These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Intergalactic Summit

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

The chains you choose to wear.
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Nicolas Merovech
Doomheim
#141 - 2013-02-13 21:32:45 UTC
Natalcya Katla wrote:
Nicolas Merovech wrote:
Let me rephrase the question.

What are the "necessary preconditions" for being human? You left that point open in your previous remark. And yes, your response to my question was a deflection. Anyone reading our dialogue can see that this question is the heart of the matter.

Like so many other things, the necessary precondition for being human is to be considered such by law.


Who's law? What gives them the authority to create such a law?

Dr. Nicolas A. Merovech, Ph. D, M.D.
Evi Polevhia
Phoenix Naval Operations
Phoenix Naval Systems
#142 - 2013-02-13 21:35:55 UTC
Nicolas Merovech wrote:
What gives them the authority to create such a law?


Funny, we ask the same questions.
Nicolas Merovech
Doomheim
#143 - 2013-02-13 21:37:57 UTC
Evi Polevhia wrote:
Nicolas Merovech wrote:
What gives them the authority to create such a law?


Funny, we ask the same questions.


Yet you cannot answer this question as a means of justifying your cause.

Dr. Nicolas A. Merovech, Ph. D, M.D.
Tiberious Thessalonia
True Slave Foundations
#144 - 2013-02-13 21:39:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Tiberious Thessalonia
Nicolas Merovech wrote:
Let me rephrase the question.

What are the "necessary preconditions" for being human? You left that point open in your previous remark. And yes, your response to my question was a deflection. Anyone reading our dialogue can see that this question is the heart of the matter.


It's much easier to say what is not a necessary precondition to being human because we have many examples of what humanity is not, but very few examples of what humanity is (that is to say, the only proven sapient species we have run into so far has been humanity. I look forward to seeing the potential in Rogue Drones if they ever achieve that level, though I will be watching cautiously).

I will not be forced into making a positive statement that I am not absolutely sure about. If I had to wager a few guesses, I would say that it is a combination of our reason and of our ability to alter our environments to suit our needs, starting from simple tool use (Which has been examined in other non-human species though not to the same degree as we are capable), extending to our escape from whatever rock we originally evolved on in a manner that is, by default, sufficient to allow our species to survive the death of our original star, to the conquering of the limitations of the speed-of-light within spacetime.

If I had to shorten that into a simple statement, I would be hard pressed as that encapsulates so much, but I would call it "humanities ability to be creative".

A common statement here is is that creativity is a matter of chaos, but anyone who has ever painted a picture or written a story will be able to tell you that a planned, orderly creation process results in a better output than simply writing a story ad-hoc or splashing paint on a canvas with no end-goal in mind.

Genius is the first step towards greatness, but more important is the plan and the execution.

Edit: To expand a little further, it is for these very reasons that I consider Nation to be a very human thing. We do not seek to lower our humanity, we seek to exalt it by defeating our flaws through our ability to build tools (here I am defining society itself as a tool) and thereby becoming greater than we are. We do this in a focused, planned manner. If there has been a weakness it is best encapsulated by the statement "No plan survives contact with the enemy".
Natalcya Katla
Astropolitan Front
#145 - 2013-02-13 21:44:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Natalcya Katla
Nicolas Merovech wrote:
Who's law? What gives them the authority to create such a law?

The law of whichever sovereign political entity (or client of such allowed the necessary degree of autonomy in legal matters) whose jurisdiction you are under, through the authority inherent in being sovereign.

In theory, it's perfectly possible for a given individual to be human in one part of the cluster, but not in another. "Humanity" is an inherently abstract concept, so a de jure definition is as close to a consensus on the matter as you are ever going to get.
Nicolas Merovech
Doomheim
#146 - 2013-02-13 21:56:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Nicolas Merovech
Tiberious Thessalonia wrote:
Nicolas Merovech wrote:
Let me rephrase the question.

What are the "necessary preconditions" for being human? You left that point open in your previous remark. And yes, your response to my question was a deflection. Anyone reading our dialogue can see that this question is the heart of the matter.


