Re: Law of Identity
TC
> Certain metaphysical features of reality must obtain for
> identification to work. It might be interesting to ask what they are.
Other than non-contradiction, what are they?
Have you identified them?
Tom
Mark N
> Suggestion: the principal utility of identification is that it
> facilitates inference. For example, once we know "John Smith = killer
> of Mrs. Smith" and "The killer of Mrs. Smith was in the house at 9PM"
> we also know "John Smith was in the house at 9PM" and so on. The
> conclusions of some of these inferences may well be news. One could
> even argue that it is presupposed in *all* inferences. In the classic
> "All men are mortal, Socrates, etc." don't I have to assume that the
> diverse tokens of the same word types co-refer throughout? Otherwise,
> equivocation, and no valid inference. The Socrates referred to in the
> second premise is identical to the Socrates referred to in the
> conclusion.
>
> Certain metaphysical features of reality must obtain for
> identification to work. It might be interesting to ask what they are.
It's hard for me to imagine what reality would have to be like, such
that it would never be possible to refer to the same thing more than
once. Therefore, I'm thinking that it's hard to imagine the absence of
the relevant "metaphysical features of reality." That being the case, it
seems as if it might be hard to say much about what those features are.
Hard for me, that is. But maybe that's why you're The Agent and I'm not! :-)
Mark
Fred Weiss
> > Certain metaphysical features of reality must obtain for
> > identification to work. It might be interesting to ask what they are.
>
> It's hard for me to imagine what reality would have to be like, such
> that it would never be possible to refer to the same thing more than
> once. Therefore, I'm thinking that it's hard to imagine the absence of
> the relevant "metaphysical features of reality." That being the case, it
> seems as if it might be hard to say much about what those features are.
Isn't that the purpose of science?
Fred Weiss
x
x
x
x
David Schwartz
I don't think it's all that important to identify them. But one of
them is that the universe be governed by consistent rules and not
change so rapidly that it's impossible to infer the future from the
past or the past from the present.
DS
Agent Cooper Redacted
tautology.To address this, it may be helpful to ask what role the
concept of identity actually plays in thought and language, as a
provisional anddefeasible way of getting at what the proper conception
of identity
is.
Notice that there are ordinary and useful functions for the words
"identity," "identification," and most importantly, the verb
"identify." To identify seems to be something we *do*. "Have the
police identified the perpetrator yet?" Think about this. We have two
sets of facts, and corresponding to them, two sets of representations
in language or thought: the facts associated with the murder, and a
representation that is supposed to represent 's/he who caused all
*this*' and then the facts associated with John Smith, the
accountantwho is unhappily married, has money problems, a big
insurance policy on his wife, etc., and the representation that is
thinking about him.
Crucial evidence emerges, and our virtuous detective has the thought
"John Smith = the killer of Mrs. Smith." *That* is what we ordinarily
mean when we talk about "finding the identity" of something.
Suggestion: the principal utility of identification is that it
facilitates inference. For example, once we know "John Smith = killer
of Mrs. Smith" and "The killer of Mrs. Smith was in the house at 9PM"
we also know "John Smith was in the house at 9PM" and so on. The
conclusions of some of these inferences may well be news. One could
even argue that it is presupposed in *all* inferences. In the classic
"All men are mortal, Socrates, etc." don't I have to assume that the
diverse tokens of the same word types co-refer throughout? Otherwise,
equivocation, and no valid inference. The Socrates referred to in the
second premise is identical to the Socrates referred to in the
conclusion.
Certain metaphysical features of reality must obtain for
Mark N
Well, I assume that Coop takes himself to be raising a philosophical
question here, rather than a scientific one. And to tell you the truth,
the question of what general features of reality make identification
possible looks like a philosophical question to me.
But maybe what you are saying is that it's axiomatic that identification
is possible, and that the recognition of that is all that is important
for philosophical purposes?
Mark
Ken Gardner
> The non-Objectivist complaint is that "A is A' is an empty tautology.
> To address this, it may be helpful to ask what role the concept of
> identity actually plays in thought and language, as a provisional and
> defeasible way of getting at what the proper conception of identity
> is.
Metaphysically, it emphasizes that everything that exists has an identity.
The metaphysical role of human consciousness is to grasp that identity. To
know anything on the conceptual level is to know what something IS.
A proper epistemology is about how to perform the process of identification
correctly. Human consciousness, like everything else that exists, has
identity. It identifies the facts of reality by a certain means (which is
neither automatic nor infallibe) and in a certain form. Epistemology is
about how to do it correctly.
The law of identity is also the foundation of the laws of logic. Both the
law of excluded middle and the law of contradiction are corollaries of the
law of identity. I think you covered this in your original post. Thus...
[...]
> Suggestion: the principal utility of identification is that it
> facilitates inference. For example, once we know "John Smith = killer
> of Mrs. Smith" and "The killer of Mrs. Smith was in the house at 9PM"
> we also know "John Smith was in the house at 9PM" and so on. The
> conclusions of some of these inferences may well be news. One could
> even argue that it is presupposed in *all* inferences. In the classic
> "All men are mortal, Socrates, etc." don't I have to assume that the
> diverse tokens of the same word types co-refer throughout? Otherwise,
> equivocation, and no valid inference. The Socrates referred to in the
> second premise is identical to the Socrates referred to in the
> conclusion.
> Certain metaphysical features of reality must obtain for
> identification to work. It might be interesting to ask what they are.
That everything that exists has identity. It is what it is, and not
something else at the same time and in the same respect. This fact makes
human knowledge both possible and necessary.
Robert J. Kolker
>
> Isn't that the purpose of science?
In a way yes. Physics identifies the symmetries which in turn imply the
conserved quantities. In addition, the transformations that take place
in reality have associated invariant objects. So the name of the game in
phyhsics is to find the symmetries and identify the invariants. This is
how we avoid being boiled alive in a Hericlitean tsimmis. We also avoid
being trapped in Permenides concrete.
Bob Kolker
Fred Weiss
> Well, I assume that Coop takes himself to be raising a philosophical
> question here, rather than a scientific one. And to tell you the truth,
> the question of what general features of reality make identification
> possible looks like a philosophical question to me.
>
> But maybe what you are saying is that it's axiomatic that identification
> is possible, and that the recognition of that is all that is important
> for philosophical purposes?
Yes, of course.
Existence *is* identity, i.e. to exist is to be something (specific).
Consciousness *is* identification, i.e. that's what it means to be
conscious.
But learning what those specifics are is the purpose of science. It is
consciousness acting rationally.
This all sounds very simple and self-evident but it relates to our
discussion in the other thread where we are discussing European, i.e.
Western, culture vs. the rest of the world and why Europe surpassed
all the rest.
The answer is that Europe was the only culture in the world which
fully identified the nature and purpose of science - and valued and
pursued it.
Fred Weiss
note...@gmail.com
> Other than non-contradiction, what are they?
Things would have to look separate on the perceptual level. There
would have to be "entities."
Mark N
> Fred Weiss wrote:
>
>> Isn't that the purpose of science?
>
> In a way yes. Physics identifies the symmetries which in turn imply the
> conserved quantities. [...]
I see that you have been exploring the Noether Regions.
Mark
TC
> The answer is that Europe was the only culture in the world which
> fully identified the nature and purpose of science - and valued and
> pursued it.
After Bacon pointed out Aristotle's mistakes:
It cannot be that axioms established by argumentation
should avail for the discovery of new works; since the
subtlety of nature is greater many times over than the
subtlety of argument.
~Francis Bacon, Novum Organum
Tom
Ralph Hertle
TC wrote:
> After Bacon pointed out Aristotle's mistakes:
>
> It cannot be that axioms established by argumentation
> should avail for the discovery of new works; since the
> subtlety of nature is greater many times over than the
> subtlety of argument.
> ~Francis Bacon, Novum Organum
Actually, you may have misread Aristotle regarding the function of
axioms. Aristotle was not a Rationalist as you imply.
Aristotle held that axioms are induced from a selected plurality, or
context, of the facts of existents. He also demonstrated that axioms may
be used as universal premises in deductive syllogisms and proofs.
The Rationalists hold the opposite of Aristotle. They say that the
axioms are, first, imagined as assumptions that are supposed to be true,
and, then, they are applied to cause certain syllogistic results. To the
Rationalist Aristotle's induction is replaced by the assumption on the
basis of faith. The Rationalists use the term axiom wrongly, and they
should use the term, assumption, which is what they mean.
Bacon in that paragraph was arguing against the Rationalist view that
was popular with the religionists. Bacon implies that the many facts and
viewpoints that are commonly brought to the table in discussions are the
basis for the discoveries of new concepts and principles including
axioms. He says that the power of the facts of existents are more
powerful than imaginary constructs.
The paragraph of Bacon's is clearly in concert with Aristotle's writings.
Ralph Hertle
Mark N
> On Dec 18, 2:51 am, Agent Cooper Redacted <cbel...@bellsouth.net>
> wrote:
>
>>It might be interesting to ask what they are.
>
> http://www.askaninja.com/node/5502
That guy seems to have a pretty good grasp of the issue, but he seems
unsure of how to resolve it.
Incidentally, I think that guy may have invoked the True Lies
Principle(tm) somewhere in the middle of that video.
Mark
TC
> TC wrote:
> > After Bacon pointed out Aristotle's mistakes:
> > It cannot be that axioms established by argumentation
> > should avail for the discovery of new works; since the
> > subtlety of nature is greater many times over than the
> > subtlety of argument.
> > ~Francis Bacon, Novum Organum
.....
> The paragraph of Bacon's is clearly in concert with Aristotle's writings.
I suppose it could be argued that Aristotle was misinterpreted.
Nevertheless, the "misinterpretation" was not corrected on the basis
of Aristotle's writings but by original thought in opposition to
the misinterpretations.
There has been vast progress since then, what good does it
do to return to the 4th century BC as you seem to want to do?
Tom
Ralph Hertle
TC wrote:
> I suppose it could be argued that Aristotle was misinterpreted.
> Nevertheless, the "misinterpretation" was not corrected on the basis
> of Aristotle's writings but by original thought in opposition to
> the misinterpretations.
>
> There has been vast progress since then, what good does it
> do to return to the 4th century BC as you seem to want to do?
>
You've strayed from the point. The original texts, or at least the best
interpreted translations possible. See the Ayn Rand Institute for what
they suggest. One authoritative source is the Oxford University
compendium of Aristotle's complete known works.
Aristotle in the areas of metaphysics, epistemology, induction, concept
formation, definitions, hierarchy of knowledge, deduction, proofs,
principles of thinking, elucidation, and logic is unmatched in all
history. The total o thinking in our modern world is possibly 80 percent
Aristotle's work reiterated over and over again, and 10 percent new
thought that was created since then.
Aristotle for reasons that, like mathematics, direct reading will
provide, is the most influential thinker in all of history. He is far
and above the most commonly relied upon thinker, and far exceeds even
the famous religionists, e.g., Plato, for the amount of actual thought.
Aristotle's style was one of marvelous precision. His practice, which
was common amongst philosophers, protoscientists, and geometers, was to
conceptualized ideas from a lot of data and then to recast the ideas in
highly defined precision terminology in order to get the concepts to
function intellectually for thinking, philosophy, and geometry, for
example. Exponents of his methods were Eudoxus, Euclid, and Archimedes,
for example, and later, Galileo and Newton. The precision,
verifiability, and workability of his ideas is the real reason one needs
to read the originals. Only rarely, have their been good interpretive
commentaries and summaries of Aristotle, and there too, I suggest
checking the suggestions given by the Ayn Rand Institute. ARI has some
books on Aristotle by Objectivist writers in its offering.
