Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[Einherjar86]

You say you own your own body, but there is no a priori justification for this (absent "it's just the case"): how do we own our bodies? "Ownership" is a reflection of anthropocentric values; a transaction must have taken place. So did we pay for our bodies? Quite obviously not; perhaps we didn't even want them. And who is "we"? In order to say we "own" our bodies, we must establish something to legitimate this claim. Enter rights.

So it must be that we have the right to our own bodies; but if we can divest ourselves of the right to our own bodies, then someone else might appropriate our bodies. How can we then regain the right to our bodies? To do so would be infringing on someone else's rights. Thinking in terms of rights, even "negative" rights, presumes that they are absolute.

 

[Dak]

Why would a transaction have to have occurred? By ownership I mean exclusive use/control. This does not require anyone else to be involved at all. Should a single human appear on an uninhabited planet, he would obviously have exclusive use of himself. Should no one physically or mentally constrain/restrain him, he would have the same. For someone else to constrain/restrain, this would require that person, or the controling agent thereof to have ownership of themselves.

This of course implies some differentiation between the phenotypical attributes and consciousness/the mind, or the directive part of the human.

Edit: For a transaction to occur, prior rights holders (owners) must exchange/hand them over, so someone else had ownership before. This does not change the existence of ownership.

 

[Einherjar86]

That differentiation is entirely artificial. Exclusive use/control implies that there is a second agent; that there is your body, and then there is the mystical "you," or the "I," floating somewhere in the pituitary gland, who "uses" your body.

The second agent is an illusion; it's nothing more than a contingent consequence of the brain and body. There is no use, and there is no control; there is just your body.

 

[Dak]

That differentiation is entirely artificial. Exclusive use/control implies that there is a second agent; that there is your body, and then there is the mystical "you," or the "I," floating somewhere in the pituitary gland, who "uses" your body.

The second agent is an illusion; it's nothing more than a contingent consequence of the brain and body. There is no use, and there is no control; there is just your body.

As we said before, how can we know the difference between the "real" and the "illusion", if we have nothing to compare? Without going much into the concept of "the self" though, we can separate the mind from the rest(or other parts) of the body, as the mind may do any number of things without activating the limbs at all. We may think of moving without actually doing so.

 

[Einherjar86]

I've said that the appearance of consciousness seems to be no different from consciousness; I never said it is definitively the same thing.

Furthermore, consciousness can be real and yet the "self" can be an illusion. The "self," in fact, is nothing more than a consequence of consciousness; consciousness constitutes the image of the "self." It does not reveal a concrete form that preexisted it.

You can sit and think about moving, and your body might move without your volition. Your eyes move something like a hundred times per second, but you don't consciously tell them to. Who owns your body? It isn't "you."

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

The assertion of rights as "common sense" or simply practical or natural (which is how you seem to be approaching it) frightens me, since it precludes the possibility that "rights" may one day be obsolete.

Wait, this is bugging me. I'm not even sure what it means. You're frightened because your "rights" might be taken away? or the idea might be?

Also, I really just don't understand the idea of can or can't/will or will not vs the right to do. If I'm defending myself from someone trying to kill me it's not just because I can or cant defend myself, that's axiomatic; I have the right to defend myself and possibly kill this person because I'm justified and moral in my actions, no?

 

[Einherjar86]

Wait, this is bugging me. I'm not even sure what it means. You're frightened because your "rights" might be taken away? or the idea might be?

I'm frightened because absolutizing rights means that they can't be taken away.

That language is too intentional; but it gets the point across. Absolutizing rights makes it difficult, if not impossible, to suggest that they might become obsolete. "Rights," by their definition, must be universal and eternal.

Also, I really just don't understand the idea of can or can't/will or will not vs the right to do. If I'm defending myself from someone trying to kill me it's not just because I can or cant defend myself, that's axiomatic; I have the right to defend myself and possibly kill this person because I'm justified and moral in my actions.

Do you have the right because you're justified; or are you justified because you have the right? There's a disjunct somewhere in this line of thought.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

I'm frightened because absolutizing rights means that they can't be taken away.


Do you have the right because you're justified; or are you justified because you have the right? There's a disjunct somewhere in this line of thought.

How could anyone justly take my right to defend myself away?

I'm justified because the action this person is taking is wrong and I have the right to defend myself and survive. So to answer your question, yes, I believe we carry this right with us every day. Whether you choose to use it or not is according to the individual.

I think you might not be as frightened of your rights as you are of your own freedom.

 

[Einherjar86]

I'm just questioning why this right seems so obvious to you.

First: what makes the other person "wrong"? As I've already said, the non-aggression principle isn't foolproof.

Second: why does your action of self-defense need to be grounded in a "right"? What if your attacker comes at you suddenly, triggering an instinctual response by which you nail your attacker with a wicked right hook? You had no control over this action; it simply occurred. How is this action justified by any "right," if rights require that we possess ownership (i.e. use/control, to use Dak's terms) of our bodies? Your action of self-defense was not coordinated by the mythical "you" lurking in your own head. It was just your body, absent any perceived ownership. Whose rights do you think you're talking about?

