Guest guest Posted May 29, 2001 Report Share Posted May 29, 2001 Did philosophy A level. Much of it is rubbish, I wanted to do 'ethics' really. Andy Andrew Barnes 07970 075905 -------------------- talk21 your FREE portable and private address on the net at http://www.talk21.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 29, 2001 Report Share Posted May 29, 2001 >Did philosophy A level. >Much of it is rubbish, I wanted to do 'ethics' really. You'd love it at Hull then, most of the course is made up of ethics modules. I don't suppose you'd want to take my moral philosophy exam next week then? There isn't much on animal rights although I did have to write a dialogue between Descartes and a chimpanzee on the ethics of vivisection as an essay. Next year I have environmental philosophy and Indian philosophy modules so maybe it will come up more in those. And to Lola I'd just say make sure you are going to the right uni for your interests. Philosophy is such a varied course that most courses tend to predominate in one to two particular areas (such as ethics) which can be hell if you don't have the same preferences. Michael Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 29, 2001 Report Share Posted May 29, 2001 ____________ Jim Higson ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ I'm doing A-level philo. It's great!!!! But then we are doing ethics. Epistomology, ethics, Descarets. I wrote an essay on animal rights, I'll try to did it out for you, can we post files here? vegan-network, Mavreela <nec.lists@m...> wrote: > > >Did philosophy A level. > >Much of it is rubbish, I wanted to do 'ethics' really. > > You'd love it at Hull then, most of the course is made up of ethics > modules. I don't suppose you'd want to take my moral philosophy exam next > week then? > > There isn't much on animal rights although I did have to write a dialogue > between Descartes and a chimpanzee on the ethics of vivisection as an > essay. Next year I have environmental philosophy and Indian philosophy > modules so maybe it will come up more in those. > > And to Lola I'd just say make sure you are going to the right uni for your > interests. Philosophy is such a varied course that most courses tend to > predominate in one to two particular areas (such as ethics) which can be > hell if you don't have the same preferences. > > Michael Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 29, 2001 Report Share Posted May 29, 2001 ____________ Jim Higson ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ And if anyone out there has a few spare weeks, read animal liberation by Peter Singer. I don't think you will ever read a better philosphival argument for animal rights. Alternatively if you only have a few hours there's always the graphic guide, but that's a lot less philosophical and a lot more ALF type stuff. vegan-network, jim_higson wrote: > ____________ > Jim Higson > ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ > I'm doing A-level philo. It's great!!!! > > But then we are doing ethics. > Epistomology, ethics, Descarets. > > I wrote an essay on animal rights, I'll try to did it out for you, > can we post files here? vegan-network, Mavreela <nec.lists@m...> wrote: > > > > >Did philosophy A level. > > >Much of it is rubbish, I wanted to do 'ethics' really. > > > > You'd love it at Hull then, most of the course is made up of ethics > > modules. I don't suppose you'd want to take my moral philosophy > exam next > > week then? > > > > There isn't much on animal rights although I did have to write a > dialogue > > between Descartes and a chimpanzee on the ethics of vivisection as > an > > essay. Next year I have environmental philosophy and Indian > philosophy > > modules so maybe it will come up more in those. > > > > And to Lola I'd just say make sure you are going to the right uni > for your > > interests. Philosophy is such a varied course that most courses > tend to > > predominate in one to two particular areas (such as ethics) which > can be > > hell if you don't have the same preferences. > > > > Michael Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 29, 2001 Report Share Posted May 29, 2001 Who's Des Carrots? Sounds like me in a French supermarket vegan-network, jim_higson wrote: > Epistomology, ethics, Descarets. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 29, 2001 Report Share Posted May 29, 2001 ____________ Jim Higson ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ Dyslexic spelling of Descates. Rene Descartes, the 'father of modern philosophy' aparently. 'Proved' the exisatnce of god (yeah, right!) and argued that no animal is any more alive in the human sense of the world then any inanimate object. His arguments were used for generations to justify animal cruelty. Most famous for his cogito - I think, I am. I supose he deserves credit for his work, but not so much as most give him. He opened minds but was influenced by far too many closed ones to start with. Oh, yeah and according to the python boys philosopher's drinking song 'and rene descartes was a drunken fart - I drink therefore I am! " Give me Neichze any day! _jim_ vegan-network, " spacevegan " <rob@z...