If you read Aristotle by the use of the terms and definitions of the
Platonic interpreters and editors of Aristotle's works you will have a
more difficult time understanding him. That goes for the definitions and
interpretations of all Platonic commentators on Aristotle since that
time. If you want to read some really ghastly, and nearly 100 percent
untrue interpretations of Aristotle read the stuff on Aristotle offered
by the US Catholic Church. Post Modernism, Pragmatism, Rationalism, and
Positivism are also based upon Plato, and if you use their terms and
definitions of Aristotle's ideas you decidedly will not get or
understand what Aristotle intended. You must understand the meanings of
the terms he uses, and those are given in the Ancient Greek. There, some
interpretive writers can be exceedingly helpful in explaining the
meanings and clarifying the ideas and general approach of Aristotle.
What makes him difficult to understand is the extremely high degree of
condensation in his writings. His writings go something like this:
definition, definition, lemma, lemma, definition, conclusion, premise,
premise, conclusion. . . . not really easy when you are dealing with
concepts that often have no counterpart in modern English. Read the
general books on Aristotle, for example,
Aristotle, by John Herman Randall, Columbia Univ. Press, NY, 1960, and
that is one of the most perceptive books on Aristotle - great for a
starter. Also,
Aristotle, by W.D. Ross, M.A., Charles Scribner's Sons, NY, 1924, and
that has some history of the sources of Aristotle's works, the
translations, and their reconstruction in history. He condenses, tells
you what Aristotle said, and provides quotations to support his comments.
On balance, It is interesting while reading the condensations and
explanations to open the pages to Aristotle's original writings in some
other texts. Aristotle can make sense. Aristotle, read cold, with no
context of the current history, philosophy, drama, geometry, politics,
science of government or natural sciences of his day will be difficult.
He always provides allusions to thing which are not being discuss and
that may have been commonly known in his day. Examples would be: Zeno,
Socrates, Plato, Eudoxus, and several geometers and philosophers.
An example from Randall is, "It is to be noted that if the subject
matter of physics is thus defined as 'motion,' Aristotle means something
broader than the 'motion' that has been the subject matter of dynamics
since Galileo and Descartes. The latter kind of motion, 'motion in
place,' though fundamental for Aristotle . . . . . . . ." You have to
understand that Aristotle means by that one of six types of 'motion',
that are types of magnitudes, and that are scientific concepts, that he
previously mentioned to be 'Circular Motion', and by that he meant,
something that exists continually in the place that it is. A Pragmatist
type of Platonist would have you believe that Aristotle's 'motion in
place' is either poppycock or is some type of spinning or rotation - and
that would cause a great deal of problems down the pike because
Aristotle is really explaining a property of the existence axiom wherein
a thing exists as it is and where it is. That things have properties,
one of which may be location.
You prevaricate or lie when you imagine that I want to return to the
4th. Century B.C.
I would rather spend my time with the facts and truth of Aristotle's ideas.
Ralph Hertle
TC
> TC wrote:
It cannot be that axioms established by argumentation
should avail for the discovery of new works; since the
subtlety of nature is greater many times over than the
subtlety of argument.
~Francis Bacon, Novum Organum
> > I suppose it could be argued that Aristotle was misinterpreted.
> > Nevertheless, the "misinterpretation" was not corrected on the basis
> > of Aristotle's writings but by original thought in opposition to
> > the misinterpretations.
> > There has been vast progress since then, what good does it
> > do to return to the 4th century BC as you seem to want to do?
> You've strayed from the point.
I don't think so. The question in this thread should be what the
Law of Identity means. The medievalists and some moderns
seem to think that the Law of Identity means that anything that exists
must be tangible. [Except God, I suppose]
On the basis of misapplying the axiom of the Law of Identity
these moderns, including apparently you, Ralph Hertle, think
that science when it conceives an onotlogical existence for space,
for strings, for ....., is philosophically wrong.
But this is not so. Perhaps Aristotle, read correctly, would allow
for such non-tangible existents. In any case as Bacon
puts it "subtlety of nature is greater many times over than the
subtlety of argument." So argument from an axiom to the
impossibility of certain ontological concepts is just failure
to recognize the possibilities allowed by the Law of Identity.
..................
> If you read Aristotle by the use of the terms and definitions of the
> Platonic interpreters and editors of Aristotle's works you will have a
> more difficult time understanding him.
Do you understand Aristotle correctly? If you answer yes then
I see little virtue in studying Aristotle to the extent you advocate.
From your example I can only conclude that "true" Aristotelian
knowledge stunts scientific understanding.
> ...Exponents of his methods were Eudoxus, Euclid, and Archimedes,
> for example, and later, Galileo and Newton.
I will have to ask you for citations/quotations of Galileo and Newton
advocating Aristotle's methods.
[Thanks for the books suggestions, but can you cite a scientist
who has found Aristotelian scholarship useful to his work?]
..................
> An example from Randall is, "It is to be noted that if the subject
> matter of physics is thus defined as 'motion,' Aristotle means something
> broader than the 'motion' that has been the subject matter of dynamics
> since Galileo and Descartes.
Do you think that if Aristotle were around today he would
embrace some of the broader concepts of "motion" that
have developed in physics since Galileo's day?
Field theory has the concept of current, there is tunneling
in quantum mechanics, etc.
..................
> You prevaricate or lie when you imagine that I want to return to the
> 4th. Century B.C.
It was a metaphor for you wanting to understand the words of a
particular 4th Century BC man in their original sense.
> I would rather spend my time with the facts and truth of Aristotle's ideas.
I would rather stick with modern "Platonic" "Post Modern" etc ideas
that have incorporated the best of Aristotle's ideas and have proved
their utility by advancing science and technology.
Tom
Ralph Hertle
TC wrote:
[text omitted]
> On the basis of misapplying the axiom of the Law of Identity
> these moderns, including apparently you, Ralph Hertle, think
> that science when it conceives an onotlogical existence for space,
> for strings, for ....., is philosophically wrong.
>
I am decidedly in the camp of the Thales, Pythagoras, Socrates,
Aristotle, Eudoxus, Euclid, Archimedes, Galileo, Newton, ... Industrial
Revolution .... Ayn Rand, Lenard Peikoff intellectual tradition - and
not at all in the camp of the moderns, especially the Platonists,
Rationalists, Positivist, Pragmatists, subjectivists and Post
Modernists, for example.
You lie via your guesswork. I say that only things that exist are
existing, and that space metaphysically (or physically) is simply the
place where there is nothing physical or material of any type.
Epistemologically, space is a dimensional geometric solid that given one
or the other mathematical coordinate relationship systems can be used to
locate and measure the locations of intellectual elements (e.g., a
triangle or circle qua Aristotle or Euclid) or actual physical objects
be they material or energy.
Modern science makes "strings" from mathematical constructs. The more
realistic and plausible understanding is that gravitational existents
attract matter and the related energies into strings as in comets,
rings, spirals arms, and material in celestial bubble interstices.
Mathematic entities are not physical existents; and they are
epistemological, e.g., intellectual, existents only. That is where I am
on the side of Aristotle and Euclid and far from the Platonists and Post
Modernists.
> But this is not so. Perhaps Aristotle, read correctly, would allow
> for such non-tangible existents. In any case as Bacon
> puts it "subtlety of nature is greater many times over than the
> subtlety of argument." So argument from an axiom to the
> impossibility of certain ontological concepts is just failure
> to recognize the possibilities allowed by the Law of Identity.
> ..................
>
The meaning of "subtlety" in the context given (Bacon's quotation) is
that it means 'of scientific and realistic importance'. Modern usage has
given the meaning, 'lesser' or 'small' or 'insignificant' to the word,
'subtle'. That is why, for one reason, that you didn't understand
Bacon's statement.
[text omitted]
> Do you understand Aristotle correctly? If you answer yes then
> I see little virtue in studying Aristotle to the extent you advocate.
> From your example I can only conclude that "true" Aristotelian
> knowledge stunts scientific understanding.
You failed to read or understand Aristotle, and as a result, you never
understood why and how the discoveries, developments, and perfections of
intellectual methods given by Aristotle actually have been one of the
most important causes of all for the existence of all the civilization
that followed him.
>
>> ...Exponents of his methods were Eudoxus, Euclid, and Archimedes,
>> for example, and later, Galileo and Newton.
>
> I will have to ask you for citations/quotations of Galileo and Newton
> advocating Aristotle's methods.
>
Since you reject the formal logic of induction and deduction that was
advanced by Aristotle, and because you haven't read, for example, his
Logic, or taken a course in formal logic, meaning Aristotle's logic, you
necessarily will fail to see that both Galileo and Newton strongly
employed Aristotle's methods of logic.
BTW, Venn diagrams are Aristotelian at their base, and they are
excellent lemmas and teaching tools for the concepts of deduction first
developed and refined by Aristotle. Venn diagrams are not in the Post
Modernist camp.
> [Thanks for the books suggestions, but can you cite a scientist
> who has found Aristotelian scholarship useful to his work?]
Name one scientist who has actually identified, and also proved, the
existence of something, either epistemological, e.g., mathematical, or
metaphysical, e.g., physical, and you will find Aristotle's metaphysics
and epistemology, e.g., logic, at work.
Names? Euclid and Archimedes, to name just two. They were strong
advocates and practitioners of Aristotle's metaphysics and epistemology,
e.g., logic.
> ..................
>
>> An example from Randall is, "It is to be noted that if the subject
>> matter of physics is thus defined as 'motion,' Aristotle means something
>> broader than the 'motion' that has been the subject matter of dynamics
>> since Galileo and Descartes.
>
> Do you think that if Aristotle were around today he would
> embrace some of the broader concepts of "motion" that
> have developed in physics since Galileo's day?
> Field theory has the concept of current, there is tunneling
> in quantum mechanics, etc.
>
Probably Aristotle would find that there are many errors errors in the
understanding of the concepts involved.
The moderns use the term 'motion' to mean only dimensional motion, and
that is what Aristotle called "locomotion", and Euclid, "rectilinear
motion". Motion in that sense means what we CAD oriented workers would
call the translation of location of an existent from one specified place
to another in some period of time.
Aristotle used the above concept, as described above, as did Galileo and
Newton, however, and that is a big however, Aristotle's discussions of
motion ALL were devoted to the study of axioms, the different types of
axioms, and the properties of axioms.
To say that the word 'motion', meaning translation of location, etc.,
represents everything that Aristotle said regarding axioms is ludicrous.
That would be the same as if one were to say that all geometry is just a
matter of triangles.
All concepts of axioms used in Objectivism are based on Aristotle's
concepts of axioms. That, also, may be why you don't understand
Objectivist explanations of axioms - you don't understand the base
concepts.
Modernist concepts of axioms are mostly from Rationalism, and that means
that they are not induced from numerous particular facts of existence
and validated as in Aristotle and Objectivism, rather, Rationalism
simply provides 'assumptions' of any type at all. E.g., here's
assumption 'X', now prove it. Well, in Aristotle and Objectivism axioms
are not proved - they are separately verified and used in proofs of
other matters. The Rationalists, and I should say, Platonists, use
assumptions, and those statements don not have to correspond to any
facts of existence in any way.
Axioms in Aristotle and Objectivism are not assumptions - they are
validatable identifications of the facts of existence.
Without proper axioms that are identifications based upon the many
particular facts of actual existence and are verifiable as such modern
science is left to use assumptions of any type whatever. The result is
that incredible absurdities have hit the tenure community and PR
presses. An example from modern science is that space is now supposed to
be energy, and space is said to be the cause of gravity, and also the
cause of the so-called, and assumed, primordial creation of the
universe. With assumptions in science anything goes.
Galileo used the concept of motion, e.g., translation of location, and
he didn't use the broad philosophical concepts of 'motion' that were the
axioms being discussed by Aristotle. The axiom of the 'Law of Identity'
was called the principle of "Circular Motion" by Aristotle.
> ..................
>
>> You prevaricate or lie when you imagine that I want to return to the
>> 4th. Century B.C.
>
> It was a metaphor for you wanting to understand the words of a
> particular 4th Century BC man in their original sense.
