A philosophical debate - Tools

mayflow said:
So - you see us humans as both creators and destroyers? And you make things rather complex and contemplative? and you see us as prisoners bound by our very natures? WEll, let's fuchin' break this jailhouse! I'll dig a tunnel, you get us some wine, and our love will revolutionize the world. (Or something) - What? I am just thinking here.
Click to expand...
To be honest, I've said it a million times here... I don't know anything for sure. I am a 'know nothing.'
All I have are ideas and no answers. It is possible we are prisoners to our natures and so then prisoners to our tools. It makes sense, when you look around the world and see that our civilization has this power-control complex.. Power over Industry that dominates us through marketing, power over life and death in that we created nuclear arms and fear them. I mentioned this in a previous thread. The need to dominate makes the dominator a prisoner of their own devises.

I don't know. But good golly talking philosophy makes me feel alive!
 
Last edited:
merrytrees said:
Your English is superb. But still, if the tools can 'tempt' and what's more 'corrupt' then that is the same as saying that it is the tool or object that bears the original intent and not the people themselves (who created the tools!). Actually now, given this, I disagree with you in the most lovingly way.
Click to expand...

Yes I see your point there. This is a contradiction indeed. What I was thinking was that perhaps at some point after their original creation they became emblems to tempt to violence(and only in a malevolent way) rather just tools to be used to a variety of ways. Money, for example, althought it they were created to be used as a medium of exchange(as mayflow stated), eventually they turned out to be much more than that, resulting in many people today to see them as the sole reason for their social activities.
I could always be wrong though. No one can be certain about these things. What you stated makes sense.

Ps. Thank you for your compliment . Most of the people on this forum are Americans so i feel a bit insecure about my English... :)
 
Last edited:
Taz said:
Yes I see your point there. This is a contradiction indeed. What I was thinking was that perhaps at some point after their original creation they became emblems to tempt to violence(and only in a malevolent way) rather just tools to be used to a variety of ways. Money, for example, althought it they were created to used as a medium of exchange(as mayflow stated), eventually they turned out to be much more than that, resulting in many people today to see them as the sole reason for their social activities.
I could always be wrong though. No one can be certain about these things. What you stated makes sense.

Ps. Thank you for your compliment . Most of the people on this forum are Americans so i feel a bit insecure about my English... :)
Click to expand...
Man.. I didn't even notice that there was a problem with your English.
 
mayflow said:
So - you see us humans as both creators and destroyers? And you make things rather complex and contemplative? and you see us as prisoners bound by our very natures? WEll, let's fuchin' break this jailhouse! I'll dig a tunnel, you get us some wine, and our love will revolutionize the world. (Or something) - What? I am just thinking here.
Click to expand...
I am a wino. Wine and revolution sound.. amazing and dangerous.
 
Taz said:
Yes, but couldnt we say that those very tools tempt humans to use violence and be corrupted? It begun just as you said, but later on didn't those tools start to have a negative influence on society, just because they existed?
In other words, If I had a gun, and someone did something to me that I considered terrible (ex. killed a friend), would not the desire to kill that person become greater than if I had no such tool in my hands?

I don't know If you understand what I'm trying to say. My English is not so good.
Click to expand...

A tool, fork if you will, does not tempt someone to use violence and be corrupted. I have seen children shoot green peas across the room with a fork. Now, if you force a person to eat too much..... A spoon can be considered a dangerous tool if you are a heroin addict.
In truth and actuality, owning a gun legally instills responsibility. Maybe I should say legally owning a gun instills responsibility. There are enough laws, too many in fact, governing guns already. People that have the right
to own or even carry a gun know if they kill with it they will have their rights taken away and serve time in a prison somewhere. The desire to kill is the only evil here. If you have the desire to kill someone, you need to see a doctor. There are so many people on this forum that talk about seeing a psychiatrist or the likes they will never have a gun carrying permit.
People with sick minds are a negative influence to society. Guns can never be done away with. Criminals will always have them. Therefore, I will always have them to protect myself while the law is on the way. I also enjoy hunting, sporting clays, target shooting, and the likes. A criminally insane person needs to be put away, but he can still kill should he desire to do so with his bare hands, a fork, or even a finger.
 
Last edited:
Temptation is conceived in the mind. Self-control is built in the mind. The act of killing is controlled by the mind.
 
I don't think you understood what I was saying. The whole desire to kill thing is a hypothesis. And my first post states that my friend and I were arguing about the nature of some tools. Not all of them.

But I see that you are reffering to reality and the law system as means to avoid the desire to kill using a weapon. We were discussing about the nature of the tools here. Not the ways humans try to instill order in their society. As for the desire to kill, I cannot answer to that. Our conversation had nothing to do with good or evil. It was more about the influence of the weapons and their nature.