> wrote: > Who's Des Carrots? Sounds like me in a French supermarket > > vegan-network, jim_higson wrote: > > > Epistomology, ethics, Descarets. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 30, 2001 Report Share Posted May 30, 2001 Believe it or not, even as a geeky ex-physics student, I've read a few philosophy/ethics books. I've only read critiques of Nietzsche though (note spelling correction! ;p) - they seem easier to follow than the man himself! So, just to even things up a bit, can I recommend The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene if you really want to blow your mind. Its supposedly a layman's guide to superstring theory (these are the things that quarks are possibly made of). I've found that physics gets more and more abstractly philosophical the deeper you get. vegan-network, jim_higson wrote: > ____________ > Jim Higson > ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ > Dyslexic spelling of Descates. Rene Descartes, the 'father of modern > philosophy' aparently. > > 'Proved' the exisatnce of god (yeah, right!) and argued that no > animal is any more alive in the human sense of the world then any > inanimate object. His arguments were used for generations to justify > animal cruelty. Most famous for his cogito - I think, I am. > > I supose he deserves credit for his work, but not so much as most > give him. He opened minds but was influenced by far too many closed > ones to start with. > > Oh, yeah and according to the python boys philosopher's drinking > song 'and rene descartes was a drunken fart - I drink therefore I am! " > > > Give me Neichze any day! > _jim_ > > vegan-network, " spacevegan " <rob@z...> wrote: > > Who's Des Carrots? Sounds like me in a French supermarket > > > > vegan-network, jim_higson wrote: > > > > > Epistomology, ethics, Descarets. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 30, 2001 Report Share Posted May 30, 2001 ____________ Jim Higson ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ 'Thus Sapke Zarathustra' is Neicheze's masterpiece, and the last penguin translation is pretty east to follow once you get into it. My personal fave is 'On the three metamorphases of the soul'. If nothing else then I recomend reading that. Beyond good and evil is nice too, it mostly covers the gaps left by zara. I love reading popular science, at the moment I'm on Faster by James Gleik (who did genius amongst others). Damn good read. vegan-network, " spacevegan " <rob@z...> wrote: > Believe it or not, even as a geeky ex-physics student, I've read a > few philosophy/ethics books. I've only read critiques of Nietzsche > though (note spelling correction! ;p) - they seem easier to follow > than the man himself! > > So, just to even things up a bit, can I recommend The Elegant > Universe by Brian Greene if you really want to blow your mind. Its > supposedly a layman's guide to superstring theory (these are the > things that quarks are possibly made of). I've found that physics > gets more and more abstractly philosophical the deeper you get. > > vegan-network, jim_higson wrote: > > ____________ > > Jim Higson > > ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ > > Dyslexic spelling of Descates. Rene Descartes, the 'father of > modern > > philosophy' aparently. > > > > 'Proved' the exisatnce of god (yeah, right!) and argued that no > > animal is any more alive in the human sense of the world then any > > inanimate object. His arguments were used for generations to > justify > > animal cruelty. Most famous for his cogito - I think, I am. > > > > I supose he deserves credit for his work, but not so much as most > > give him. He opened minds but was influenced by far too many closed > > ones to start with. > > > > Oh, yeah and according to the python boys philosopher's drinking > > song 'and rene descartes was a drunken fart - I drink therefore I > am! " > > > > > > Give me Neichze any day! > > _jim_ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vegan-network, " spacevegan " <rob@z...> wrote: > > > Who's Des Carrots? Sounds like me in a French supermarket > > > > > > vegan-network, jim_higson wrote: > > > > > > > Epistomology, ethics, Descarets. > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 30, 2001 Report Share Posted May 30, 2001 I thought The Search For Scrodingers Cat/Kitten was the best physics book I've read. Now that messes with you head. spacevegan [rob] 30 May 2001 00:13 vegan-network Re: Philosophy Believe it or not, even as a geeky ex-physics student, I've read a few philosophy/ethics books. I've only read critiques of Nietzsche though (note spelling correction! ;p) - they seem easier to follow than the man himself! So, just to even things up a bit, can I recommend The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene if you really want to blow your mind. Its supposedly a layman's guide to superstring theory (these are the things that quarks are possibly made of). I've found that physics gets more and more abstractly philosophical the deeper you get. vegan-network, jim_higson wrote: > ____________ > Jim Higson > ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ > Dyslexic spelling of Descates. Rene Descartes, the 'father of modern > philosophy' aparently. > > 'Proved' the exisatnce of god (yeah, right!) and argued that no > animal is any more alive in the human sense of the world then any > inanimate object. His arguments were used for generations to justify > animal cruelty. Most famous for his cogito - I think, I am. > > I supose he deserves credit for his work, but not so much as most > give him. He opened minds but was influenced by far too many closed > ones to start with. > > Oh, yeah and according to the python boys philosopher's drinking > song 'and rene descartes was a drunken fart - I drink therefore I am! " > > > Give me Neichze any day! > _jim_ > > vegan-network, " spacevegan " <rob@z...