Specifically, I wish that I had available all the works of Aristotle,
not to mention the other AG philosophers, geometers, and scientists.
>
>> I would rather spend my time with the facts and truth of Aristotle's ideas.
>
> I would rather stick with modern "Platonic" "Post Modern" etc ideas
> that have incorporated the best of Aristotle's ideas and have proved
> their utility by advancing science and technology.
>
> Tom
Modern Platonic and Post Modern notions are completely in opposition to
Aristotle's ideas and the ideas of Objectivism. Modern scientists who
come up with anything that is actually true and workable, 'mirror-cube'
and mirror-Platonic-solid' universes aside, have merely smuggled in some
of the concepts of Aristotle, and the Aristotelean tradition of ideas
that I mentioned. An example of smuggling true and factual ideas is
that they deny the Logic of Aristotle and the proofs of Euclid while
never mentioning that they use arithmetic that actually adds up. Well,
on the other hand, I've seen challenges to formal arithmetic. For those
that use Platonic assumptions anything goes in modern science.
You ultimately have to make a choice between the opposite philosophical
and scientific methods: The Aristotelean and the Platonic. That is the
Aristotelean course of objective facts and reason or that of the
Platonic course of assumptions and mysticism.
The consequences are the Industrial Revolution [of Aristotle, Galileo,
and Newton, et al.] and New York City or the dictatorships of the USSR
or Nazism [of Plato, Stalin, and Hitler] and slave labor camps.
Take your pick.
Ralph Hertle
TC
> > On the basis of misapplying the axiom of the Law of Identity
> > these moderns, including apparently you, Ralph Hertle, think
> > that science when it conceives an onotlogical existence for space,
> > for strings, for ....., is philosophically wrong.
> I am decidedly in the camp of the Thales, Pythagoras, Socrates,
> Aristotle, Eudoxus, Euclid, Archimedes, Galileo, Newton,
Newton of the action at a distance?
« ... Industrial Revolution ....
The pragmatic industrial revolution that uses EM fields and
more recently weak and strong fields quanta and such like?
> Ayn Rand, Lenard Peikoff intellectual tradition
> You lie via your guesswork. I say that only things that exist are
> existing, and that space metaphysically (or physically) is simply the
> place where there is nothing physical or material of any type.
Yes you say that. But on what basis. What proof do you have?
You are, as Bacon said, arguing on the basis of axioms to establish
what exists without observation.
> Epistemologically, space is a dimensional geometric solid that given one
> or the other mathematical coordinate relationship systems can be used to
> locate and measure the locations of intellectual elements (e.g., a
> triangle or circle qua Aristotle or Euclid) or actual physical objects
> be they material or energy.
Space might be that or it might be an existent that plays a dynamic
role leading to gravity etc. Your philosophical reasonings cannot
prove it one way or the other.
> Modern science makes "strings" from mathematical constructs.
Yes, and then it subjects them to experimental test. Since strings
are currently beyond test many scientists have a very
skeptical view of strings.
............
> > But this is not so. Perhaps Aristotle, read correctly, would allow
> > for such non-tangible existents. In any case as Bacon
> > puts it "subtlety of nature is greater many times over than the
> > subtlety of argument." So argument from an axiom to the
> > impossibility of certain ontological concepts is just failure
> > to recognize the possibilities allowed by the Law of Identity.
..................
For reference:
It cannot be that axioms established by argumentation
should avail for the discovery of new works; since the
subtlety of nature is greater many times over than the
subtlety of argument.
~Francis Bacon, Novum Organum
> The meaning of "subtlety" in the context given (Bacon's quotation) is
> that it means 'of scientific and realistic importance'.
I emphatically disagree. "subtlety" means the property of
not being easily understood or of complexity
> [text omitted]
> > Do you understand Aristotle correctly? If you answer yes then
> > I see little virtue in studying Aristotle to the extent you advocate.
> > From your example I can only conclude that "true" Aristotelian
> > knowledge stunts scientific understanding.
> You failed to read or understand Aristotle,
I'm not talking about my understanding of Aristotle. I am asking
you if you think you understand Aristotle.
> and as a result, you never
> understood why and how the discoveries, developments, and perfections of
> intellectual methods given by Aristotle actually have been one of the
> most important causes of all for the existence of all the civilization
> that followed him.
I have written words to that effect.
It is you who do not understand that Aristotle while being an
important
part of the development of western civilization has been surpassed.
> >> ...Exponents of his methods were Eudoxus, Euclid, and Archimedes,
> >> for example, and later, Galileo and Newton.
> > I will have to ask you for citations/quotations of Galileo and Newton
> > advocating Aristotle's methods.
> Since you reject the formal logic of induction and deduction that was
> advanced by Aristotle, and because you haven't read, for example, his
> Logic, or taken a course in formal logic, meaning Aristotle's logic,
I have had a course in logic, but it wasn't limited to pre-modern
techniques.
I can design a computer. Could Aristotle have used his logic to
do so?
> you
> necessarily will fail to see that both Galileo and Newton strongly
> employed Aristotle's methods of logic.
We all use methods derived from Aristotle and others.
But those with half a brain also use more modern methods.
> BTW, Venn diagrams are Aristotelian at their base, and they are
> excellent lemmas and teaching tools for the concepts of deduction first
> developed and refined by Aristotle. Venn diagrams are not in the Post
> Modernist camp.
Why? Because you approve of them?
> > [Thanks for the books suggestions, but can you cite a scientist
> > who has found Aristotelian scholarship useful to his work?]
> Name one scientist who has actually identified, and also proved, the
> existence of something, either epistemological, e.g., mathematical, or
> metaphysical, e.g., physical, and you will find Aristotle's metaphysics
> and epistemology, e.g., logic, at work.
> Names? Euclid and Archimedes, to name just two.
You really like the ancients.
[But you wouldn't approve of Euclid's use of postulates,
see below, or Archimedes infinities, he apparently
anticipated Cantor
http://www.archimedespalimpsest.org/scholarship_netz2.html
]
How about Heisenberg and Einstein?
Godel and Feynman?
Are they all strictly Aristotelian?
Yes, Aristotle did some good work. It has been absorbed winnowed and
incorporated into the modern's bag of tools. Much has been discarded
as well.
................
> > Do you think that if Aristotle were around today he would
> > embrace some of the broader concepts of "motion" that
> > have developed in physics since Galileo's day?
> > Field theory has the concept of current, there is tunneling
> > in quantum mechanics, etc.
> Probably Aristotle would find that there are many errors errors in the
> understanding of the concepts involved.
If he did, he would be a useless philosophical curmudgeon.
> The moderns use the term 'motion' to mean only dimensional motion, and
> that is what Aristotle called "locomotion", and Euclid, "rectilinear
> motion".
Galileo and Newton established that this was the useful concept
for physics.
There are other concepts of more recent origin as I mentioned.
> ..... Aristotle's discussions of
> motion ALL were devoted to the study of axioms, the different types of
> axioms, and the properties of axioms.
Surely you aren't accusing Aristotle of being a mathematician.
> All concepts of axioms used in Objectivism are based on Aristotle's
> concepts of axioms. That, also, may be why you don't understand
> Objectivist explanations of axioms - you don't understand the base
> concepts.
Is Objectivism so mired in the past?
> Modernist concepts of axioms are mostly from Rationalism, and that means
> that they are not induced from numerous particular facts of existence
Wrong. Modernist concepts of axioms are from Euclid only
50 years after Aristotle.
> and validated as in Aristotle and Objectivism, rather,
You really don't understand the Bacon quote, do you?
> Rationalism
> simply provides 'assumptions' of any type at all. E.g., here's
> assumption 'X', now prove it. Well, in Aristotle and Objectivism axioms
> are not proved - they are separately verified and used in proofs of
> other matters.
That would be "misused" for the most part.
> Axioms in Aristotle and Objectivism are not assumptions - they are
> validatable identifications of the facts of existence.
Validatable?
> > ..................
> >> You prevaricate or lie when you imagine that I want to return to the
> >> 4th. Century B.C.
> > It was a metaphor for you wanting to understand the words of a
> > particular 4th Century BC man in their original sense.
> Specifically, I wish that I had available all the works of Aristotle,
> not to mention the other AG philosophers, geometers, and scientists.
Nothing wrong with scholarship, but I'm concerned with advancing
modern knowledge, not digging up old works.
> >> I would rather spend my time with the facts and truth of Aristotle's
> >> ideas.
> > I would rather stick with modern "Platonic" "Post Modern" etc ideas
> > that have incorporated the best of Aristotle's ideas and have proved
> > their utility by advancing science and technology.
> Modern Platonic and Post Modern notions are completely in opposition to
> Aristotle's ideas and the ideas of Objectivism.
I noticed. That makes Objectivism at odds with modern science.
given the choice I choose science.
> Modern scientists who
> come up with anything that is actually true and workable, 'mirror-cube'
> and mirror-Platonic-solid' universes aside, have merely smuggled in some
> of the concepts of Aristotle, and the Aristotelean tradition of ideas
> that I mentioned.
Do you enjoy the way the electrons tunnel through impassable barriers
in your digital camera?
> An example of smuggling true and factual ideas is
> that they deny the Logic of Aristotle and the proofs of Euclid while
> never mentioning that they use arithmetic that actually adds up.
What are you talking about? What scientist denies logid or
plane geometry.
They don't, of course, try to foolishly force plane geometry onto
the curved surface of the earth or use syllogistic logic to design
computers.
.......
> You ultimately have to make a choice between the opposite philosophical
> and scientific methods: The Aristotelean and the Platonic. That is the
> Aristotelean course of objective facts and reason or that of the
> Platonic course of assumptions and mysticism.
And yet at the same time you deny science and all its accomplishments
you claim that your axioms are validated.
> The consequences are the Industrial Revolution [of Aristotle, Galileo,
> and Newton, et al.] and New York City
How do you like those invisible magnetic fields spinning those motors?
How do you like the atomic fission making the electricity?
How do you like the quantum tunneling in your thumb drive?
> or the dictatorships of the USSR
> or Nazism [of Plato, Stalin, and Hitler] and slave labor camps.
> Take your pick.
{Do you really swallow the nonsense in Ominous Parallels?
Do I call Godwin's law on this thread?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
Is Ominous Parallels the Godwin's law of the whole
Objectivist movement?]
I certainly don't choose the slavery-based world of 350 BC.
Tom
Robert J. Kolker
>
>
> I see that you have been exploring the Noether Regions.
>
> Mark
Oh! That is soooo deep. Emy Noether (may she rest in peace) was David
Hilbert's auxillary brain.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
>
> Aristotle in the areas of metaphysics, epistemology, induction, concept
> formation, definitions, hierarchy of knowledge, deduction, proofs,
> principles of thinking, elucidation, and logic is unmatched in all
> history. The total o thinking in our modern world is possibly 80 percent
He ideas of matter and motion were flat out wrong. It took over a
millenium to recover from them. He simply missed out on inertia. His
cosmology was also wrong, but is hardly surprising given that telescopes
did not exist until the 17th century c.e.
However his grasp of human psycohology is of the first order. His ethics
opus -Nichomachean Ethics- is first rate.
He also wrote version 1.0 of deductive logic and semiotics in his
collection of papers (topics, categories, prior analytics, posterior
analytics, sophisticated refutions). He codified modes of reasoning
built into language and his work stood until the 19th century c.e. when
it was extended and amplified.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
>
> But this is not so. Perhaps Aristotle, read correctly, would allow
> for such non-tangible existents. In any case as Bacon
> puts it "subtlety of nature is greater many times over than the
> subtlety of argument." So argument from an axiom to the
> impossibility of certain ontological concepts is just failure
> to recognize the possibilities allowed by the Law of Identity.
> ..................
I just got through reading the chapter in Aristotle's Physics on place.
He conceived of place as being neither matter nor form, but he regarded
place as where substance should be. In the chapter on place he
postulates that substance have a proper place to which they will go,
unless forcefully prevented. Furthermore Aristotle rejects the idea of
empty abstract space is not reflecting the nature of the cosmos. As a
result he could not abstract sufficiently to get a good theory of change
of place (motion).
