This site is supported by Nobility Studios.

Tim Mata

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Tim Mata

  • Rank
  • Birthday 07/06/1987

Tim Mata's Activity

  1. Tim Mata added a post in a topic Meta-ethics   

    What is meant by this? In what sense do you mean survive?

    Why is subjective philosophy necessarily bereft of justification? Or, do you mean objective justification?
    • 0
  2. Tim Mata added a post in a topic Making a book   

    That's why you go into the printing business as well
    • 0
  3. Tim Mata added a post in a topic Christianity and capitalism   

    To state things more simply: I disagree with the legitimacy of the "concept of" the right of property, and consequently, property laws.
    • 0
  4. Tim Mata added a post in a topic Christianity and capitalism   

    Rights have been made a matter of law, but they are not necessarily, nor were they always, so. There is the idea of a God-given right, there is the idea of property rights arising out of occupation, out of production, out of labor, and many other arguments in favor of the right to hold property, not as a law, but as a moral truth. It turned out that when these ideas became popular and/or advantageous for the right people, the will to implement them as axioms of society presented itself, and the right of property became law.

    In my first post, the only assertion I make is that I, for the most part, do not agree with the legitimacy of the right of property. I am asking for others' opinions on how Christian doctrine, or any other interpretation of Christianity, might oppose my position, and on what grounds, for I sense that there may be something wrong with my position. That is all. I have made an argument, but I am not trying to proselytize, merely hoping someone will poke holes in my argument.
    • 0
  5. Tim Mata added a post in a topic Christianity and capitalism   

    Although I'm referring to private property, what I mean to encompass is all concept of the right of property, private or otherwise. And, I'm not sure whether property is incompatible with Christianity or whether it is ungodly, but if the case were that property indeed is both of those things, I would assert that private property is moreso than other forms, if any continuum is allowed.
    I apologize for not being clearer.
    • 0
  6. Tim Mata added a topic in Explore   

    Christianity and capitalism
    Through my own musings, I've come to understand that I do not believe in the right of property, as defined by John Locke. For the most part, I simply find it ridiculous for such transient beings as humans to lay claim to something over which they ultimately have no authority.

    Now, I think about what Christianity teaches about the right of property. The world was given to us, like everything else, by God, and we are expected to care for and use God's "blessings" responsibly. That's quite vague, and I can't pull any quotes, but where do the scriptures endorse the authority of individual people to bar their fellows from what God has deigned to gift them with? Can we expect that every bit of property we obtain is by only God's mercy? If so, does that imply that in the receiving of a blessing, God gives the receiver the exclusive right to benefit from said blessing? In other words, is God, when He chooses to bless His children, implying that Man should respect the right of property ?

    Do the Scriptures not also tell us that we should not concern ourselves with the material of this world? In fact, do the Scriptures not also tell us to give to our fellow human beings that with which we have been blessed by God? Does that tell us that there is any ground for refusing our possessions to others?

    I'm fairly sure the Scriptures also chastise thievery. Does that imply that in God's mind the right of property exists? I see it as this: Taking another's possession is immoral, for that is showing disrespect and perhaps even ill will, especially if the motive for thievery is greed, etc. However, there is no right of property to be broken.

    For now, I find myself in agreeance with Proudhon:

    "The law, in establishing property, has not been the expression of a psychological fact, the development of a natural law, or the application of a moral principle; it has in every sense of the word created a right outside of its own province. It has realized an abstraction, a metaphor, a fiction, and has done so without deigning to look at the consequences, without considering the disadvantages, without whether it was right or wrong. It has sanctioned egoism; it has endorsed monstrous pretensions; and it has received impious vows, as if it were able to fill a bottomless pit and to satiate hell itself! Blind law; law of the ignorant man; law which is not law; the voice of discord, deceit, and blood! This is the law which, continually revived, reinstated, rejuvenated, restored, reenforced as the palladium of society, has troubled the consciences of the people, obscured the minds of the masters, and brought about all the catastrophes that have come to nations. This is the law which is condemned by Christianity but is deified by its ignorant ministers, who have as little desire to study nature and man as they have the ability to read their Scriptures."
    -Pierre-Joseph Proudhon

    Do the Scriptures, or do they not, endorse the right of property as defined by John Locke and endorsed by a good many Christians today?
    • 5 replies
  7. Tim Mata added a post in a topic Civil Disagreement   

    But, isn't the use of rhetoric disingenuous? Not to say that philosophical writing should be devoid of aesthetic devices, but arguments should be as clear and evident as possible, no?
    • 0