> wrote: > > Who's Des Carrots? Sounds like me in a French supermarket > > > > vegan-network, jim_higson wrote: > > > > > Epistomology, ethics, Descarets. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 30, 2001 Report Share Posted May 30, 2001 vegan-network, jim_higson wrote: > ____________ > Jim Higson > ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ > And if anyone out there has a few spare weeks, read animal liberation > by Peter Singer. I don't think you will ever read a better > philosphival argument for animal rights. > > Alternatively if you only have a few hours there's always the graphic > guide, but that's a lot less philosophical and a lot more ALF type > stuff. > I'm no philosopher (everyone knows I have porridge for brains!) but my big problem with Singer is his general approach to life issues, for instance, he has some pretty scary views regarding killing disabled babies. He certainly cares about suffering, but not about the right to life. His utilitarian views can be used to justify all manner of atrocities. Another more generally life-respecting philosopher who is also an animal rights advocate is Professor Stephen R.L. Clark, who is the Head of Philosophy at Liverpool University. http://www.liv.ac.uk/Philosophy/clark.html I believe that Singer is partway there but that he has still missed out on advocating the most basic right for us all, the right to life, for both humans and other sentient species. I think he is terribly overrated, and if we want to look to a philosopher for truly life-respecting moral guidance, Singer is not the best. I fear he has had too much influence on animal rights activists, and adversely affected their view of human life to a large extent. Lesley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 30, 2001 Report Share Posted May 30, 2001 vegan-network, jim_higson wrote: > ____________ > Jim Higson > ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ > Dyslexic spelling of Descates. Rene Descartes, the 'father of modern > philosophy' aparently. > > 'Proved' the exisatnce of god (yeah, right!) and argued that no > animal is any more alive in the human sense of the world then any > inanimate object. His arguments were used for generations to justify > animal cruelty. Most famous for his cogito - I think, I am. > > I supose he deserves credit for his work, but not so much as most > give him. He opened minds but was influenced by far too many closed > ones to start with. > > Oh, yeah and according to the python boys philosopher's drinking > song 'and rene descartes was a drunken fart - I drink therefore I am! " > > > Give me Neichze any day! > _jim_ > Wasn't he the one who believed in the notion of someone who was cleverer and somehow above everyone else and could do as he liked (the Ubermensch theory), and isn't that rather frightening? Weren't the murderers Leopold and Loeb influenced by Nietzsche? They murdered someone just for fun and the story was made into a stage play called " Never the Sinner " . I'm sure I heard that was Nietzsche, can you explain, has he been misinterpreted? Lesley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 30, 2001 Report Share Posted May 30, 2001 I think singer is the omni of AR. He applies the intelligence argument to animals equally. IE people argue cows are food as they are not intelligent, to which he responds so eating disabled babies is okay then. I don't agree with him but I can see where he's coming from. > Regards, > > Rowan McCartney > Undergraduate Placement Student > Electronic Throttle Control > Visteon ETS > Room GB-28/861 > Visteon Technical Centre > Laindon, Basildon, Essex > SS15 6EE, England. > > * +44-(0)1268-40-6212 > FordNet : 738-6212 > * Rmccar14 Lesley Dove [100706.3632] 30 May 2001 13:55 vegan-network Re: Philosophy vegan-network, jim_higson wrote: > ____________ > Jim Higson > ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ > And if anyone out there has a few spare weeks, read animal liberation > by Peter Singer. I don't think you will ever read a better > philosphival argument for animal rights. > > Alternatively if you only have a few hours there's always the graphic > guide, but that's a lot less philosophical and a lot more ALF type > stuff. > I'm no philosopher (everyone knows I have porridge for brains!) but my big problem with Singer is his general approach to life issues, for instance, he has some pretty scary views regarding killing disabled babies. He certainly cares about suffering, but not about the right to life. His utilitarian views can be used to justify all manner