Since he rejected empty space as at most an abstraction and not real, he
denied the existence of natural vacua. Nature abhors a vacuum etc.
Aristotle is also the author of ether (aether) theory.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
> Tom:
>
> TC wrote:
>
>
> [text omitted]
>
>> On the basis of misapplying the axiom of the Law of Identity
>> these moderns, including apparently you, Ralph Hertle, think
>> that science when it conceives an onotlogical existence for space,
>> for strings, for ....., is philosophically wrong.
>>
>
>
> I am decidedly in the camp of the Thales, Pythagoras, Socrates,
> Aristotle, Eudoxus, Euclid, Archimedes, Galileo, Newton, ... Industrial
> Revolution .... Ayn Rand, Lenard Peikoff intellectual tradition - and
> not at all in the camp of the moderns, especially the Platonists,
> Rationalists, Positivist, Pragmatists, subjectivists and Post
> Modernists, for example.
All of the above missed quantum physics, which is the basis of our
current industrial technology. Classical physics is totally unequal to
the task of dealing with the world of the very, very small. Leonard
Peikoff is a science and mathematics ignoramus of the first magnitude.
Anything he says on such matters can be ignored. Where he is right, he
is unoriginal and where he is original he is dead wrong.
Eudoxus was the greatest mathematician of antiquit. Archimedes runs a
very close second. If Eucoxus could have been brought to the present in
a time machine he would have caught the wave of modern mathematics in
a thrice. Ditto for Archimedes (who you did not mention, why?).
Newton's concept of space and time is categorically flawed as Einstein
demonstrated. Plato and Pythagoras are closer to the spirit of
abstraction than make modern physics work (and superlatively well at
that) than Aristotle ever was. Aristotle was a mediocre mathematician.
So was Plato, but he encouraged mathematics at The Acedemy. The sign on
the doorpost read -Let no one ignorant of geometry enter here-.
Many of those people whom you denegrate have made the computer on which
you do it possible.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
Objectivist movement?]
>
> I certainly don't choose the slavery-based world of 350 BC.
>
> Tom
>
Aristotle was pro-slavery. He denigrated slaves as not being fully
fully human.
Bob Kolker
Mark N
> Aristotle was pro-slavery. He denigrated slaves as not being fully
> fully human.
What about people who were not born as slaves but became slaves at some
point? Did he think that they were fully human up to the point at which
they were enslaved, and less than fully human afterward? Enquiring minds
want to know.
Mark
TC
I don't know the canonical answer, but I speculate that
Aristotle would say that is was in their nature to be slaves
and hence they were not fully human since non-slavery is
an aspect of full humanity.
A is A and all that.
A slave is a slave.
Tom
Robert J. Kolker
Aristole's theory of slavery is found in Book I, Chapters iii through
vii of the Politics. and in Book VII of the Nicomachean Ethics.
Read and draw your own conclusions. Aristotle not only did not oppose
slavery but he believed it to be beneficial to both the owner and the
slave under some conditions. Aristotle in his view of the Polis (city
state) did not differ much from his mentor, Plato. For that read
-Politika- (The Republic) by Plato.
Aristotle also thought women to be inferior to men and barbarians to
Greeks. He was NOT a political liberal or libertarian by any means. He
was not an egalitarian. He was not even pro democracy. He was an elitist
from top to bottom.
Bob Kolker
Potroast
wrote:
> Aristotle also thought women to be inferior to men and barbarians to
> Greeks. He was NOT a political liberal or libertarian by any means. He
> was not an egalitarian. He was not even pro democracy. He was an elitist
> from top to bottom.
This is probably why so many despots throughout history loved him.
Makes them feel morally comfortable with enslaving others. Heck...
they're even doing them a favour right?
SLAVE (some dude capable of producing calculus 1000 years ahead of
Newton): "I was thinking master... I'd like to learn how to read".
MASTER (some useless cockroach that's inherited rights/wealth from the
last 20 generations): "You want rights? Hmm....Let's see what
Aristotle says about that." (sound of flipping pages from Nicomachean
Ethics Book VIII)
"Tyrannical too is the rule of a master over slaves; for it is the
advantage of the master that is brought about in it. Now this seems to
be a correct form of government"
"in tyranny there is little or no friendship. For where there is
nothing common to ruler and ruled, there is not friendship either,
since there is not justice; e.g. between craftsman and tool, soul and
body, master and slave; the latter in each case is benefited by that
which uses it, but there is no friendship nor justice towards lifeless
things. But neither is there friendship towards a horse or an ox, nor
to a slave qua slave. For there is nothing common to the two parties;
the slave is a living tool and the tool a lifeless slave. Qua slave
then, one cannot be friends with him"
SLAVE: "Yeah. I guess it was a dumb idea. I mean who the heck am I to
question Aristotle"
MASTER: "No problem. I'm feeling generous today so I'll go lighter
with the beating"
SLAVE: "Gee thanks master. I really appreciate it"
Dan Lind
wrote:
> The non-Objectivist complaint is that "A is A' is an empty
The Law of Identity provides no content whatsoever insofar as
"content" has to do with WHAT things are. To complain that the Law
of Identity is tautological is to misunderstand it.
Dan Lind
Fred Weiss
> On Dec 20, 8:37 am, "Robert J. Kolker" <robert_kol...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Aristotle also thought women to be inferior to men and barbarians to
> > Greeks. He was NOT a political liberal or libertarian by any means. He
> > was not an egalitarian. He was not even pro democracy. He was an elitist
> > from top to bottom.
>
> This is probably why so many despots throughout history loved him.
Really? Who for example?
You mean like the Founding Fathers? Those "despots"?
http://www.crf-usa.org/Foundation_docs/Foundation_lesson_constitution
(As for Aristotle's view of women, slaves, etc., they were the
conventional view of the time and remained so for 2,000 years. They
were even reflected in the American Constitution. The Greek political
thinker most influential on "despots was not Aristotle. It was Plato.
All of a sudden you are giving credence to Kolker Babble?)
Fred Weiss
Robert J. Kolker
>
>
> Really? Who for example?
Defenders of Southern Slavery, the Lords of the Veranda and Julip also
like Aristotle. It was part of their aristocratic education.
Our First President, The "Father of his Country" was a slaver. So was
Thomas Jefferson. They whupped nigger butt and worked their "property"
from dawn till dusk. In addition to working his niggers, Jefferson
fucked a few and had half breed babies by them.
Half of the Founders owder their allegience to a political system and
and economic outlook that eventually produced the Civil War with 620,000
dead, 1.5 million maimed. All this in a country with a population of
thirty million. Prior to the Civil War one's allegiance was primarily to
his State, not to the Nation.
Bob Kolker
Fred Weiss
wrote:
> Half of the Founders owder their allegience to a political system and
> and economic outlook that eventually produced ...
The freest country on earth - then and now?
Fred Weiss
Potroast
> All of a sudden you are giving credence to Kolker Babble?)
If I think he is right about something I will certainly agree with
him. I give credit where ever I think it is due and take shots where
ever I think due. Just because someone disagrees with someone on
some area doesn't mean one can't agree in another. I agree with Rand
that production is important. That freedom is important. I'm an
atheist. I wholeheartedly support globalization. I even believe in
an objective reality but I believe language is highly subjective and
can clutter communication.
I even try to be Objective in self-criticism. Lying about things
doesn't improve life on this earth. It eventually comes to exact it's
toll no matter what the sophists think.
Aristotle was great for his time. A true giant of history but to
pretend he didn't have major flaws in his outlook is just plain wrong.
Bob is right. He was a slaver in every sense of the word. In his own
words which I provided you,
Robert J. Kolker
>
> The freest country on earth - then and now?
You deny the Civil War? It was dreadful. It killed more Americans than
all the other wars our country has fought in, including the latest war
in Iraq.
Tell us how great the U.S. was south of the Mason-Dixon line prior to
the Civil War.
Bob Kolker
Potroast
Robert J. Kolker
The number of prisoners per capita in a country that does not arrest and
imprison its criminals would be zero per capita.
I find the statistics in the above site a tad underwhelming.
Bob Kolker
Potroast
wrote:
> Potroast wrote:
> > On Dec 24, 1:25 pm, Fred Weiss <fredwe...@papertig.com> wrote:
>
> >>On Dec 24, 8:44 am, "Robert J. Kolker" <robert_kol...@hotmail.com>
> >>wrote:
>
> >>>Half of the Founders owder their allegience to a political system and
> >>>and economic outlook that eventually produced ...
>
> >>The freest country on earth - then and now?
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/l9dsx
>
> The number of prisoners per capita in a country that does not arrest and
> imprison its criminals would be zero per capita.
>
> I find the statistics in the above site a tad underwhelming.
>
> Bob Kolker
It's true there is the other extreme as well but it seems sensible
that part of the metrics of "freedom" would involve not having one's
jails exploding with one's own citizens.
What's really amazing is how much crime America still has even with
all those packed prisons. I tend to flow to the idea that the greater
the divide of wealth within close living quarters.. the bigger the
prisons end up getting. Having said that, if people vote left or right
politically I'm Ok with it as long as they can vote themselves out of
poor decisions afterwards.
I don't completely understand why people get so worked up about
taxation levels one way or another. If everyone is my society was
happy being essentially an Objectivist I would have no quarrel with
it. Ditto if everyone wanted to be a communist. I live on a more basic
level. My main quarrels occur when people end up killing each other to
accomplish their ends. Everything else we can eventually resolve with
patience.
Mark N
> On Dec 25, 9:03 am, "Robert J. Kolker" <robert_kol...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Potroast wrote:
>>
>>>http://tinyurl.com/l9dsx
>>
>>The number of prisoners per capita in a country that does not arrest and
>>imprison its criminals would be zero per capita.
>>
>>I find the statistics in the above site a tad underwhelming.
>
> It's true there is the other extreme as well but it seems sensible
> that part of the metrics of "freedom" would involve not having one's
> jails exploding with one's own citizens.
That "number of prisoners per capita" statistic may constitute some kind
of indirect evidence about how free a country is, but it's obviously
inconclusive. (You don't really think that Iran or Saudi Arabia or China
is more free than the USA, do you?)
If you could establish what fraction of the population of a country is
constituted by people who are in prison for *victimless* offenses, I
think that would be considerably more significant than a statistic that
lumps all offenses together.
> What's really amazing is how much crime America still has even with
> all those packed prisons. I tend to flow to the idea that the greater
> the divide of wealth within close living quarters.. the bigger the
> prisons end up getting.
Is that true? If so, I wonder why?
> Having said that, if people vote left or right
> politically I'm Ok with it as long as they can vote themselves out of
> poor decisions afterwards.
What if there are objective differences between the different varieties
of "left" and "right" that people can vote for? What if some varieties
respect people's rights more than other varieties? Would it be OK with
you if people vote for the system that respects rights less?
> [...] I live on a more basic
> level. My main quarrels occur when people end up killing each other to
> accomplish their ends. [...]
I hear you. That kind of thing bugs me, too.
Mark
Potroast
> Potroast wrote:
> > On Dec 25, 9:03 am, "Robert J. Kolker" <robert_kol...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >>Potroast wrote:
>
> >>>http://tinyurl.com/l9dsx
>
> >>The number of prisoners per capita in a country that does not arrest and
> >>imprison its criminals would be zero per capita.
>
> >>I find the statistics in the above site a tad underwhelming.
>
> > It's true there is the other extreme as well but it seems sensible
> > that part of the metrics of "freedom" would involve not having one's
> > jails exploding with one's own citizens.
>
> That "number of prisoners per capita" statistic may constitute some kind
> of indirect evidence about how free a country is, but it's obviously
> inconclusive. (You don't really think that Iran or Saudi Arabia or China
> is more free than the USA, do you?)