Excuse me for asking, but do you have something against me? You seem to be aggresive. Have I said anything that offended you? If so I apologize.

Edit: Ah.now I see your point. You agree with my friend then.
 
Last edited:
just me said:
A tool, fork if you will, does not tempt someone to use violence and be corrupted. I have seen children shoot green peas across the room with a fork. Now, if you force a person to eat too much..... A spoon can be considered a dangerous tool if you are a heroin addict.
In truth and actuality, owning a gun legally instills responsibility. Maybe I should say legally owning a gun instills responsibility. There are enough laws, too many in fact, governing guns already. People that have the right
to own or even carry a gun know if they kill with it they will have their rights taken away and serve time in a prison somewhere. The desire to kill is the only evil here. If you have the desire to kill someone, you need to see a doctor. There are so many people on this forum that talk about seeing a psychiatrist or the likes they will never have a gun carrying permit.
People with sick minds are a negative influence to society. Guns can never be done away with. Criminals will always have them. Therefore, I will always have them to protect myself while the law is on the way. I also enjoy hunting, sporting clays, target shooting, and the likes. A criminally insane person needs to be put away, but he can still kill should he desire to do so with his bare hands, a fork, or even a finger.
Click to expand...

I sincerely hope that not many people here will actually WANT a gun carrying permit. Like has been said, guns have only one purpose and that is to injure/kill. Trust me. After high school, I was a Military policeman correctional specialist for two years and am a qualified EXPERT in both the rifle and the handgun. I carry neither. I don't need nor want them.
 
Such a pacifist:grouphug::love::hippie:
You're my fave!
 
The nature of a tool is something that fluxuates. In the hands of a hunter (before grocery store days), a gun is a tool he is going to use to put some food on his table. Are there more tools available to do the same job? Of course there are. Snares, bow/arrow, pit trap etc. However, the gun is the most effiecnt and has the greatest chance to succeed in staving off starvation for another week. That gun increases his chance of survival. Therefore it is not malevolent in itself.

The quote "Guns don't kill people. People kill people." is accurate. Left by itself a gun does nothing of it's own accord. It takes a person to pull the trigger. The intent behind the person who pulls that trigger is another complete dissertation behind the matter.

We need tools to survive. The ability to adapt tools to new uses, to create tools, is why we are the dominent complex organisms on the planet.
 
Taz said:
I don't think you understood what I was saying. The whole desire to kill thing is a hypothesis. And my first post states that my friend and I were arguing about the nature of some tools. Not all of them.

But I see that you are reffering to reality and the law system as means to avoid the desire to kill using a weapon. We were discussing about the nature of the tools here. Not the ways humans try to instill order in their society. As for the desire to kill, I cannot answer to that. Our conversation had nothing to do with good or evil. It was more about the influence of the weapons and their nature.

Excuse me for asking, but do you have something against me? You seem to be aggresive. Have I said anything that offended you? If so I apologize.

Edit: Ah.now I see your point. You agree with my friend then.
Click to expand...

Tz,
I have nothing against you and do not want to appear being aggressive. Philosophically speaking about the nature of things that cannot think is something new to me, and I strongly believe in the right to own and bear arms.
If you could play with my folly for but a moment you might see my reasoning. I ask that you use a tool instead of trying to say a gun is a tool. I am strongly against categorizing a gun as anything but what it is: a gun.
That in itself makes it difficult for me in this conversation, but you have my attention. I said earlier I could kill a person with one hand with one blow.
I also asked if my hand was a tool. I cannot realize your definition of a tool or even an instrument, in the first place. I would like to use the Bible if I may in a non-abusive way to others, but wish to ask permission in your thread.
 
Needing a weapon is different from wanting a weapon.

You are most likely currently living in a situation where you don't need one. And you probably keep yourself in situations where you will never need one.

But if I'm out hiking in Yellowstone (or any deep forested area), or even around the desert here in NV, I want a weapon with me. And I carry a weapon with me. In the woods you never know what you are going to run across, Yellowstone is grizzly territory with a sprinkling of cougars in the area. Chances are slim to none that I will ever run into one, however, I am not going to bet my life on those odds.

Here in Nevada there are coyotes, feral dog packs (you want to face an attacking pit bull unarmed?), and people go out to the desert all the time for target practice. If I'm in the wadi's and I can't see where the people firing are (or where they are firing at), I'm going to fire into the air to try and get their attention (I carry a whistle on me too, and will use that first, but I'm not going to rely on it) so that I can leave the area safely.

This doesn't mean anytime I take a weapon out that I'm looking for a chance or reason to use it. Nor am I 'tempted' to use it on another human being.
 
So now I have a question! It might be off topic. Split thread dear mod, if it pleases you.