of atrocities. Another more generally life-respecting philosopher who is also an animal rights advocate is Professor Stephen R.L. Clark, who is the Head of Philosophy at Liverpool University. http://www.liv.ac.uk/Philosophy/clark.html I believe that Singer is partway there but that he has still missed out on advocating the most basic right for us all, the right to life, for both humans and other sentient species. I think he is terribly overrated, and if we want to look to a philosopher for truly life-respecting moral guidance, Singer is not the best. I fear he has had too much influence on animal rights activists, and adversely affected their view of human life to a large extent. Lesley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 30, 2001 Report Share Posted May 30, 2001 Not to mention the Nazis... Its been argued that his " overman " (or superman, as is sometimes known) has been misinterpreted or deliberatley twisted. But nonetheless, this superman does have sinister connotations. vegan-network, " Lesley Dove " <100706.3632@c...> wrote: > Wasn't he the one who believed in the notion of someone who was > cleverer and somehow above everyone else and could do as he liked > (the Ubermensch theory), and isn't that rather frightening? Weren't > the murderers Leopold and Loeb influenced by Nietzsche? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 30, 2001 Report Share Posted May 30, 2001 Right, here we go, some people get really offended by Singer, because of these kind of quotes, but I think he's just trying to make people think, to realise the illogical reasons they give for certain things. I would hope most of us would agree that eating disabled babies is not a good thing to do. And so by comparing this to something that most people do (eating cows, based on their apparent lack of intelligence), he's trying to make people realise that that too is not a good thing. The underlying premise to most of this is why should there be arbitrary differences between the way we treat different species/races/etc? i.e why in the UK do we treat dogs/cats differently to cows/chickens when it comes to food. What Singer is pointing out is that this is quite arbitary, and is often made based on where you are in this arbitrary classification. Hence, if you believe that treating dogs/cats differently to cows/chickens is perfectly OK, then you cannot have any objection to treating different types of people differently (based on some arbitrary classification such as sex, race, intelligence, ability etc). There must be a philosophical term for this kind of argument. In physics we often used " reductio ad absurbum " (sorry if my Latin spelling is off!). Basically, take a postulate, prove the opposite can never be true and hence the postulate is true (this works in mathematical terms, where 'opposite' can be defined). I rationalise a lot of my veganism the same way as Singer, and have made up the term " logical extremism " . You take some action, and the reasoning behind it and then take it to its logical extreme. This tends to throw up lots of things that most people would never do (like eating disabled babies). Not sure where this comes from, but someone sent me this tagline recently: " People make decisions and then believe what they want to believe to justify them to themselves. " vegan-network, " Mccartney, Rowan (R.N.) " <rmccar14@v...> wrote: > I think singer is the omni of AR. He applies the intelligence argument to > animals equally. IE people argue cows are food as they are not intelligent, > to which he responds so eating disabled babies is okay then. I don't agree > with him but I can see where he's coming from. > > > Regards, > > > > Rowan McCartney > > Undergraduate Placement Student > > Electronic Throttle Control > > Visteon ETS > > Room GB-28/861 > > Visteon Technical Centre > > Laindon, Basildon, Essex > > SS15 6EE, England. > > > > * +44-(0)1268-40-6212 > > FordNet : 738-6212 > > * Rmccar14@v... > > > > Lesley Dove [100706.3632@c...] > 30 May 2001 13:55 > vegan-network > Re: Philosophy > > > vegan-network, jim_higson wrote: > > ____________ > > Jim Higson > > ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ > > And if anyone out there has a few spare weeks, read animal > liberation > > by Peter Singer. I don't think you will ever read a better > > philosphival argument for animal rights. > > > > Alternatively if you only have a few hours there's always the > graphic > > guide, but that's a lot less philosophical and a lot more ALF type > > stuff. > > > > I'm no philosopher (everyone knows I have porridge for brains!) but > my big problem with Singer is his general approach to life issues, > for instance, he has some pretty scary views regarding killing > disabled babies. > > He certainly cares about suffering, but not about the right to life. > His utilitarian views can be used to justify all manner of atrocities. > Another more generally life-respecting philosopher who is also an > animal rights advocate is Professor Stephen R.L. Clark, who is the > Head of Philosophy at Liverpool University. > http://www.liv.ac.uk/Philosophy/clark.html > > I believe that Singer is partway there but that he has still missed > out on advocating