All three countries are much more free than the US actually.
Naw... just yanking your chain.:) "Freedom" really isn't a precisely
defined political system so trying to agree on which is the freest
nation in the western world usually boils down to a bit of a flag-
waving match and personal preferences. There are so many variables.
Free-speech, how much patrolling police, how many laws that are (or
aren't) enforced, how many people live in prisons, how one weights
taxation if rights are equally distributed, how one weights economic
opportunities and wealth distribution, and how safe is it to actually
walk around town at night (to name a few)
However there are some highlights of history we both can probably
agree on do bump nations up or down in the standings for a few decades
here and there.
In 1776 America hands down lead the way for the rest of the world.
No argument. Subsequently though.... GB ended slavery in the early
1800s (I don't believe modern Greece has ever had it) US didn't end
slavery until 1860s officially right? Then you had prohibition, forced
sterilizations when eugenics was in vogue, and that segregation thing
lasted until the early 60s right?. And you still have very high crime
(you should compare your stats to Greece, Norway and Japan which is
pretty much is like comparing the US to Colombia) Your government also
appears to read your email, listen to your phone calls without a
warrant, and arrests your own citizens by 25% margin over second place
Russia. (not to mention quite a few of you like to commit suicide...
not exactly a good indicator of contentness with the system)
Now this is not to paint the US as a terrible country. In fact,
aside from a bad foreign policy (that focuses way too much on coercion
rather than incentives), by my account it's a damn good one just with
some rough edges that need some work (pretty much the same story in
every first world nation but each with different issues). The US is
certainly the most powerful nation militarily (although I don't look
at that as a positive myself). More importantly... it is the most
productive scientifically and culturally. And it is a BIG well
developed market (a single language helps) that arguably still makes
it the best place in the world to work on one's billionaire skills.
(all of which make it the political powerhouse it is)
. However I think because so much mass media is exported out of the
US (as opposed from the rest of the world) some Americans have a habit
of writing a freedom narrative of themselves that isn't entirely
accurate. At the moment..... I'd probably go for most of the
northern European/Scandinavian countries as freest nations in the
world. For instance in the Netherlands after a hooker finished giving
you a BJ, you can rant with your bi-sexual husband about local
politics, Their per capita output is competitive (if a somewhat lazier
European mindset) and they have low crime. And if you're suffering
mom's terminally ill? You can even arrange her suicide without
creationists picketing with god-hates-suicide placardsl.
It might not seem like a big thing... but when you consider all
the prudish sexual offender lists (populated by guys that once
streaked down the hall in highschool or had underage sex) and mostly
harmless hippie sorts in American prisons... it does lend credibility
to the idea the Netherlands is indeed significantly freer than
America. I mean you can stop a cop to ask directions to the nearest
place to buy drugs.. how crazy is that?
Sweden, Norway, Finland, Belgium, Iceland. all seem the same sort of
mentality. They have higher taxes than America so you might weigh
things differently but this might be offset by their babe-ratio.
> If you could establish what fraction of the population of a country is
> constituted by people who are in prison for *victimless* offenses, I
> think that would be considerably more significant than a statistic that
> lumps all offenses together.
I know you personally don't approve of some of your own nations
laws.... but as long as you keep throwing all those people into
prison... those stats against liberty still count against you. :)
> > What's really amazing is how much crime America still has even with
> > all those packed prisons. I tend to flow to the idea that the greater
> > the divide of wealth within close living quarters.. the bigger the
> > prisons end up getting.
>
> Is that true? If so, I wonder why?
>
Envy is inherent in man just as surely as inequality. It's one of
my knocks against the viability of Objectivism actually. Trying to
moralize a poor man to not be envious is like trying to moralize one's
teenage daughter to not love some biker dude with an earing through
his nose. The communists used to love ranting about the injustice of
allowing inequality. Sometimes Objectivism sounds the same about the
injustice of envy to me. When men force equality like the Soviets
did.... you need big prisons for those unhappy about it. Likewise
when men become too envious...it seems to require bigger prisons as
well
I'm not making the news here... just reporting something about human
behavior that still seems to be true. Its mostly why I'm mostly in the
mixed economy camp.
> > Having said that, if people vote left or right
> > politically I'm Ok with it as long as they can vote themselves out of
> > poor decisions afterwards.
>
> What if there are objective differences between the different varieties
> of "left" and "right" that people can vote for? What if some varieties
> respect people's rights more than other varieties? Would it be OK with
> you if people vote for the system that respects rights less?
Again yes.... as long as they could vote themselves out a mess a few
years later (and nobody is getting shot as part of this process).
Political life would be far more colourful and productive if people
weren't so afraid to take radical chances by experimenting on a wide
variety of moral, political, and economic systems just to see where
they lead. (notebook in hand) We just make sure that beforehand we
are stocked up on essentials (water, energy, food, shelter and a
backup repair plan). Even if we f~cked things up... we could all have
some beers together afterwards while we decided what to try next and
what was worth perhaps keeping.
Most of our self-righteous monkey race isn't advanced enough for
such philosophical artistry though. Rich still abuse poor.. poor
still abuse rich. Personally I think our mixed economies produce way
too many useless trinkets and repetitive entertainment services and
not enough essentials (consider how Americans and Cubans still live
about the same lifespan) I think a society that somehow arranged to
spend a great deal more on medical and scientific research would make
far more sense. I mean how many types of coffee mugs do we really
need? How many times a day do I have to hear the names "Brittany",
"Lindsey" or Paris"?
It'd sure be nice to have a few extra thousand years of life to
explore some other places in the universe right?
> > [...] I live on a more basic
> > level. My main quarrels occur when people end up killing each other to
> > accomplish their ends. [...]
>
> I hear you. That kind of thing bugs me, too.
>
> Mark
Nice to hear that around here. Are you Objectivist or Libertarian?
Mark N
> On Dec 26, 9:16 pm, Mark N <m...@myinboxisbroken.com> wrote:
>
>>Potroast wrote:
>>
>>>It's true there is the other extreme as well but it seems sensible
>>>that part of the metrics of "freedom" would involve not having one's
>>>jails exploding with one's own citizens.
>>
>>That "number of prisoners per capita" statistic may constitute some kind
>>of indirect evidence about how free a country is, but it's obviously
>>inconclusive. (You don't really think that Iran or Saudi Arabia or China
>>is more free than the USA, do you?)
>
> All three countries are much more free than the US actually.
>
> Naw... just yanking your chain.:)
You had me worried there for a second!
> "Freedom" really isn't a precisely
> defined political system so trying to agree on which is the freest
> nation in the western world usually boils down to a bit of a flag-
> waving match and personal preferences. There are so many variables.
> Free-speech, how much patrolling police, how many laws that are (or
> aren't) enforced, how many people live in prisons,
To me, it's largely about laws against things that should not be the
subject of laws. What kinds of things are prohibited (or regulated) that
no one has any business prohibiting (or regulating)? What are the
penalties? How regularly, and under what circumstances, are such laws
enforced? I think that the answers to these questions largely determine
the amount of political freedom.
> how one weights
> taxation [...]
It depends on whether or not the taxation in question is legitimate. Is
taxation ever legitimate? If so, under what circumstances, and for what
purposes -- and based on what kind of ethical reasoning? I don't claim
to have the definitive answers to these questions. But one thing I do
know is that taxes are not automatically legitimate just because the
majority votes for them.
[...]
> It might not seem like a big thing... but when you consider all
> the prudish sexual offender lists (populated by guys that once
> streaked down the hall in highschool or had underage sex) and mostly
> harmless hippie sorts in American prisons... it does lend credibility
> to the idea the Netherlands is indeed significantly freer than
> America. I mean you can stop a cop to ask directions to the nearest
> place to buy drugs.. how crazy is that?
So the Netherlands is more free than the USA in that respect. Good for
the Netherlands, and shame on the USA.
> Sweden, Norway, Finland, Belgium, Iceland. all seem the same sort of
> mentality. They have higher taxes than America so you might weigh
> things differently but this might be offset by their babe-ratio.
Actually, the USA is pretty hard to beat in the babe department. We get
the cream of the crop from all the other countries! :-)
>>If you could establish what fraction of the population of a country is
>>constituted by people who are in prison for *victimless* offenses, I
>>think that would be considerably more significant than a statistic that
>>lumps all offenses together.
>
> I know you personally don't approve of some of your own nations
> laws.... but as long as you keep throwing all those people into
> prison... those stats against liberty still count against you. :)
Sure. Let the chips fall where they may. I don't have any emotional need
to proclaim that the USA is the freest country. The drug laws absolutely
count against the USA, and in a big way. It's a national disgrace. Of
course, most other countries in the world are no better in that regard.
But I'm happy to give credit to the few countries that are better, such
as the Netherlands.
>>> What's really amazing is how much crime America still has even with
>>>all those packed prisons. I tend to flow to the idea that the greater
>>>the divide of wealth within close living quarters.. the bigger the
>>>prisons end up getting.
>>
>>Is that true? If so, I wonder why?
>
> Envy is inherent in man just as surely as inequality. It's one of
> my knocks against the viability of Objectivism actually. Trying to
> moralize a poor man to not be envious is like trying to moralize one's
> teenage daughter to not love some biker dude with an earing through
> his nose. [...]
Well, the idea that a political system should cater to envy seems pretty
distasteful to me.
[...]
>>>Having said that, if people vote left or right
>>>politically I'm Ok with it as long as they can vote themselves out of
>>>poor decisions afterwards.
>>
>>What if there are objective differences between the different varieties
>>of "left" and "right" that people can vote for? What if some varieties
>>respect people's rights more than other varieties? Would it be OK with
>>you if people vote for the system that respects rights less?
>
> Again yes.... as long as they could vote themselves out a mess a few
> years later (and nobody is getting shot as part of this process).
But the ability to "vote themselves out" is a *collective* ability, not
an individual ability. What about an *individual* who never wanted the
system in the first place, and whose rights are being violated while it
is in place? Isn't that problematic?
> Political life would be far more colourful and productive if people
> weren't so afraid to take radical chances by experimenting on a wide
> variety of moral, political, and economic systems just to see where
> they lead. (notebook in hand) We just make sure that beforehand we
> are stocked up on essentials (water, energy, food, shelter and a
> backup repair plan). Even if we f~cked things up... we could all have
> some beers together afterwards while we decided what to try next and
> what was worth perhaps keeping.
This brings to mind the "Utopia" part of Robert Nozick's _Anarchy,
State, and Utopia_. Nozick thought that it would be nice for people to
be able to try all different kinds of social arrangements. But he also
thought that there were certain rights that people have, that should not
be violated. So there would have to be a background laissez-faire
system, and then, against that background, people could form voluntary
communities with whatever rules they wanted.
> Most of our self-righteous monkey race isn't advanced enough for
> such philosophical artistry though.
We are the smartest, baddest apes in The Monkey House. And as such, we
have no need for philosophy! ;-)
> Rich still abuse poor.. poor
> still abuse rich. Personally I think our mixed economies produce way
> too many useless trinkets and repetitive entertainment services and
> not enough essentials (consider how Americans and Cubans still live
> about the same lifespan) I think a society that somehow arranged to
> spend a great deal more on medical and scientific research would make
> far more sense. [...]
Do you think that a system with more governmental controls would be more
conducive to medical and scientific advances than our present mixed
economies?
[...]
>>> [...] I live on a more basic
>>>level. My main quarrels occur when people end up killing each other to
>>>accomplish their ends. [...]
>>
>>I hear you. That kind of thing bugs me, too.
>
> Nice to hear that around here. Are you Objectivist or Libertarian?
I'm not an Objectivist, but I do seem to get along pretty well with many
of the Objectivists who post here. I guess I'm sympathetic to a lot of
Objectivist views. Probably the most obvious difference between me and
the Objectivists is that I'm not as comfortable with endorsing military
actions, or with violence in general, as most of the Objectivists are.
They think I'm a weenie!
