Okay Bryan, lets start with the obvious. The definition of the word
individual
individual adj. 1) inseperable 2) a: of, relating to, or distinctively
associated with an individual <~ turns of phrase that identify his
writing> b: being an individual or existing as an indivisable whole c:
intended for one person <an ~ serving> 3) existing as a distinct
entity: seperate 4) haveing marked individuality <an ~ style>.
individual n. 1) a particular thing as distinguished frin a class,
species, or collection: as (1) a single human being as contrasted with
a social group or institution (2) a single organism as distinguished
from a group b: a particular person 2) a single entity 3) a reference
of a name or variable of the lowest logical type in calculus.
(from Webster's New Colegiate Dictionary)
then you wrote (and shouted):
> fine, swell, and wonderful indeed..... hmmm, let's see.... if
i want
> to consider the planet an individual in the sense that it is a single
> unit.... you mean like humans are single units? or different than
that?
> oh! i see! you mean like a ROCK is a single unit.... again, your
analogy
> doesn't hold up.... the criteria are not conclusive in the
slightest....
Now from the definitions above it is possible to view rocks and humans
individually. Moreover, you could view various planets individually
as well. From this perspective you could call the Earth an individual
or an individual planet.
To point out that humans are single entities as is the planet is a
truism and contains little useful information. To point out that the
criterion is not conclusive is exactly what I was claiming in my
earlier posts pointing out it is a false analogy.
Here is exactly what you wrote (and despite your claims otherwise I
never *ever* commented on something you [Bryan Hyden] wrote without
your comments appearing somewhere in the message--that is a blatant
untruth!):
_____
>Not that open,
>Because it's kinda dumb to suggest that a planet covered with googols
of
>individual organisms is an individual.
sorry steven, but you did it again... :)
why, just look at us humans.... we are, as you say, "covered with
googols
of individual organisms" and are still considered individuals,
individually....
bryan
______
Clearly Steven's argument is not sufficient, but neither is your
counter argument. You then claim I misrepresented your argument,
which I did to some degree in my first post (although your exact
comments were in the message and there for all to see--go check the
damn archive!), however that does nothing to change the fact that your
statement above is a false analogy. It is a flase analogy because, it
points to the fact that humans and the planet share a trait and that
humans can be treated altruistically so why not the planet as well?
Your initial claim was that the planet is an individual and can be
treated alturistically. Steven Bissel responded that it (behaving
altruistically) is an individual to individual action, and by
implication that the planet is not an individual. You are correct
that the planet is a single entity and in that sense of the definition
is an individual. However it is far from clear that the planet is
deserving of being treated altruistically (or that it even can be
treated altruistically--e.g. can one treat a can of tuna
altruistically?) on just that basis alone as I point out we can view
rocks individually and yet we do not talk about treating them
altruistically.
As for this:
> >> bad assumption... can we only be altruistic to humans? [Bryan
Hyden]
> >
> >Then why did you pose the question about being altruistic to the
planet? [me]
Sorry, I misread your statement. I switched the 'can we' to 'we can'
which of course dramatically changes the meaning of your sentence. It
was unintentional.
I suppose one could pose the following quesiton. If the Earth can be
treated altruistically then why not another planet such as Mars? Why
not treat Mars altruistically?
Steve
P.S. Bryan's original message is found below in its entirety so no
more of this crap about not including the other person's message.
---Bryan Hyden <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> >> bad assumption... can we only be altruistic to humans?
> >
> >Then why did you pose the question about being altruistic to the
planet?
>
> steve, i think you should read more carefully... as in, actually
try to
> understand what i am saying. ok, scroll back up, to what i just cut
and
> pasted, and read what i wrote and then what you wrote three times out
> loud.... go ahead... three times.... ok, in case you didn't do
it,
> i'll write it again.... i said, "can we only be altruistic to
humans?"
> AS IN..... "can we not also be altruistic to other things (i.e.
animanls,
> individuals, ect; and NOT necessarily ROCKS!)" your question
implied that
> what i had said above was somehow different than an allusion to the
idea
> that we can be altruistic to the planet... if you do not understand
this, so
> be it....
>
> >> yes.... it is still quite skewed, though not quite as badly as
> >the first
> >> time....
> >
> >No its not, it is what you put forward.
>
> you can try to tell me what i *didn't* say all you want to.... but
the
> least you could do would be to go back and find exactly what i said,
then
> cut and paste it to include it in your agrument... otherwise you're
blowing
> hot air....
>
> >As I am pointing out the illogic of concluding that the planet is
> >itself an individual in the sense discribed above simply because it
> >shares a similar trait with humans. This is a perfect example of a
> >false analogy.
>
> nope, wrong again..... i wasn't using that analogy to conclude that
the
> planet was an individual.... I WAS USING THAT ANALOGY TO SHOW THAT
YOU
> CANNOT CONCLUDE THAT THE PLANET IS *NOT* AN INDIVIDUAL BASED ON THAT
> CRITERIA..... again, you ought to both read more carefully and go
back and
> cut and paste, much like i do.... (i.e. if you are going to comment
on
> something i said in a post previous to this one, you should go back
and find
> that material).
>
> As I pointed out, if you want to consider the planet
> >an individual in the sense that it is a single unit (much like we can
> >talk about specific rocks, i.e. individual rocks) then fine, swell,
> >wonderful, but don't try to ascribe some sort of human trait to it
> >with out a more substantial arguement.
>
> fine, swell, and wonderful indeed..... hmmm, let's see.... if
i want
> to consider the planet an individual in the sense that it is a single
> unit.... you mean like humans are single units? or different than
that?
> oh! i see! you mean like a ROCK is a single unit.... again, your
analogy
> doesn't hold up.... the criteria are not conclusive in the
slightest....
> I NEVER SAID THAT I COULD, NOR DID I EVER, GIVE ANY PROOF OR
REASONING AS TO
> THE INDIVIDUALITY OF THE PLANET.... however, i did say time and
again that
> it could not be proven either way by any means that *i* know of....
and
> certainly no one here has changed my mind about THAT! let me
state that
> it is my believe that the earth is sentient, and an individual to
which we
> can act altruistically... and also that i have no proof of such to
> offer.... but i delight no end in posing contradictions to anyone who
> argues that it isn't....
>
> bryan
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|