From: ed@somewhere.in.the.uk   
      
   Ed Cryer wrote:   
   > Ed Cryer wrote:   
   >> Is it right that homo sapiens is at the top of the food chain?   
   >> Well, you have to found "right" in first principles to justify that.   
   >> If, for example, I were to say "Oh no! Dolphins and spiders have more   
   >> right" how would you argue on?   
   >> I think you'd appeal to the higher cognitive qualities that we have;   
   >> the ability to examine aspects of "reason", discover the underlying   
   >> causes in science, and then use science for our benefit; as if that   
   >> made us more right to be here. But, is that closer to "right"? Only   
   >> from a highly prejudiced human perspective.   
   >>   
   >> Prove to me that hyenas have less right. You'd have to step outside of   
   >> human prejudice to do that. And once you did that, i.e. step right   
   >> outside of the human prejudice of right, you'd diminish right to   
   >> nothing less than right for us.   
   >>   
   >> Is God nothing more than human right projected outward?   
   >> That's how it seems to me.   
   >> Argue me wrong, philosophers.   
   >>   
   >> Ed   
   >>   
   >>   
   > Oh, and keep in mind that philosophy is applicable to reason and logic;   
   > not to prejudices and polemical rants. It's a call to the extents of   
   > reason; its origins; its usefulness; whether it should be abandoned in   
   > favour of other modes of ordering life.   
   >   
   > Ed   
   >   
   >   
      
   Well, this is traditional "philosophy"; analysing reason, looking at the   
   logical underpinnings of human beliefs and practices, distinguishing   
   "science" from pseudo-science, seeing how far reason itself carries us.   
      
   Right back to Plato, 2,500 years ago; who wrote that in order to   
   distinguish knowledge from belief you had to add reason. And later   
   Aristotle with his logic and syllogisms. Followed by Euclid and others.   
   Into our modern concept of an axiom system. And tautologies.   
      
   Pseudo-philosophy is something else.   
   A; We should go to war.   
   B; No we shouldn't.   
   A; But XXX says you ought to defend democracy to the end.   
   B; Yes, but YYY says it's a pain in the ass.   
      
   Now, that is polemics; politics, in which philosophy is thrown in almost   
   like a better bait on the end of a fishing-line. No more than quoting   
   well respected names.   
      
   In this group of "philosophy" let's stick with the traditional approach.   
   A branch of understanding that inquires rather into the workings of our   
   brains than into the way that homo sapiens has screwed up this planet.   
      
   Ed   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)