If you want a one-word indication of my point of view on political
issues, "libertarian" (small "l") is probably the best word.
Mark
Potroast
>
> Well, the idea that a political system should cater to envy seems pretty
> distasteful to me.
Here's the rub..... I imagine communists would argue that even
moderate capitalism caters to inequality and greed. Seemed pretty
distasteful to them too. (Again, I'm just reporting here)
By my book what matters most when it comes to political systems is
solid metrics... not biblical what-if injustices. (aka longer/
healthier lifespans, more technology, greater economic output, less
violence, sustainability, less people in prisons, fewer victims of
crimes, fewer wars, etc..) Excuses and self-righteousnes is pretty
common. Deliverables are much harder to produce. (just in case...i'm
not saying you're like this...just saying :)
> But the ability to "vote themselves out" is a *collective* ability, not
> an individual ability. What about an *individual* who never wanted the
> system in the first place, and whose rights are being violated while it
> is in place? Isn't that problematic?
"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this
world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-
wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of
Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time
to time." Winston Churchill
I tend to view the idea of governance from a newborns perspective. A
child wants the freedom to do everything with no limits to his
actions. The first taste of restrictions he gets is from his parents.
His friends. His neighbours. His work. And of course government (the
final say).
Some people think if we reduce "government" (TM) role to near
nothing that somehow they won't be subject to rules made by others. I
don't believe this is true. What would happen is that we would be
replacing one set of rules for another. In my eyes whether we call
government "communism". "democracy", "tyranny" "monopolistic mega-
corps" or "naked savages running around" it still amounts to something
else influencing some aspect of where I can go, what I can do and what
I can say. Given my current options... I chose Democratic/Republican
rule. (see Churchill above)
> Do you think that a system with more governmental controls would
be more
> conducive to medical and scientific advances than our present mixed
> economies?
It's not so much our mixed economies that are the problem but the
specifics of how government influences them. I think it's pretty clear
free markets and consumers don't always behave rationally...
especially around health related issues. (I'm just reading the bottom
line here...... http://tinyurl.com/ytxqjv)
Mark N
> I tend to view the idea of governance from a newborns perspective. A
> child wants the freedom to do everything with no limits to his
> actions. The first taste of restrictions he gets is from his parents.
> His friends. His neighbours. His work. And of course government (the
> final say).
>
> Some people think if we reduce "government" (TM) role to near
> nothing that somehow they won't be subject to rules made by others. I
> don't believe this is true. What would happen is that we would be
> replacing one set of rules for another. In my eyes whether we call
> government "communism". "democracy", "tyranny" "monopolistic mega-
> corps" or "naked savages running around" it still amounts to something
> else influencing some aspect of where I can go, what I can do and what
> I can say. Given my current options... I chose Democratic/Republican
> rule. (see Churchill above)
OK, so lots of different "restrictions" can be applied to a person by
other persons (some of whom may be acting in the name of a government).
Now, do you think that these various restrictions that are applied to a
person can be evaluated ethically? That is, is it possible to reason
about whether or not the person who is applying a particular restriction
is behaving ethically? If so, do you think that the concept of rights
should play any role in the analysis?
Mark
Potroast
> OK, so lots of different "restrictions" can be applied to a person by
> other persons (some of whom may be acting in the name of a government).
> Now, do you think that these various restrictions that are applied to a
> person can be evaluated ethically? That is, is it possible to reason
> about whether or not the person who is applying a particular restriction
> is behaving ethically? If so, do you think that the concept of rights
> should play any role in the analysis?
I'm assuming what you mean by "rights" are things the government
says I can do without interference (as opposed to laws which regulate
me). The short version... certainly how I can leverage "my rights"
goes through my head if someone tries to restrict my actions in some
manner.
The longer more ambiguous answer involves getting back to
narratives. Let me define "narrative" in this instance as roughly "the
ethical stories people use to describe the situations around them".
The same events can be described in different ways and that
description can make a difference between someone being hostile to an
idea or friendly (lol...consider the reporting of political
pundits :). Human beings constantly write these narratives (or adopt
canned one). For some, man is a spiritual being placed here by God.
For others, man is just an animal it is kill or be killed.. eat or be
eaten... dominate or be dominated. And still others.. man is different
from other aninals and capable of virtue. etc..
My own story weaving tells me all these distinct viewpoints can
have a tremendous effect on how one defines what should be someone's
"rights". The biblical dude is going to define his by the bible (to me
this leaves little room for improvements). A guy that see's man as
only an animal might not believe in rights at all (unless of course
they are for him). The gentleman that believes man is capable of
virtue might believe in the idea of natural rights. And so on. The net
result is someone will always whine about being oppressed in some
manner (whether true or not).
David Hume would point out plenty of people like to argue a normative
what "ought" to be but they don't quite make the connection from how
they got there from the "is". We like to think all sorts of things
would make for a better world but without evidence it's just one more
theory to add to the pile. (including my own of course :) We all know
people that have "it's all the same" attitude, or "my immediate
economic interests are always right", or even those that play a
devil's advocate role without ever injecting one's own positions
(mostly worthless). To think in those terms is to risk confusing
actions that bring one death with actions that bring one life.
Homeopathy is NOT of the caliber of pharmaceuticals and doctors.
Hunger is NOT the same as having food on the table. Science is NOT the
same as mysticism.
Since I believe in an objective reality to me this translates into
the concept that there are indeed better and worse ways of doing
things. And while I don't always have these answers and am sometimes
wrong I should always struggle to reach them. The only way I know to
do this is through measurements of the world around me.
Thus I return to science. It works with measurements not moral rants
at test tubes and microscopes. The point of moral rants (at least to
me) are mostly to make points we dwell on succinctly rather than have
to always walk everyone through steps a-z (too time consuming). Since
I think science is beneficial to man, I therefore believe it is
rational to use metrics as our guiding force behind rights. Forget
theories and just ask yourself.... would you prefer an automobile or a
personal spacecraft? Would you rather have prisons full or empty?
Would you sacrifice living a 1000 years for 50 years? And so on.
There are a caveats of course. Scientists don't kill competing
scientists. They lobby for funding with persuasive arguments. And
there is often a horizon beyond which some things are just too complex
for quick definitive answers. We need to be careful to identify these
complex moral situations and be careful we don't become hateful
demagogues in those instances. (e.g. I would consider Peikoff's let's-
kill-em-just-in-case one of those situations)
Anyhow... if corporations, governments, religious temples or the
fricken Illuminati are running things makes little difference to me.
Only metrics do. I just want to make sure we have the power to ditch
things that aren't working least we get caught up in another 1000 year
dark age where the self-righteous ranters are running things.
Potroast
> On Jan 1, 5:49 pm, Potroast <ilou...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 31 2007, 10:43 am, Mark N <m...@myinboxisbroken.com> wrote:
>
> > > OK, so lots of different "restrictions" can be applied to a person by
> > > other persons (some of whom may be acting in the name of a government).
> > > Now, do you think that these various restrictions that are applied to a
> > > person can be evaluated ethically? That is, is it possible to reason
> > > about whether or not the person who is applying a particular restriction
> > > is behaving ethically? If so, do you think that the concept of rights
> > > should play any role in the analysis?
>
> > I'm assuming what you mean by "rights" are things the government
> > says I can do without interference
> It's so annoying: people are so keen to make sure that they can be
> legal positivists about property rights, otherwise the gravytrain
> grinds to a halt, that they end up saying things that even *they*
> don't mean, when the words "right" and "government" appear in the same
> paragraph.
Heck I even said "I am assuming that you mean so-and-so by rights"
just in case he was looking at it some other way. You're showing your
own strong political leanings when you define words and aren't leaving
an allowance that others may define them differently. I cannot know
what is in everyone's head, I can only only read the words that are
written and refer to "rights' as defined by a source common to both of
us. (and even a dictionary can be problematic but that can of worms
is outside of the scope of this thread :)
"rights" (line1 at answers.com which is referring Barrion's law
dictionary)
"Individual liberties either expressly provided for in the state or
federal constitutions,"
. http://www.answers.com/topic/rights?cat=biz-fin
In that dictionary sourced context "rights" (as opposed to someone
stating a less precise ethics learning "do you have the right") ARE
indeed defined by government. As you point out....whether they are
ethical or not are another matter entirely but that is not what was
asked of me. Mark asked: "Do you think that the concept of
>>>rights<<< should play any role in the analysis?" The short answer
again is.. YES.... Lots of smart people think about morals so I
consider their views when making up my own ethical decisions. Now is
it the only thing that goes through my mind? (something not asked of
me) No.
What I am saying about how government"ought" to be applied as opposed
to "is" applied. is that most ethics aren't usually a target that
stands still to me. This can be observed by looking at history. To
constantly improve things occastionally requires new ways at looking
at things. There are so many variables and one event effects another.
In my mind I start from a perfect world in every respect... and then
anythingthat isn't perfect means it can probably be improved in some
manner. Most things aren't a perfect ethical .... it's more like
actions are often "likely more ethical" or "likely less ethical" and
that is determined by their effect on the net metrics within a given
society.
For example ...a thief or murderer may be very productive in some
respect in his life but if he is emptying the coffers of a society he
is a net negative. Likewise someone that is not very productive but is
a net positive to the net metrics of a given society is virtuous. Or
another way... you have a ball hockey player on your team who scores a
goal a game but to achieve this he's destructive in other respects so
the other team ends up scoring two goals (e.g. the goal hog that
doesn't like running back for defense). Now you have another guy that
doesn't score lots of goals but when he's playing the team always
wins. Who do you keep? Who is the better player? (I think keeping the
latter makes more sense myself)
Are scoring goals at any cost are always good? Well not always.....
the correct answer is "it depends" and there are better and worse ways
of going about the goal scoring process. And even when you find a good
way... it often can have a lifespan. It usually can still be improved
to the point where sometimes if you keep using the old "good" way.. it
eventually becomes a net negative. One's actions can be ethical
today.. but in the future if better methods of doing things are
found... then one can be demoted to less ethical by sticking with
them..
You restated what you perceive as Mark's question as "The question is,
is there any content to the concept "x is morally forbidden"? Because
if there is, then it follows that you have a right to not be subjected
to x by *anyone*
Again... my answer to this is it depends on its net effect on a
civilization. Man is an imperfect creature so he is forced to use
"best-thought-out-rule-of-thumbs-of-the-moment" in most of his
dealings with the world around him. There is no universal answer for
every ethical circumstance except in a world that has achieved the
best metrics theoretically possible (according to whatever the laws of
this universe allow).
I'm not saying "everything is the same" or "I don't have ethics".
I'm saying I always struggle to improve my ethics... I never assume
things can't be done better. Some people like writing things in
stone.. I prefer things a little more open ended. Science deals with
metrics. Even scientific "laws" are not "laws" really. They can change
with time as we better understand things.
Mark N
> On Dec 31 2007, 10:43 am, Mark N <m...@myinboxisbroken.com> wrote:
>
>>OK, so lots of different "restrictions" can be applied to a person by
>>other persons (some of whom may be acting in the name of a government).
>>Now, do you think that these various restrictions that are applied to a
>>person can be evaluated ethically? That is, is it possible to reason
>>about whether or not the person who is applying a particular restriction
>>is behaving ethically? If so, do you think that the concept of rights
>>should play any role in the analysis?
>
> I'm assuming what you mean by "rights" are things the government
> says I can do without interference (as opposed to laws which regulate
> me). [...]
No. I was talking about the *ethical* evaluation of ways in which one
person can behave toward another person. I was talking about "moral
rights," not "legal rights." (I suppose I could have avoided the
misunderstanding by being more explicit about what I meant by "rights,"
but I thought it would be clear from the context.)
> The longer more ambiguous answer involves getting back to
> narratives. Let me define "narrative" in this instance as roughly "the
> ethical stories people use to describe the situations around them".
> The same events can be described in different ways [...]