It's much easier to say what is not a necessary precondition to being human because we have many examples of what humanity is not, but very few examples of what humanity is (that is to say, the only proven sapient species we have run into so far has been humanity. I look forward to seeing the potential in Rogue Drones if they ever achieve that level, though I will be watching cautiously).

I will not be forced into making a positive statement that I am not absolutely sure about. If I had to wager a few guesses, I would say that it is a combination of our reason and of our ability to alter our environments to suit our needs, starting from simple tool use (Which has been examined in other non-human species though not to the same degree as we are capable), extending to our escape from whatever rock we originally evolved on in a manner that is, by default, sufficient to allow our species to survive the death of our original star, to the conquering of the limitations of the speed-of-light within spacetime.

If I had to shorten that into a simple statement, I would be hard pressed as that encapsulates so much, but I would call it "humanities ability to be creative".

A common statement here is is that creativity is a matter of chaos, but anyone who has ever painted a picture or written a story will be able to tell you that a planned, orderly creation process results in a better output than simply writing a story ad-hoc or splashing paint on a canvas with no end-goal in mind.

Genius is the first step towards greatness, but more important is the plan and the execution.

Edit: To expand a little further, it is for these very reasons that I consider Nation to be a very human thing. We do not seek to lower our humanity, we seek to exalt it by defeating our flaws through our ability to build tools (here I am defining society itself as a tool) and thereby becoming greater than we are. We do this in a focused, planned manner. If there has been a weakness it is best encapsulated by the statement "No plan survives contact with the enemy".


I'm not looking for a positive statement, or an example. I want to know what you think it means to be human; a definition.

Also, Nation is born of the animalistic instinct of self preservation; the need of safety and power by consuming life. Thus, it is a very animal thing.

Dr. Nicolas A. Merovech, Ph. D, M.D.
Nicolas Merovech
Doomheim
#147 - 2013-02-13 22:09:55 UTC
Natalcya Katla wrote:
Nicolas Merovech wrote:
Who's law? What gives them the authority to create such a law?

The law of whichever sovereign political entity (or client of such allowed the necessary degree of autonomy in legal matters) whose jurisdiction you are under, through the authority inherent in being sovereign.

In theory, it's perfectly possible for a given individual to be human in one part of the cluster, but not in another. "Humanity" is an inherently abstract concept, so a de jure definition is as close to a consensus on the matter as you are ever going to get.


You didn't answer my question. What makes an "authority" sovereign?

And you shouldn't put so much stock in theory. By their very nature, they are easily changed.

Dr. Nicolas A. Merovech, Ph. D, M.D.
Tiberious Thessalonia
True Slave Foundations
#148 - 2013-02-13 22:21:11 UTC
Nicolas Merovech wrote:
Tiberious Thessalonia wrote:
Nicolas Merovech wrote:
Let me rephrase the question.

What are the "necessary preconditions" for being human? You left that point open in your previous remark. And yes, your response to my question was a deflection. Anyone reading our dialogue can see that this question is the heart of the matter.


It's much easier to say what is not a necessary precondition to being human because we have many examples of what humanity is not, but very few examples of what humanity is (that is to say, the only proven sapient species we have run into so far has been humanity. I look forward to seeing the potential in Rogue Drones if they ever achieve that level, though I will be watching cautiously).

I will not be forced into making a positive statement that I am not absolutely sure about. If I had to wager a few guesses, I would say that it is a combination of our reason and of our ability to alter our environments to suit our needs, starting from simple tool use (Which has been examined in other non-human species though not to the same degree as we are capable), extending to our escape from whatever rock we originally evolved on in a manner that is, by default, sufficient to allow our species to survive the death of our original star, to the conquering of the limitations of the speed-of-light within spacetime.

If I had to shorten that into a simple statement, I would be hard pressed as that encapsulates so much, but I would call it "humanities ability to be creative".