Some have posted why owning and knowing how to use a gun can be beneficial. So there are people in the population who do not use a gun to do harm to other people.. but then there are obviously people who do use a gun to do harm to other people.

Would you say that because of this, guns should be banned? Why should they or why should they not?
 
Taz said:
I wouldnt say that thats a moral issue. We were arguing about the nature of tools in a social context, on the basis that social wellfare and proggress is the goal of every society. We didnt ecxactly speak about morality in general.According to me some tools are created only to create problems to society, while he says that every tool depends on the user to be used in a benevolent way or a malevolent way.
Click to expand...

Hm...so interesting..you seem to be suggesting that the tool, once created, possesses a special "power" that is part of the tool itself, separate and different from human motivation, and which can altar human motivation.

Is that accurate?

It's an interesting point and I'll have to think about it. You're saying that there are some tools that are inherently negative to the human condition? Like a nuclear weapon for example?
 
mayflow said:
I don't think people create things like guns and atomic bombs for any other "latent" uses other than killing things. Maybe they mean them to kill to protect, but it's still to kill.
Click to expand...

I think it possible the placing of a neutron into uranium was meant for understanding and testing. It was actually a woman that later noticed the uranium growing exponentially and putting off massive energy, if my memory serves me well. Nuclear weapons in the hands of civilized people that can control power within their tiny vast brains are more used to prevent killing than for killing. Now we are talking about the use of something, though. Its nature is to grow and put off energy. Killing is not the sole purpose of guns, either. Guns can also be used as a deterrent. The welfare and progress in a specific society cannot be controlled by taking guns away. I feel that is at the heart of the conversation; maybe I am wrong. How many of you can shoot a perfect bullseye at 100 meters?
When you can do it at will it gives a feeling of accomplishment. It is actually mastering several things and not just the gun. There are multitudes of competitions with guns enjoyed by people of most ages. The gun itself has no nature, unlike the nuclear weapon. It is an object. It does not give off energy. It cannot.
 
just me said:
Tz,
I have nothing against you and do not want to appear being aggressive. Philosophically speaking about the nature of things that cannot think is something new to me, and I strongly believe in the right to own and bear arms.
If you could play with my folly for but a moment you might see my reasoning. I ask that you use a tool instead of trying to say a gun is a tool. I am strongly against categorizing a gun as anything but what it is: a gun.
That in itself makes it difficult for me in this conversation, but you have my attention. I said earlier I could kill a person with one hand with one blow.
I also asked if my hand was a tool. I cannot realize your definition of a tool or even an instrument, in the first place. I would like to use the Bible if I may in a non-abusive way to others, but wish to ask permission in your thread.
Click to expand...

Hmm.
Yes I see your point. I understand the way you see things. Basically you just consider that a gun is not a tool, because of personal reasons.

I stated in my first topic that you can freely use religious or moral statements to support your argument. As long as it is withing the topic, feel free to do so. I may not believe in god myself, but I cannot ignore the fact that most people are religious, and I have to respect their choices and more importantly, their opinions.
 
merrytrees said:
So now I have a question! It might be off topic. Split thread dear mod, if it pleases you.

Some have posted why owning and knowing how to use a gun can be beneficial. So there are people in the population who do not use a gun to do harm to other people.. but then there are obviously people who do use a gun to do harm to other people.

Would you say that because of this, guns should be banned? Why should they or why should they not?
Click to expand...

They should not because one is a foolish thinking person to believe they will be taken away from those that wish to do harm to other people.
 
KingOfSpades said:
Hm...so interesting..you seem to be suggesting that the tool, once created, possesses a special "power" that is part of the tool itself, separate and different from human motivation, and which can altar human motivation.

Is that accurate?

It's an interesting point and I'll have to think about it. You're saying that there are some tools that are inherently negative to the human condition? Like a nuclear weapon for example?
Click to expand...


Yes that is what I am suggesting. I couldnt possible say that it is accurate. I cant be sure about these kind of things. Its just my opinion and some thoughts on the matter.
 
merrytrees said:
So now I have a question! It might be off topic. Split thread dear mod, if it pleases you.

Some have posted why owning and knowing how to use a gun can be beneficial. So there are people in the population who do not use a gun to do harm to other people.. but then there are obviously people who do use a gun to do harm to other people.

Would you say that because of this, guns should be banned? Why should they or why should they not?
Click to expand...

While I no longer want a gun, I also don't think they should be banned. I think it is up to the freedom of the people to decide for themselves. When I was an MP, I did carry a 45 - I also never once loaded the thing. It was what we called "a show of power" - the prisoners could see it on my shoulder or my hip (depending on the circumstances) but I never once inserted the clip. I will die before I will kill. HAHA! But they didn't know that, did they?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top