Well, what do you think follows from the fact that different people may
characterize things in different ways? Do you think that implies that
ethics is entirely subjective, so that there is no point in trying to
reason objectively about ethical questions? (I don't think that follows.
Maybe some "narratives" are right, and others are wrong!)
> My own story weaving tells me all these distinct viewpoints can
> have a tremendous effect on how one defines what should be someone's
> "rights". The biblical dude is going to define his by the bible (to me
> this leaves little room for improvements). A guy that see's man as
> only an animal might not believe in rights at all (unless of course
> they are for him). The gentleman that believes man is capable of
> virtue might believe in the idea of natural rights. And so on. The net
> result is someone will always whine about being oppressed in some
> manner (whether true or not).
Whether true or not? Does this mean that you think that there is an
objective matter of fact about whether or not someone is being oppressed
-- i.e., whether or not his (moral) rights are being violated?
Mark
Mark N
> The question is, is there any content to the concept "x is morally
> forbidden"? Because if there is, then it follows that you have a right
> to not be subjected to x by *anyone*. And then, can that concept have
> application where x is a *state*? Whether the state acknowledges this
> is a separate question.
You seem to have gotten the gist of my question.
> Narratives, etc., all very interesting. Now answer the frickin'
> question.
The premise of Baudrillardist simulacra implies that narrative comes
from the collective unconscious. A number of narratives concerning
Marxist socialism may be discovered. It could be said that the primary
theme of Hamburger's model of postcapitalist materialism is not
narrative, but prenarrative. However, Foucault's critique of
postdialectic libertarianism holds that narrativity has intrinsic meaning.
Just some food for thought! :-)
Mark
Potroast
may characterize things in different ways? Do you think that implies
that ethics is entirely subjective, so that there is no point in
trying to reason objectively about ethical questions? "
I repeat ..
" We all know people that have "it's all the same" attitude, or "my
immediate economic interests are always right", or even those that
play a devil's advocate role without ever injecting one's own
positions (mostly worthless). To think in those terms is to risk
confusing
actions that bring one death with actions that bring one
life.Homeopathy is NOT of the caliber of pharmaceuticals and
doctors.Hunger is NOT the same as having food on the table. Science is
NOT the same as mysticism."
or how about ...
" I'm not saying "everything is the same" or "I don't have ethics".
I'm saying I always struggle to improve my ethics... I never assume
things can't be done better.
So my short answer is YES YES YES. We can reason objectively about
ethics. I do not believe "its all the same". I believe rights can be
better and worse.... but again with caveats. There are reasons why I
skirt around answering a simple "yes" or "no" to AC's statement
"is x is morally forbidden Because if there is, then it follows
that you have a right to not be subjected to x by *anyone". Let' me
give a case example.
"killing (x) is morally forbidden. Because if there is, then it
follows that you have a right to not be subjected to killing(x) by
*anyone""
Well surely one's right to continue breathing is our most precious
right of all no? I should not be subjected to killing by anyone
right? So why is it that some that argue so loudly to "protect rights"
are also going about trying to remove the most primary right of
millions individuals? (no individual trials... one gigantic collective
punishment)
(Drum roll for the answer) Because they are adding a hidden clause
called "except in this instance because of so-and-so reason"
So you see answering that loaded question isn't so simple as an
absolute "yes' or "no" even by those that allegedly militantly
believe in such things. Ethical decisions are indeed situational and
take into consideration a wide variety of variables outside of
individual rights and interests. Just like individuals exist so does
the needs of a wider civilization. Ethics doesn't not boil down to
either the individual OR the state. It's both.
"the state" to me is just a bunch of dudes with essentially a monopoly
on force. There is nothing magical or special about them. If we got
rid of them entirely (like anarchists want) what would remain is
billions of freelancers with force instead (effectively billions of
tiny mini-states). I suspect that eventually the violence would reach
such epic proportions that states would arise naturally once again as
people pooled their resources for security against the violent looting
gangs.
The reason why the state exists is because people don't like the
idea of billions of people running around with guns in their hands
doing and taking whatever they fancy. The state therefore exists to
serve humanity even though there are states that are better or worse
at doing this. The REAL problem then is determining how the state
should define rights and laws with so many opinions and competing
interests out there. If you do what the guy on the left wants... you
upset the guy on the right. If you do what the guy on the right
wants.... you upset the guy on the left.
What I am saying is the rational way for the state to determine what
is appropriate is to measure its metrics. Check economic output ,
standard of living, lifespans, crime, etc and constantly make
revisions to laws and rights to see their effect pro and con. I fail
to understand what else makes remote sense. Priests and smug self-
righteous loudmouths that belong to some gang are a dime a dozen.
I see the state as serving an unspoken supplementary role as a
laboratory. Politicians and philosophers are like engineers and
physicists. A scientist doesn't say "this is the way the universe
OUGHT to be" he says " oh... this is the way it seems to be". And
just as there are constant adjustments being made to science so should
they be made to the state.
Getting back to your question.... while I think "rights" exist they
should be constantly be adjusted to test their actual performance
rather than set in tablets (what some seek for some strange reason
I'll never understand) About the only right I am an absolutist
about.. is the right not to be murdered by the state that allegedly
serves you (just one more reason I am a pacifist) Killing the patient
to get to the cancer kind of defeats the purpose.
Potroast
Let me flip the tables on you and be Socrates for a moment. Given the
choice would you rather...
A. live in a world run by your system (whatever i may be) and live to
100, live in fear of crime, have less stuff, have less technology,
etc
B. live in world run by some other system (whatever i may be) and live
to 1000, live free of crime, have far more stuff, have a personal
spacecraft, etc..
This is the question the commies became entangled with. They answered
A in pursuit of some alleged morality....when B was the better option
because of its metrics. Where I think some people go wrong today is
they say "Oh...we've arrived when it comes to rights and laws". I say
no. As our current ideas of justice and government are better than
communism... there are other systems lurking that are better than our
current system.... and so on. By necessity that means there are also
better versions of rights and laws. We just keep tweaking till we
find them.
I think Americans have very bad ideas when it comes to criminal
justice. I say this because the metrics of Europe are superior when it
comes to this issue. Far less crime AND less jails (and hell to giving
the state the power to execute) On the other hand, I think Americans
still have a lot to still teach Europeans about doing business. I say
this because again because of metrics. America's GDP /capita is still
greater.
I just follow the numbers and let the preachers rant away.
Mark N
> So my short answer is YES YES YES. We can reason objectively about
> ethics. I do not believe "its all the same".
OK. Some of your comments have seemed to suggest otherwise. Thanks for
clearing that up for me.
> I believe rights can be
> better and worse.... but again with caveats. There are reasons why I
> skirt around answering a simple "yes" or "no" to AC's statement
> "is x is morally forbidden Because if there is, then it follows
> that you have a right to not be subjected to x by *anyone". Let' me
> give a case example.
>
> "killing (x) is morally forbidden. Because if there is, then it
> follows that you have a right to not be subjected to killing(x) by
> *anyone""
>
> Well surely one's right to continue breathing is our most precious
> right of all no? I should not be subjected to killing by anyone
> right? So why is it that some that argue so loudly to "protect rights"
> are also going about trying to remove the most primary right of
> millions individuals? (no individual trials... one gigantic collective
> punishment)
>
> (Drum roll for the answer) Because they are adding a hidden clause
> called "except in this instance because of so-and-so reason"
Fair enough.
> So you see answering that loaded question isn't so simple as an
> absolute "yes' or "no" even by those that allegedly militantly
> believe in such things. Ethical decisions are indeed situational and
> take into consideration a wide variety of variables outside of
> individual rights and interests. Just like individuals exist so does
> the needs of a wider civilization. Ethics doesn't not boil down to
> either the individual OR the state. It's both.
>
> "the state" to me is just a bunch of dudes with essentially a monopoly
> on force. There is nothing magical or special about them.
FTR, I agree with this. I don't attribute any "special" or "magical"
properties to government agents.
> If we got
> rid of them entirely (like anarchists want) what would remain is
> billions of freelancers with force instead (effectively billions of
> tiny mini-states). I suspect that eventually the violence would reach
> such epic proportions that states would arise naturally once again as
> people pooled their resources for security against the violent looting
> gangs.
Unfortunately, the government often becomes a violent looting gang that
no one can challenge. :-(
Mark
b
o
t
f
o
o
d
Mark N
> On Jan 3, 3:49 pm, Mark N <m...@myinboxisbroken.com> wrote:
>
> Let me flip the tables on you and be Socrates for a moment. Given the
> choice would you rather...
>
> A. live in a world run by your system (whatever i may be) and live to
> 100, live in fear of crime, have less stuff, have less technology,
> etc
>
> B. live in world run by some other system (whatever i may be) and live
> to 1000, live free of crime, have far more stuff, have a personal
> spacecraft, etc..
I'm not sure if I understand what you're asking me here. Are you asking
if I accept some form of utilitarianism, so that, as long as one is
doing one's best to maximize the utility function (whatever utility
function I might favor), there is nothing further to say?
> This is the question the commies became entangled with. They answered
> A in pursuit of some alleged morality....when B was the better option
> because of its metrics. Where I think some people go wrong today is
> they say "Oh...we've arrived when it comes to rights and laws". I say
> no. As our current ideas of justice and government are better than
> communism... there are other systems lurking that are better than our
> current system.... and so on. By necessity that means there are also
> better versions of rights and laws. We just keep tweaking till we
> find them.
Better by what standard?
> I think Americans have very bad ideas when it comes to criminal
> justice. [...]
:-)
Mark
Potroast
> > rid of them entirely (like anarchists want) what would remain is
> > billions of freelancers with force instead (effectively billions of
> > tiny mini-states). I suspect that eventually the violence would reach
> > such epic proportions that states would arise naturally once again as
> > people pooled their resources for security against the violent looting
> > gangs.
>
> Unfortunately, the government often becomes a violent looting gang that
> no one can challenge. :-(
Sure. I agree it can get like that. (Communism or some dictators are
prefect examples) However I'm assuming most people prefer some
government over no government at all. Sometimes I get a sense that
there is too much cynicism about the institution of government these
days (as opposed to say a particular leader) and that isn't
rational..
Consider the analog of someone that had an adverse reaction to some
particular drug (aka an instance of government). This is not to say
that medicine is bad (aka the idea of government) only that perhaps
this drug isn't good or perhaps it's not perfectly suited for
everyone. What I am saying is bash perhaps the drug (leaders) not the
idea of medicine. Government is a noble institution and we should
never forget that.
Potroast
> Potroast wrote:
> > On Jan 3, 3:49 pm, Mark N <m...@myinboxisbroken.com> wrote:
>
> > Let me flip the tables on you and be Socrates for a moment. Given the
> > choice would you rather...
>
> > A. live in a world run by your system (whatever i may be) and live to
> > 100, live in fear of crime, have less stuff, have less technology,
> > etc
>
> > B. live in world run by some other system (whatever i may be) and live
> > to 1000, live free of crime, have far more stuff, have a personal
> > spacecraft, etc..
>
> I'm not sure if I understand what you're asking me here. Are you asking
> if I accept some form of utilitarianism,
Yes. As far as I know the idea of "life liberty and the pursuit of
happiness" is essentially utilitarian in nature.
.... there is nothing further to say?
No. There is far more to say because determining what "utilitarianism"
means is quite a complicated topic. Personal rights are certainly a
part of that discussion. My example is extreme just to demonstrate a
point but there are many things unsaid about it too. Perhaps I am
locked into a 10x10 room alone for those thousand years of life. Well
fed... healthy... lots of technology...but very unhappy.