the most basic right for us all, the right to life, > for both humans and other sentient species. > I think he is terribly overrated, and if we want to look to a > philosopher for truly life-respecting moral guidance, Singer is not > the best. I fear he has had too much influence on animal rights > activists, and adversely affected their view of human life to a large > extent. > > Lesley > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 30, 2001 Report Share Posted May 30, 2001 >I'm sure I heard that was Nietzsche, can you explain, has he been >misinterpreted? I haven't done Nietzsche myself but after his death his sister (who gained his estate) made changes to his work, taking things out of context and removing sections, in order that it could be used to support the emerging Nazi regime. Unfortunately this was the complete opposite of Nietzsche's own position and his reputation was tarnished from which his ideas are still trying to recover. As for Singer, I haven't read his book Practical Ethics (which was the one banned in parts of Europe because of the ideas it advocated regarding the severly disabled etc.) but I agree with his questioning of the long held belief that life is sacred and should be preserved at all costs. Not knowing the exact arguments he made I cannot say I agree with his ideas but I do think that quality of life seems to be dismissed in favour of quantity (its preservation for as long as possible) and this is something which seems wrong to me. His ethical ideas though are derived from utilitarian principles, that the right thing to do is that which causes the greatest 'happiness'. You don't need to accept either this or his views on life in order to accept his position on animal rights though, as with all philosophers you shouldn't dismiss someone because of one particular view you disagree with, nor should you accept everything because of one you do. Much to my disappointment I recently found myself agreeing with something said by Roger Scruton. Oh the shame! As for the book Animal Liberation itself, mostly I found it to be an expose on the farming industry and brief history of speciesism with a little philosophy thrown in. A good book to give to someone non-veg*n to make them think but if you're already vegan there is little to be gained. Just my opinion though. Michael Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 30, 2001 Report Share Posted May 30, 2001 Well for me the thing about the severly diabled was to do with speciesism. It highlights that the reson a being is denied the right to life is not because of any greater intelegence, sentiance or ability to experience pain but purely because of their species. Singer argued that animals be granted 'equal consideration of interests' nothing. So given the situation of a human child or a puppy dying he would say the dog, but only becasue of the greater distess to the human parents. He would apply untilitarianism, disregarding the species gap and decide that the dog dying would be the case to cause the lesser overall distress. I've done lots of work with disabled people, a lot of who I consider my friends and I have never taken offence in Singer's works. I don't think that any genuine utilitarianist can argue that animals be excluded from the hedonic calculus. Yes, utilitarianism CAN prima face be used to justify acts we would normally abhor, but just by following act utility we come to the act of establishing rules, and therefore to rule utilitarianism. I actually believe the 2 things are the same, one comes about as teh result of following the other. As for Freddy, Well... it's biterly ironic that the Nazis used his stuff when he argued for individuality of morals and the will to power (creative power that is, not in the dominering sense of the word). I'm not sure, but I recon that a few of his works would have ended up on the infamous nazi book burns. I guess his stuff about god sort of fitted in with their ethos, but he only OBSERVED that God was dead and so maybe we should re-evaluate christian values, not try to force people out of their religions. Originally Zara sold about 40 copies, but Neich famously said that come the year 2000 he would finally be listened to. And he has - in the last century it was never out of print. Anyway, That's what I think, I've got to go back and flirt with Su now (!) > > >I'm sure I heard that was Nietzsche, can you explain, has he been > >misinterpreted? > > I haven't done Nietzsche myself but after his death his sister (who gained > his estate) made changes to his work, taking things out of context and > removing sections, in order that it could be used to support the emerging > Nazi regime. Unfortunately this was the complete opposite of Nietzsche's > own position and his reputation was tarnished from which his ideas are > still trying to recover. > > As for Singer, I haven't read his book Practical Ethics (which was the one > banned in parts of Europe because of the ideas it advocated regarding the > severly disabled etc.) but I agree with his questioning of the long held > belief that life is sacred and should be preserved at all costs. Not > knowing the exact arguments he made I cannot say I agree with his