Total Posts:18|Showing Posts:1-18
Jump to topic:

Natural Law

YYW
Posts: 36,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2013 7:23:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
What do you know about Natural Law? Where did you learn what you know? Do you believe it? Do you think it makes sense? What does or doesn't add up?
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2013 8:05:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Am I to take the community's silence as an indication that either no one knows anything about natural law, or that, if anyone knows anything about natural law that it either all makes sense or none of it is unclear?
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2013 8:06:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Come on... let's have a go at this, shall we? I'm very interested to learn what you all know about natural law. It seems to be quite the subject of interest in the Religion column... some even use it as a foundation for their arguments on various things.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2013 8:07:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Perhaps I have already made my stance on this subject to clear for a discussion of it to follow...
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2013 8:31:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/2/2013 8:24:24 PM, NightofTheLivingCats wrote:
At 9/2/2013 8:17:47 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
It's BS. It assumes unnatural = immoral, when that seems absurd.

Was that your 4,500th post?

A worthwhile post, it was.
Tsar of DDO
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2013 8:37:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Pretty much what rational said. Natural law is basically bullsh1t.

Although, I generally am more warm to the concept of natural RIGHTS, for obvious reasons.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2013 9:01:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Why should one ever want to attempt to discuss a subject which people already denounce with such ire and stupidity without even understanding it in the first place?
YYW
Posts: 36,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2013 9:16:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/2/2013 9:01:34 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
Why should one ever want to attempt to discuss a subject which people already denounce with such ire and stupidity without even understanding it in the first place?

Yes. Yes. That is the point of this exercise. Do share with us your vast knowledge of natural law, that we may all learn from it.
Tsar of DDO
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2013 9:28:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Natural Law is an ultimately theological stance on the morality of certain things from knowledge that can be derived from the very nature of human beings.

Is that a good enough answer?
Nolite Timere
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2013 9:29:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/2/2013 7:23:18 PM, YYW wrote:
What do you know about Natural Law? Where did you learn what you know? Do you believe it? Do you think it makes sense? What does or doesn't add up?

I learned what I know from logic, I believe in the theological stance of Natural Law and how it relates back to some of the immoral acts that are told in the Bible, I think Natural Law makes sense, and I think it all adds up.
Nolite Timere
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2013 9:31:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/2/2013 9:01:34 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
Why should one ever want to attempt to discuss a subject which people already denounce with such ire and stupidity without even understanding it in the first place?

I actually agree with this point.

Many of those who denounce natural law actually don't fully understand.

For example, questions like "If anal sex is immoral why do animals practice it?" and "Don't airplanes contradict natural laws since humans aren't able to naturally fly?" misunderstand the very concept of natural law.
Nolite Timere
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2013 9:42:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/2/2013 9:16:49 PM, YYW wrote:
At 9/2/2013 9:01:34 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
Why should one ever want to attempt to discuss a subject which people already denounce with such ire and stupidity without even understanding it in the first place?

Yes. Yes. That is the point of this exercise. Do share with us your vast knowledge of natural law, that we may all learn from it.

If you are serious about learning about Natural Law (and essentialism and Aristotelian-Thomistic thought of which it is a part of more generally), then don't look to me for I am merely the one who brings the good news, so to speak. No, if you are serious about this, you'd read on the matter (preferably books, several of which I can recommend, if you are so willing).
YYW
Posts: 36,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2013 9:52:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/2/2013 9:42:57 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 9/2/2013 9:16:49 PM, YYW wrote:
At 9/2/2013 9:01:34 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
Why should one ever want to attempt to discuss a subject which people already denounce with such ire and stupidity without even understanding it in the first place?

Yes. Yes. That is the point of this exercise. Do share with us your vast knowledge of natural law, that we may all learn from it.

If you are serious about learning about Natural Law (and essentialism and Aristotelian-Thomistic thought of which it is a part of more generally), then don't look to me for I am merely the one who brings the good news, so to speak. No, if you are serious about this, you'd read on the matter (preferably books, several of which I can recommend, if you are so willing).

I'd be very interested in which books you would recommend, especially if I've already read them.

While I predict that I may always learn something new, I predict that the majority of what I learn from this effort will be in diagnosing, or rather, assessing what others know -and indeed that is what I am most interested in.

There are those who, if they are aware of my position on natural law in a general sense and if they themselves believe in their understanding of natural law, would be inclined to conclude that I know nothing of the subject because of my position. This is a view fundamentally in error, but for reasons that are not relevant here.

What is relevant, in contrast, is knowing what others know -which is why I want others to post what they know, that I may learn that -as opposed to, for example, the writings of Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Aquinas or the other "greats" among the natural law cannon in the West. I'm less familiar with Islamic notions of natural law than I am of Christian conceptions, but I digress.

I do apologize if that was unclear by the first post. But of course, do recommend books or writings that you are familiar with. If you would also give a brief description of the content, as you understand it, along with the recommendation, that would similarly be much appreciated.
Tsar of DDO
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2013 10:08:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/2/2013 9:52:30 PM, YYW wrote:
At 9/2/2013 9:42:57 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 9/2/2013 9:16:49 PM, YYW wrote:
At 9/2/2013 9:01:34 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
Why should one ever want to attempt to discuss a subject which people already denounce with such ire and stupidity without even understanding it in the first place?

Yes. Yes. That is the point of this exercise. Do share with us your vast knowledge of natural law, that we may all learn from it.

If you are serious about learning about Natural Law (and essentialism and Aristotelian-Thomistic thought of which it is a part of more generally), then don't look to me for I am merely the one who brings the good news, so to speak. No, if you are serious about this, you'd read on the matter (preferably books, several of which I can recommend, if you are so willing).

I'd be very interested in which books you would recommend, especially if I've already read them.

While I predict that I may always learn something new, I predict that the majority of what I learn from this effort will be in diagnosing, or rather, assessing what others know -and indeed that is what I am most interested in.

There are those who, if they are aware of my position on natural law in a general sense and if they themselves believe in their understanding of natural law, would be inclined to conclude that I know nothing of the subject because of my position. This is a view fundamentally in error, but for reasons that are not relevant here.

What is relevant, in contrast, is knowing what others know -which is why I want others to post what they know, that I may learn that -as opposed to, for example, the writings of Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Aquinas or the other "greats" among the natural law cannon in the West. I'm less familiar with Islamic notions of natural law than I am of Christian conceptions, but I digress.

I do apologize if that was unclear by the first post. But of course, do recommend books or writings that you are familiar with. If you would also give a brief description of the content, as you understand it, along with the recommendation, that would similarly be much appreciated.

Off the top of my head, I'd recommend The Last Superstition and Aquinas, both of which are written by Edward Feser (his blog, which is as of now some 15 times the size of the Bible, is aptly recommendable as well). I also recommend The Rediscovery of Wisdom: From Here to Antiquity in Quest of Sophia by David Conway, for a more general introduction to essentialist Aristotelian thought.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2013 10:29:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
It would probably aid this discussion immensely (if this is indeed supposed to be a discussion) if someone would actually define the topic of discussion.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?