as such. It's a case study in ethics.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Sat 21 Mar, 2009 08:18 pm
@MJA,
The question is not if we should or should not force him to shift discussion to vegetarianism proper, it's a question of: Is this thread constructive, to any participant, any longer?

The tangents still not cleared up can be cleared up with new threads aimed to focus at these specific issues. I vote closing.
 
LWSleeth
 
Reply Sat 21 Mar, 2009 08:58 pm
@Aedes,
Aedes;54598 wrote:
Shall we take votes on whether I should close this thread?.


We are off track, and arguing about unrelated issues. It doesn't seem fruitful.
 
Holiday20310401
 
Reply Sat 21 Mar, 2009 09:21 pm
@LWSleeth,
I must ask you all, by accusing this thread of not going anywhere because of the confirmation biases, could we not accuse many, many philosophers of the same thing?

But yeah, the thread has given me all I need to know about vegetarianism now.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/28/2024 at 10:35:55