A common statement here is is that creativity is a matter of chaos, but anyone who has ever painted a picture or written a story will be able to tell you that a planned, orderly creation process results in a better output than simply writing a story ad-hoc or splashing paint on a canvas with no end-goal in mind.

Genius is the first step towards greatness, but more important is the plan and the execution.

Edit: To expand a little further, it is for these very reasons that I consider Nation to be a very human thing. We do not seek to lower our humanity, we seek to exalt it by defeating our flaws through our ability to build tools (here I am defining society itself as a tool) and thereby becoming greater than we are. We do this in a focused, planned manner. If there has been a weakness it is best encapsulated by the statement "No plan survives contact with the enemy".


I'm not looking for a positive statement, or an example. I want to know what you think it means to be human; a definition.

Also, Nation is born of the animalistic instinct of self preservation; the need of safety and power by consuming life. Thus, it is a very animal thing.


I just told you what I think. It is not a positive provable statement because I refuse to make firm statements about edge cases.
Natalcya Katla
Astropolitan Front
#149 - 2013-02-13 22:35:06 UTC
Nicolas Merovech wrote:
You didn't answer my question. What makes an "authority" sovereign?

I did answer your question, and "what makes an authority sovereign" was not what you asked. That being said, what I regard as the defining characteristic of a sovereign political entity is the ability and willingness to issue and enforce laws within its borders and upon its population. Hence, the authority to decide what counts as human within a society's jurisdiction is derived entirely from its ability to pass and uphold that law.

Stop trying to pretend we are dodging your questions when it's you who dodge our answers.

Nicolas Merovech wrote:
And you shouldn't put so much stock in theory. By their very nature, they are easily changed.

I am not sure exactly what you are trying to argue here. You will need to elaborate.
Nicolas Merovech
Doomheim
#150 - 2013-02-13 22:35:16 UTC
Tiberious Thessalonia wrote:
Nicolas Merovech wrote:
Tiberious Thessalonia wrote:
Nicolas Merovech wrote:
Let me rephrase the question.

What are the "necessary preconditions" for being human? You left that point open in your previous remark. And yes, your response to my question was a deflection. Anyone reading our dialogue can see that this question is the heart of the matter.


It's much easier to say what is not a necessary precondition to being human because we have many examples of what humanity is not, but very few examples of what humanity is (that is to say, the only proven sapient species we have run into so far has been humanity. I look forward to seeing the potential in Rogue Drones if they ever achieve that level, though I will be watching cautiously).

I will not be forced into making a positive statement that I am not absolutely sure about. If I had to wager a few guesses, I would say that it is a combination of our reason and of our ability to alter our environments to suit our needs, starting from simple tool use (Which has been examined in other non-human species though not to the same degree as we are capable), extending to our escape from whatever rock we originally evolved on in a manner that is, by default, sufficient to allow our species to survive the death of our original star, to the conquering of the limitations of the speed-of-light within spacetime.

If I had to shorten that into a simple statement, I would be hard pressed as that encapsulates so much, but I would call it "humanities ability to be creative".

A common statement here is is that creativity is a matter of chaos, but anyone who has ever painted a picture or written a story will be able to tell you that a planned, orderly creation process results in a better output than simply writing a story ad-hoc or splashing paint on a canvas with no end-goal in mind.

Genius is the first step towards greatness, but more important is the plan and the execution.

Edit: To expand a little further, it is for these very reasons that I consider Nation to be a very human thing. We do not seek to lower our humanity, we seek to exalt it by defeating our flaws through our ability to build tools (here I am defining society itself as a tool) and thereby becoming greater than we are. We do this in a focused, planned manner. If there has been a weakness it is best encapsulated by the statement "No plan survives contact with the enemy".


I'm not looking for a positive statement, or an example. I want to know what you think it means to be human; a definition.

Also, Nation is born of the animalistic instinct of self preservation; the need of safety and power by consuming life. Thus, it is a very animal thing.


I just told you what I think. It is not a positive provable statement because I refuse to make firm statements about edge cases.


So you don't know.