ideas but > I do think that quality of life seems to be dismissed in favour of quantity > (its preservation for as long as possible) and this is something which > seems wrong to me. His ethical ideas though are derived from utilitarian > principles, that the right thing to do is that which causes the greatest > 'happiness'. You don't need to accept either this or his views on life in > order to accept his position on animal rights though, as with all > philosophers you shouldn't dismiss someone because of one particular view > you disagree with, nor should you accept everything because of one you > do. Much to my disappointment I recently found myself agreeing with > something said by Roger Scruton. Oh the shame! > > As for the book Animal Liberation itself, mostly I found it to be an expose > on the farming industry and brief history of speciesism with a little > philosophy thrown in. A good book to give to someone non-veg*n to make > them think but if you're already vegan there is little to be gained. Just > my opinion though. > > Michael Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 30, 2001 Report Share Posted May 30, 2001 thanks for your concern michael, i applied to lampeter and lancaster, i think i will go to lampeter.... love lola --- Mavreela <nec.lists wrote: <HR> <html><body> <tt> <BR> & gt;Did philosophy A level.<BR> & gt;Much of it is rubbish, I wanted to do 'ethics' really.<BR> <BR> You'd love it at Hull then, most of the course is made up of ethics <BR> modules. & nbsp; I don't suppose you'd want to take my moral philosophy exam next <BR> week then?<BR> <BR> There isn't much on animal rights although I did have to write a dialogue <BR> between Descartes and a chimpanzee on the ethics of vivisection as an <BR> essay. & nbsp; Next year I have environmental philosophy and Indian philosophy <BR> modules so maybe it will come up more in those.<BR> <BR> And to Lola I'd just say make sure you are going to the right uni for your <BR> interests. & nbsp; Philosophy is such a varied course that most courses tend to <BR> predominate in one to two particular areas (such as ethics) which can be <BR> hell if you don't have the same preferences.<BR> <BR> Michael<BR> <BR> </tt> <br> <!-- |**|begin egp html banner|**| --> <table border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=2> <tr bgcolor=#FFFFCC> <td align=center><font size= " -1 " color=#003399><b> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 30, 2001 Report Share Posted May 30, 2001 >________yeh - post me your essay! do it directly to me if you want - it might rekindle my lost interest in what could be a fabulous subject. I wanna do another degree so if i can find a decent philosphy course then i could do that! I got bored with the 'we could all wake up tomorrow and all the things we see could have halved in size and how would we know? Andy BTW - don't answer that (unless you can make it interesting!) ____ >Jim Higson >¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ >I'mdoing A-level philo. It's great!!!! > >Butthen we are doing ethics. >Epistomology ethics, Descarets. > >Iwrote an essay on animal rights, I'll try to did it out for you, >canwe post files here? > > > > > > >---In vegan-network, Mavreela <nec.listsm...> wrote: > >Didphilosophy A level. >Muchof it is rubbish, I wanted to do 'ethics' really. > >You'd love it at Hull then, most of the course is made up of ethics >modules. I don't suppose you'd want to take my moral philosophy >examnext >week then? > >There isn't much on animal rights although I did have to write a >dialogue >between Descartes and a chimpanzee on the ethics of vivisection as >an >essay. Next year I have environmental philosophy and Indian >philosophy >modules so maybe it will come up more in those. > >And to Lola I'd just say make sure you are going to the right uni >foryour >interests. Philosophy is such a varied course that most courses >tendto >predominate in one to two particular areas (such as ethics) which >canbe >hell if you don't have the same preferences. > >Michael > > >To from this group, send an email to: >vegan-network- > > > >Youruse of is subject to <aTarget='_new' Href Andrew Barnes 07970 075905 -------------------- talk21 your FREE portable and private address on the net at http://www.talk21.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 30, 2001 Report Share Posted May 30, 2001 I'll tell you me result from the old GOD arguments. You cannot disprove God. That is it. Why? Well - he is all powerful, you and I are not - he is all knowing, you and I are not - he is etc, you and I are not We just don't understand - that is all. This doesn't prove God does exist, only that we cannot disprove a possibility of a god - like creature to exist. > ____________ > Jim Higson >¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ >Dyslexic spelling of Descates. Rene Descartes, the 'father of modern >philosophy' aparently. > >'Proved' the exisatnce of god (yeah, right!) and argued that no >animal is any more alive in the human sense of the world then any >inanimate object. His arguments were used for generations to justify >animal cruelty. Most famous for his cogito - I think, I am. > >I supose he deserves credit for his work, but not so much as most >give him. He opened minds but was influenced by far too many closed >ones to start with. > >Oh, yeah and according to the python boys philosopher's drinking >song 'and rene descartes was a drunken fart - I drink therefore I am! " > > >Give me Neichze any day! >_jim_ > > > > > > > > >vegan-network, " spacevegan " <rob@z...