Your final comment suggests that you're thinking of rights and freedom in the same reified way. Whenever I hear people talk about "freedom" in this way, I'm always reminded of Foucault's comment that we don't "have" freedom. It isn't something you possess. Freedom simply is; it's action itself.

 

[Dak]

Why can't it be both?

 

[Einherjar86]

If I stick strictly to what I've said, it can't be both. That just doesn't make sense.

Freedom cannot be something that is reified (which means material, and consequently able to be possessed) while simultaneously being simply a resultant effect of action, so to speak. It isn't something organisms have ("Freedom"), it's just something organisms are ("free").

 

[Dak]

So, you would reject the statement that you "have" the love of your SO?

 

[Einherjar86]

As it stands in opposition to "my SO loves me," then yes.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

I'm just questioning why this right seems so obvious to you.
First: what makes the other person "wrong"? As I've already said, the non-aggression principle isn't foolproof.

In my case the person was trying to kill me and killing an innocent, random person is wrong. I don't see what's so hard.

Second: why does your action of self-defense need to be grounded in a "right"? What if your attacker comes at you suddenly, triggering an instinctual response by which you nail your attacker with a wicked right hook? You had no control over this action; it simply occurred. How is this action justified by any "right," if rights require that we possess ownership (i.e. use/control, to use Dak's terms) of our bodies? Your action of self-defense was not coordinated by the mythical "you" lurking in your own head. It was just your body, absent any perceived ownership. Whose rights do you think you're talking about?

That's a cool story but if I was to kill this attacker I'd get off in court because I had the right to defend myself.

Your final comment suggests that you're thinking of rights and freedom in the same reified way. Whenever I hear people talk about "freedom" in this way, I'm always reminded of Foucault's comment that we don't "have" freedom. It isn't something you possess. Freedom simply is; it's action itself.

Alright I'll play that game. So I say, I do freedom, therefore, I have freedom; freedom is something I possess because I can do it... :Spin: yay. and then we can get into the whole argument "well. what is possession?" "does possession have to be physical?" idealism, materialism, duck, duck, goose.

 

[Dak]

As it stands in opposition to "my SO loves me," then yes.

So a person can love, or more accurately in this case "be in the constant act of giving love", which is completely abstract in itself, and yet you cannot constantly be in the act of receiving said abstract (Abstractly of course)?

Why are you trying to force an opposition? It's contingent. You having the love of someone else is contingent on it's ongoing gifting.

 

[Einherjar86]

In my case the person was trying to kill me and killing an innocent, random person is wrong. I don't see what's so hard.

It strikes me as humorous that it's so hard for you to come up with a reason for why it's wrong. Your perpetual response is: "It just is."

That's a cool story but if I was to kill this attacker I'd get off in court because I had the right to defend myself.

So now you're using politics and governmental legality to prove something being inherently right or wrong?

Alright I'll play that game. So I say, I do freedom, therefore, I have freedom; freedom is something I possess because I can do it... :Spin: yay. and then we can get into the whole argument "well. what is possession?" "does possession have to be physical?" idealism, materialism, duck, duck, goose.

What's going on? You're regressing. How does that logic apply? "I do algebra, therefore I have algebra"; "I play the game of baseball, therefore I have the game of baseball"?

So a person can love, or more accurately in this case "be in the constant act of giving love", which is completely abstract in itself, and yet you cannot constantly be in the act of receiving said abstract (Abstractly of course)?

Why are you trying to force an opposition? It's contingent. You having the love of someone else is contingent on it's ongoing gifting.

Forcing? I'm just pointing out the flaws of thinking language adequately describes reality. You should "love" this.

A person cannot "give love," and I don't "have" the love of someone else. A person can love someone; it's an action. A person can "be in the constant act of loving." You want to keep reifying, or concretizing, abstract notions. I'm not saying we can't speak this way, but you and Jimmy keep wanting to think this way, and that this is how things actually are. And who knows, perhaps it is! But there isn't much reason to blindly assume so, and I'm trying to challenge that assumption.

Nothing is being gifted; all that is being done is action performed in a modified way (i.e. action done "lovingly," or "loving").

 

[Dak]

If there is no person in the abstract, how can it do something abstractly? This seems inconsistent.

 

[Einherjar86]

That's not what's being said here.

Love partakes of a special class of categories that cannot be materially verified: love, justice, value, etc. We say that we "love" someone, and as a product of our language there emerges the notion of "love" as an abstract, ideal concept. This concept isn't real; it's an illusion and a consequence of the way we speak. Poetically, we say things such as "I give my love to you"; but nothing is actually being given. All that's being done is one individual loving another, or acting lovingly toward another. There is nothing abstract taking place.

 

[Dak]

Just because it cannot be materially verified (we can obviously give material gifts, but that's not a guarantee of sincerity) doesn't mean it doesn't exist. We created these categories because there is something there.

 

[Einherjar86]

Now you're being superstitious. Furthermore, you make it sound as though those categories were created intentionally, that specific agents can be pointed to. Again, this is not the case. They happened as accidents of language; there need not be any reason for their creation other than that language opens a space for them to be represented as such. It is true that loving action might really exist; but the representational methods of speech do not, nor do they need to, correspond perfectly to reality. Language refers to the world, but words don't find their ontology in the things they refer to.