Dr. Nicolas A. Merovech, Ph. D, M.D.
Scherezad
Revenent Defence Corperation
Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
#151 - 2013-02-13 22:42:30 UTC
Nicolas Merovech wrote:
...
So you don't know.


Sir;

I have two points to make at this time. Firstly, he made a fairly clear statement as to what he considered important to the definition of humanity: "If I had to shorten that into a simple statement, I would be hard pressed as that encapsulates so much, but I would call it "humanities ability to be creative"." Also, sir, the question is deliberately goading - No one can form a complete and definitive description of humanity, to the best of my knowledge. At least, none on which one would get much agreement.

Secondly. Humans are a type of animal. This does not denigrate the human, it elevates the animal. Your statement about Nation being animalistic is therefore quite true, but superfluous - all human behaviour is animalistic.
Nicolas Merovech
Doomheim
#152 - 2013-02-13 22:42:31 UTC
Natalcya Katla wrote:
Nicolas Merovech wrote:
You didn't answer my question. What makes an "authority" sovereign?

I did answer your question, and "what makes an authority sovereign" was not what you asked. That being said, what I regard as the defining characteristic of a sovereign political entity is the ability and willingness to issue and enforce laws within its borders and upon its population. Hence, the authority to decide what counts as human within a society's jurisdiction is derived entirely from its ability to pass and uphold that law.

Stop trying to pretend we are dodging your questions when it's you who dodge our answers.

Nicolas Merovech wrote:
And you shouldn't put so much stock in theory. By their very nature, they are easily changed.

I am not sure exactly what you are trying to argue here. You will need to elaborate.



So it's "might makes right," isn't it?

I'm not dodging you're answers, merely trying to discern the truth. I apologize if it's annoying.

Dr. Nicolas A. Merovech, Ph. D, M.D.
Nicolas Merovech
Doomheim
#153 - 2013-02-13 22:53:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Nicolas Merovech
Scherezad wrote:
Nicolas Merovech wrote:
...
So you don't know.


Sir;

I have two points to make at this time. Firstly, he made a fairly clear statement as to what he considered important to the definition of humanity: "If I had to shorten that into a simple statement, I would be hard pressed as that encapsulates so much, but I would call it "humanities ability to be creative"." Also, sir, the question is deliberately goading - No one can form a complete and definitive description of humanity, to the best of my knowledge. At least, none on which one would get much agreement.

Secondly. Humans are a type of animal. This does not denigrate the human, it elevates the animal. Your statement about Nation being animalistic is therefore quite true, but superfluous - all human behaviour is animalistic.


I will address both of your points. First, primitive apes and elephantidae were capable of being creative (painting, using tools, etc.) yet they were hardly human. Second, humans and animals are different in that humans are able to use reason. For example, an animal, if caught in a trap, driven by instinct alone, would gnaw off its own limb in order to save itself from pain and death. A human would endure the pain, and wait for the hunter to return so that it can remove a threat to it's own kind. That being said, not all "humans" are human.

And yes, you are right. Tiberious made it very clear what he believes and it was wrong of me to assert that he doesn't know what he believes. It would have been more accurate of me to say that he is wrong.

Dr. Nicolas A. Merovech, Ph. D, M.D.
Natalcya Katla
Astropolitan Front
#154 - 2013-02-13 22:59:26 UTC
Nicolas Merovech wrote:
So it's "might makes right," isn't it?

I believe that would be the quintessence of realpolitik, yes.
Nicolas Merovech
Doomheim
#155 - 2013-02-13 23:56:32 UTC
Natalcya Katla wrote:
Nicolas Merovech wrote:
So it's "might makes right," isn't it?

I believe that would be the quintessence of realpolitik, yes.


I respect that.

Dr. Nicolas A. Merovech, Ph. D, M.D.
Scherezad
Revenent Defence Corperation
Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
#156 - 2013-02-14 00:15:38 UTC
Nicolas Merovech wrote:
I will address both of your points. First, primitive apes and elephantidae were capable of being creative (painting, using tools, etc.) yet they were hardly human. Second, humans and animals are different in that humans are able to use reason. For example, an animal, if caught in a trap, driven by instinct alone, would gnaw off its own limb in order to save itself from pain and death. A human would endure the pain, and wait for the hunter to return so that it can remove a threat to it's own kind. That being said, not all "humans" are human.