> wrote: > Who's Des Carrots? Sounds like me in a French supermarket > > vegan-network, jim_higson wrote: > > > Epistomology, ethics, Descarets. > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 31, 2001 Report Share Posted May 31, 2001 You can't see half an atom under the microscope! Or for larger objects, count the atoms. All physics would have to change if that were the case(?) alwbarnes [alwbarnes] 30 May 2001 16:15 vegan-network Re: Re: Philosophy >________yeh - post me your essay! do it directly to me if you want - it might rekindle my lost interest in what could be a fabulous subject. I wanna do another degree so if i can find a decent philosphy course then i could do that! I got bored with the 'we could all wake up tomorrow and all the things we see could have halved in size and how would we know? Andy BTW - don't answer that (unless you can make it interesting!) ____ >Jim Higson >¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ >I'mdoing A-level philo. It's great!!!! > >Butthen we are doing ethics. >Epistomology ethics, Descarets. > >Iwrote an essay on animal rights, I'll try to did it out for you, >canwe post files here? > > > > > > >---In vegan-network, Mavreela <nec.listsm...> wrote: > >Didphilosophy A level. >Muchof it is rubbish, I wanted to do 'ethics' really. > >You'd love it at Hull then, most of the course is made up of ethics >modules. I don't suppose you'd want to take my moral philosophy >examnext >week then? > >There isn't much on animal rights although I did have to write a >dialogue >between Descartes and a chimpanzee on the ethics of vivisection as >an >essay. Next year I have environmental philosophy and Indian >philosophy >modules so maybe it will come up more in those. > >And to Lola I'd just say make sure you are going to the right uni >foryour >interests. Philosophy is such a varied course that most courses >tendto >predominate in one to two particular areas (such as ethics) which >canbe >hell if you don't have the same preferences. > >Michael > > >To from this group, send an email to: >vegan-network- > > > >Youruse of is subject to <aTarget='_new' Href Andrew Barnes 07970 075905 -------------------- talk21 your FREE portable and private address on the net at http://www.talk21.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 31, 2001 Report Share Posted May 31, 2001 There are people tho' who have no quality of life . The elderly are in some cases arguing for euthanasia Maybe some severely handicapped people are in pain and ,if mental faculties are poor ,cannot express their wishes .Perhaps losing one's life isn't necessarily a bad thing. It might be a welcome release I read an article by Singer and found it to be quite reasonable {in extreme cases.}Especially if the life involves a child/person being in constant pain and the inability to have any pleasure. - " Lesley Dove " <100706.3632 <vegan-network > Wednesday, May 30, 2001 1:55 PM Re: Philosophy > I'm no philosopher (everyone knows I have porridge for brains!) but my big problem with Singer is his general approach to life issues, for instance, he has some pretty scary views regarding killing disabled babies. He certainly cares about suffering, but not about the right to life. His utilitarian views can be used to justify all manner of atrocities. I believe that Singer is partway there but that he has still missed out on advocating the most basic right for us all, the right to life, for both humans and other sentient species. I think he is terribly overrated, and if we want to look to a philosopher for truly life-respecting moral guidance, Singer is not the best. I fear he has had too much influence on animal rights activists, and adversely affected their view of human life to a large extent. Lesley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 31, 2001 Report Share Posted May 31, 2001 Although people get offended I'm happy to say that a lion [say] is more fitted to live ,than my Downs son --'because the lion can function well in its environment whereas my son cannot{ with out outside assistence}- I'm not saying my son shouldn't live but that we shouldn't' on the one hand' look down on some creature which are successful survivers and treat them like machines(descartes]- while we are happy to support others which can't look after themselves.This just shows biggotry in favour of ones own kind and that can be dangerous. Angie ---- Original Message ----- " Mccartney, Rowan (R.N.) " <rmccar14 <vegan-network > Wednesday, May 30, 2001 2:26 PM RE: Re: Philosophy I think singer is the omni of AR. He applies the intelligence argument to animals equally. IE people argue cows are food as they are not intelligent, to which he responds so eating disabled babies is okay then. I don't agree with him but I can see where he's coming from. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.