Posted on 04/06/2010 7:07:19 AM PDT by truthfinder9
Prediction: Next you will be defining “hurt” as pleasure.
Oy, you still don't get it. We don't value pleasure, we value that which gives us pleasure.
You are right. To some people getting hurt produces pleasure (masochists).
I am glad you acknowledge this, but you don't seem to think so in this discussion.
Still your definition of love applies to both.
Only in cartoons. Ducks do what all ducks do. Humans choose.
I never compared humans to any other animals. You did.
Only in cartoons. Ducks do what all ducks do. Humans choose
Ducks can't create choices; we can.
And, as far as you've indicated, if caring for someone no longer gives you pleasure, you no longer care for them.
I think mother ducks perform better, but Jerry Springer relies on your view of "caring."
And if a human cares for someone even though it hurts them, you would call it pleasure.
Are most humans, in your view, masochists, fools, hypocrites and liars?
In terms of this discussion, you've never differentiated them.
Ducks can't create choices; we can.
In a sense, yes. And we can choose them.
I get that, you've certainly repeated it enough.
What you don't yet get, or have lost, is that we have a choice to value something other than that which gives us pleasure.
This potential makes us, unlike other animals, human.
We have a choice to value something other than on the basis of pain or pleasure or in-between.
Well, I am not a masochist. If living with someone you once loved is now living hell, caring for that person becomes an exercise of masochistic cruelty.
Yes, because caring for that someone is still a perceived "feel-good" for whatever reason.
Are most humans, in your view, masochists, fools, hypocrites and liars?
No, yes, yes, yes.
Why should I be concerned with animals in this discussion? You are the one who keeps brining in the whole zoo for whatever reason.
And we can choose them [choices]
Not always.
still a perceived "feel-good"
No, hurts. Not perceived feel good, hurts. You can't define something as its opposite.
And no, not because it hurts, but in spite of it hurting.
Hypothetically, would you still care for your children if it brought you nothing pleasurable?
To press a point. In terms of this discussion, what is the difference between humans and other animals? Is it only the capacity to be liars, hypocrites and fools?
Obviously you don't get it because otherwise you wouldn't be saying what you are saying.
What you don't yet get, or have lost, is that we have a choice to value something other than that which gives us pleasure.
No we don't. We value everything and anything that gives us pleasure no matter what it is or how bizarre it may seem. It can be anything, an idea, ideal, social acceptance, wealth, ego, power, etc. All these things are valued by different people because they give them a "feel good" about themselves as moral, patriotic, honest, dedicated, etc. people.
However, it can all be reduced to "feels good."
This potential makes us, unlike other animals, human
Nope. The animals do the same thing,. Their repertoire is somewhat different and limited compared to ours.
Animals make choices too, if they are in a situation to make them. What makes us different and unique among animals is that we can actually sometimes create our choices.
This potential makes us, unlike other animals, human
Wrong again. What makes us human is the language. Not only are we anatomically capable of speaking, a unique difference compared to other species, we also have more than inarticulated sounds in our sound system; We have a structured language, a unique system of communication that no other animal species is capable of.
Really? Why don't you ask a masochist what's so great about hanging on meat hooks?
And no, not because it hurts, but in spite of it hurting
You are making things up. Masochists crave pain because it gives them pleasure. In the end if something is perceived as "feels good" it's "feels good" whether it's pain or not.
Hypothetically, would you still care for your children if it brought you nothing pleasurable?
No I wouldn't. I am not a masochist. Love is a two-way street in my world. Apparently not in yours. Why feed the dog who bites you? That's stupid and masochistic in my book.
What point?
In terms of this discussion, what is the difference between humans and other animals? Is it only the capacity to be liars, hypocrites and fools?
The key difference is the language. Without it, you can't be a liar and a hypocrite or a fool.
With animals there is no false pretense.
Cannot choose to? I believe you said earlier you could. In any case, it's obvious we can. You could illustrate that for yourself at any time. I think your in a determinist or robotic argument here. You can choose otherwise - you can argue you don't, but not that you can't.
We value everything and anything that gives us pleasure…
Didn't say we don't, just that we can choose something else over pleasure.
What makes us different and unique among animals is that we can actually sometimes create our choices.
Yep, and have values in addition to "feels good."
All these things are valued by different people because they give them a "feel good"
I think you're trying to define everything else away, as in "if you value it it feels good, therefore all values reduce to feel good." Both clauses are not logically proven so you can't hold your premise or additional conclusions are true statements.
In addition, you make a reductionistic error. E.g., that all organisms can be reduced to atoms, doesn't mean everything knowable about them can be known by their atomic properties.
What makes us human is the language.
Not responsive to the question of what makes us different in terms of this discussion. As far as this goes, you've not given any difference in terms of values, goals, choices involved.
Please if words mean their opposite, it's quite impossible to discuss. We can assume that in the extreme case of masochism, hanging on meat hooks is pleasurable. It has no bearing on the discussion.
Masochists crave pain because it gives them pleasure. In the end if something is perceived as "feels good" it's "feels good" whether it's pain or not.
So we can say that pain feels good to a masochist. He still can choose otherwise (not pleasure) and the argument remains the same.
Love is a two-way street in my world. Apparently not in yours.
No such thing as unrequited love in your world. Well, there goes a lot of good literature.
Why feed the dog who bites you?
Perhaps you don't want it to starve. And if it's not a dog, but a human, your child hypothetically, would you see it any differently?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.