And yes, you are right. Tiberious made it very clear what he believes and it was wrong of me to assert that he doesn't know what he believes. It would have been more accurate of me to say that he is wrong.


I am happy for your reply, sir! That more were so reasonable.

I will agree that, by the creativity definition, "humanity" encompasses several non-human entities. I am quite comfortable with this statement, though I personally don't feel that creativity is a sufficient condition, only necessary.

I will also agree that humans have greater capacities of thought than most other animals. Some creatures, however, do show signs of rationality and near-equivalent cognition. Corvidae, for example. This is indicative of the larger truth: the ability to reason does not render null our status as animals.
Gwen Ikiryo
Alexylva Paradox
#157 - 2013-02-14 00:24:01 UTC
I have something of a sentimental attachment to the romantic use of the word, "humanity" - That is, referring to the positive qualities in expected in an individual. Compassion, empathy, etc.

That being said, miss Katla's definition is probably much closer to reality. So someone can't be said to be utterly objectively "inhuman", save as an insult to their character.
BloodBird
The Crucible.
#158 - 2013-02-14 12:40:45 UTC
Evi Polevhia wrote:
*worthless excuses*



I have been busy for a while now so I've missed this for the most part. Let me put it in a simple format for you.

All Capsuleers, as well as all people everywhere who are reasonable, honest and capable people, have a duty to Humanity to destroy, counter-act or in any way they can, oppose the enemies of the whole Human race.

As Capsuleers we are particularely blessed with the powers and tools to do this if we so chose. Many of us chose to be a part of the solution, or at least not to do anything to hinder the efforts of those that actively oppose our fellow enemies.

You have chosen to be a part of the problem. Of your own will.

This, in short, makes your life as well as your opinions worthless. A True Slave can be forgiven, they did not after all chose to become a brainless machine and a tool for one of history's worst megalomaniacs of all time. You on the other hand was not kidnapped and True Enslaved against your will.

As of right now you are in the same group as every other Sansha loyalist around, part or present: -10 standing, Kill On Sight when possible, and devoid of any respect or compassion, regardless of how long your service to the Sansha's last.

I felt you had the right to know. It is the only right you still have.
Natalcya Katla
Astropolitan Front
#159 - 2013-02-14 15:13:25 UTC
BloodBird wrote:
Evi Polevhia wrote:
*worthless excuses*

You're the worthless excuse, BloodBird.

If you spent a little more time worrying about your own reputation and a little less time lecturing others on theirs, maybe you'd someday say something worth listening to.
Tiberious Thessalonia
True Slave Foundations
#160 - 2013-02-14 15:20:50 UTC
BloodBird wrote:
Evi Polevhia wrote:
*worthless excuses*



I have been busy for a while now so I've missed this for the most part. Let me put it in a simple format for you.

All Capsuleers, as well as all people everywhere who are reasonable, honest and capable people, have a duty to Humanity to destroy, counter-act or in any way they can, oppose the enemies of the whole Human race.

As Capsuleers we are particularely blessed with the powers and tools to do this if we so chose. Many of us chose to be a part of the solution, or at least not to do anything to hinder the efforts of those that actively oppose our fellow enemies.

You have chosen to be a part of the problem. Of your own will.

This, in short, makes your life as well as your opinions worthless. A True Slave can be forgiven, they did not after all chose to become a brainless machine and a tool for one of history's worst megalomaniacs of all time. You on the other hand was not kidnapped and True Enslaved against your will.

As of right now you are in the same group as every other Sansha loyalist around, part or present: -10 standing, Kill On Sight when possible, and devoid of any respect or compassion, regardless of how long your service to the Sansha's last.

I felt you had the right to know. It is the only right you still have.


I assure you, we are shaking in our boots.