NOTE: Although it is an approximation of my views I generally avoid
using the word "utilitarianism" because I don't quite match up to
Mills or Epicurus in many of the finer details. This is sort of like I
use the word "pacifism" which some take to mean "no-force" but I tune
it to the idea of non-lethal force (an emerging option due to
technological advances that weren't previously available)
> > This is the question the commies became entangled with. They answered
> > A in pursuit of some alleged morality....when B was the better option
> > because of its metrics. Where I think some people go wrong today is
> > they say "Oh...we've arrived when it comes to rights and laws". I say
> > no. As our current ideas of justice and government are better than
> > communism... there are other systems lurking that are better than our
> > current system.... and so on. By necessity that means there are also
> > better versions of rights and laws. We just keep tweaking till we
> > find them.
>
> Better by what standard?
Good question. Some are somewhat easy to define. Longer lives.
Healthier lives. Is what we are doing sustainable? How many scientific
works are producing? Is human population expanding outwards towards
the universe to ensure its long term survival? etc..
Others are tougher and more subjective. Are we happy? What percentage
of the population feeling subjugated is acceptable? Is it ok for one
guy to live to 300 and another to live to 50? etc...
There is also interplay between competing issues. (e.g. A dollar can
be spent on a mars colony or improving medicine. )
So the answer is... its extremely complicated and I don't have all the
answers. That's why I feel government should experiment with things
and take measurements. Not too many radical ideas at once... just slip
one in once and awhile and measure the effect on output. If it doesn't
work alter the idea or pull it out of service entirely...then try
something different. This can take the form of government programs,
regulations, or even primary rights. Again... not too much radical at
once and nothing is permanent unless it appears to consistently work.
A civilization can absorb a certain level of inefficiency as long as
not too much of it happens at once (much like complex mechanical
systems have tolerances)
Ralph Hertle
> Yes. As far as I know the idea of "life liberty and the pursuit of
> happiness" is essentially utilitarian in nature.
>
....................................
Potroast:
Technically, that is not true. Utilitarianism is a collectivist
philosophy, and even more basic that that, it is a branch of subjectivism.
The quotation that you provide is from Thomas Jefferson, I believe. That
phrase is one of the bases for the ethics of Objectivism, and it is
especially individualistic and egoistic.
If you mean that the statement states the practical and good goals for
the property and privilege distribution for all people by means of
government you would find that the Pragmatism of the Utilitarianism
leads to socialism and tyranny.
"The moral is the practical", said Ayn Rand, and an individualist
concept of government best leads to the Jeffersonian goals, and that a
statist government, which is what Jefferson was vehemently opposed to,
does not.
Ralph Hertle
Mark N
> On Jan 4, 11:54 pm, Mark N <m...@myinboxisbroken.com> wrote:
>
>>Potroast wrote:
>>
>>>If we got
>>>rid of them entirely (like anarchists want) what would remain is
>>>billions of freelancers with force instead (effectively billions of
>>>tiny mini-states). I suspect that eventually the violence would reach
>>>such epic proportions that states would arise naturally once again as
>>>people pooled their resources for security against the violent looting
>>>gangs.
>>
>>Unfortunately, the government often becomes a violent looting gang that
>>no one can challenge. :-(
>
> Sure. I agree it can get like that. (Communism or some dictators are
> prefect examples) However I'm assuming most people prefer some
> government over no government at all. Sometimes I get a sense that
> there is too much cynicism about the institution of government these
> days (as opposed to say a particular leader) and that isn't
> rational..
What does "no government at all" mean? Does it mean that there is no
organization that has a monopoly on the use of force?
> Consider the analog of someone that had an adverse reaction to some
> particular drug (aka an instance of government). This is not to say
> that medicine is bad (aka the idea of government) only that perhaps
> this drug isn't good or perhaps it's not perfectly suited for
> everyone. What I am saying is bash perhaps the drug (leaders) not the
> idea of medicine. Government is a noble institution and we should
> never forget that.
I don't know what you mean by this. I thought we had agreed that there
is nothing special about a government, since it's just a bunch of dudes
who have somehow gotten themselves into a position where they have a
momopoly on the use of force in some geographical region. It seems to me
that if those dudes behave in a noble manner, then the government would
be noble, and if not, then not. I don't know what it means to say that,
in general, government is a noble institution.
Potroast
> Technically, that is not true. Utilitarianism is a collectivist
> philosophy, and even more basic that that, it is a branch of subjectivism.
It depends how you define "Utilitarianism". One concept that
unites all forms of utilitarianism is happiness with a focus on
utility... NOT "only" utility as sometimes incorrectly attributed to
it..
Some people confuse Mills with being one and the same with
Unitarianism because of his book by the same name While he probably
popularized the term and added his own spin to it, he was neither the
originator of the principle maximizing happiness should be the goal of
a society nor even coining the term itself itself. It would be quite
a stretch to argue even Mills was against rights or would disagree
with the statement "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness" He just
viewed rights as having a relationship to utility. I think where the
confusion arises around this term is due to the large schism in
Utilitarianism that occurred in the 19th century where. Schools as
diverse as von Mises libertarianism . Mills liberalism, and even
socialism all took bits and pieces out of it.
While it was not applied to governance per se, a formal philosophy
that revolved around the pursuit of happiness and utility can be
traced as far back as Epicurus and Hedonism. Epicurus argued that
pleasure and pain are the essence of good and evil and that utility
was a test of virtue. Jefferson appeared to have heard of him.....
"I take the liberty of observing that you are not a true disciple of
our master Epicurus, in indulging the indolence to which you say you
are yielding. One of his canons, you know, was that 'the indulgence
which prevents a greater pleasure, or produces a greater pain, is to
be avoided " Thomas Jefferson.
(and that sure sounded like a ringing endorsement of Epicurus to
me :)
> If you mean that the statement states the practical and good goals for
> the property and privilege >distribution for all people by means of
> government you would find that the Pragmatism of the > ilitarianism leads
> to socialism and tyranny.
This is why I don't like using that word to describe my own views
because automatically people assume things depending their
interpretation of it. While true it can lead to extreme forms of
statism that governance-meet-Epicureanism line of thinking (aka
utilitarianism) also lead directly to the US constitution too.
> "The moral is the practical", said Ayn Rand, and an individualist concept
> of government best leads to the Jeffersonian goals, and that a statist
> government, >which is what Jefferson was vehemently opposed to, does not.
Jefferson borrowed the phrase from Locke's "life, liberty, and
estate " And while Locke argued for rights I would also point out he
also argued for a social contract as well. Your view of what
represents "statism" :would have been much different than what went
through slave owner Jefferson's head.
Potroast
> Potroast wrote:
> > On Jan 4, 11:54 pm, Mark N <m...@myinboxisbroken.com> wrote:
>
> >>Potroast wrote:
>
> >>>If we got
> >>>rid of them entirely (like anarchists want) what would remain is
> >>>billions of freelancers with force instead (effectively billions of
> >>>tiny mini-states). I suspect that eventually the violence would reach
> >>>such epic proportions that states would arise naturally once again as
> >>>people pooled their resources for security against the violent looting
> >>>gangs.
>
> >>Unfortunately, the government often becomes a violent looting gang that
> >>no one can challenge. :-(
>
> > Sure. I agree it can get like that. (Communism or some dictators are
> > prefect examples) However I'm assuming most people prefer some
> > government over no government at all. Sometimes I get a sense that
> > there is too much cynicism about the institution of government these
> > days (as opposed to say a particular leader) and that isn't
> > rational..
>
> What does "no government at all" mean? Does it mean that there is no
> organization that has a monopoly on the use of force?
I mean you don't want to get rid of what we consider government today
(aka democratically elected officials) and go back to Jeffersonian
days of slavery right?
. For the record.... I personally view any time a monopoly of force is
broken as effectively the same as creating two or more new
jurisdictions.... each with their own monopoly of force. Any way you
cut it... someone is going to control the force and laws no matter
where you live. It's simply a matter if you want some say in it or
not. Thus we arrive back to Republics/Democracies being a better
alternative to no say at all.
Mark N
> On Jan 6, 2:53 am, Mark N <m...@myinboxisbroken.com> wrote:
>
>>Potroast wrote:
>>
>>>Sure. I agree it can get like that. (Communism or some dictators are
>>>prefect examples) However I'm assuming most people prefer some
>>>government over no government at all. Sometimes I get a sense that
>>>there is too much cynicism about the institution of government these
>>>days (as opposed to say a particular leader) and that isn't
>>>rational..
>>
>>What does "no government at all" mean? Does it mean that there is no
>>organization that has a monopoly on the use of force?
>
> I mean you don't want to get rid of what we consider government today
> (aka democratically elected officials) and go back to Jeffersonian
> days of slavery right?
The existence of democratically elected officials is desirable because
it prevents slavery? Is that what you're saying? (Isn't this a bit of a
tangent, considering that you're now talking about the manner in which a
government decides what to do, rather than about what it does?)
> .. For the record.... I personally view any time a monopoly of force is
> broken as effectively the same as creating two or more new
> jurisdictions.... each with their own monopoly of force. Any way you
> cut it... someone is going to control the force and laws no matter
> where you live. [...]
Well, if it's true that a government is an organization that maintains a
monopoly on force, and that there will always be such an organization,
then that means that there will always be a government, no matter what
happens. Right? But if that's so, then I don't know what to make of your
assertion that it's better to have "some government" than to have "no
government at all." As far as I can tell, the latter is not even
possible, according to you.
Might it be that when you say that it's good to have "some government,"
what you really mean is that you approve of certain activities that you
associate with government? If so, what might those activities be?
Mark
Potroast
> Potroast wrote:
> > On Jan 6, 2:53 am, Mark N <m...@myinboxisbroken.com> wrote:
>
> >>Potroast wrote:
>
> >>>Sure. I agree it can get like that. (Communism or some dictators are
> >>>prefect examples) However I'm assuming most people prefer some
> >>>government over no government at all. Sometimes I get a sense that
> >>>there is too much cynicism about the institution of government these
> >>>days (as opposed to say a particular leader) and that isn't
> >>>rational..
>
> >>What does "no government at all" mean? Does it mean that there is no
> >>organization that has a monopoly on the use of force?
>
> > I mean you don't want to get rid of what we consider government today
> > (aka democratically elected officials) and go back to Jeffersonian
> > days of slavery right?
>
> The existence of democratically elected officials is desirable because
> it prevents slavery? Is that what you're saying?
I wasn't trying to suggest anything. I just want to get
clarification....do you personally want to role back the clock to
Jefferson's days of slavery?
> Might it be that when you say that it's good to have "some government,"
> what you really mean is that you approve of certain activities that you
> associate with government?
Right... "no government" in the sense of a dismantling modern
governments.like anarchists would want. They seem to think they would
be hounded less by force. I personally think the opposite would
happen. Force would become more common as there would be many more
freelancers with it.
> someone I would consider trying out under certain conditions (which
> aren't currently present)
>If? so, what might those activities be?
We've gone full circle so again my ideal is occasional experiments and
take measurements. Let the measurements decide along with the
occasional democratic vote that acts as a barometer of the people's
happiness (experiments could be towards libertarianism too right?).
There are more tributaries to pet theory but I'll leave it perhaps for
another day's discussion.
:)
Mark N
> On Jan 7, 1:59 am, Mark N <m...@myinboxisbroken.com> wrote:
>
>>Potroast wrote:
>>
>>>On Jan 6, 2:53 am, Mark N <m...@myinboxisbroken.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>What does "no government at all" mean? Does it mean that there is no
>>>>organization that has a monopoly on the use of force?
>>
>>>I mean you don't want to get rid of what we consider government today
>>>(aka democratically elected officials) and go back to Jeffersonian
>>>days of slavery right?
>>
>>The existence of democratically elected officials is desirable because
>>it prevents slavery? Is that what you're saying?
>
> I wasn't trying to suggest anything. I just want to get
> clarification....do you personally want to role back the clock to
> Jefferson's days of slavery?
I'm sorry, but I have no idea why you would ask me such a ridiculous
question. And I still have no idea what point, if any, you are trying to
make here. (FTR, I don't approve of slavery.)
>>Might it be that when you say that it's good to have "some government,"
>>what you really mean is that you approve of certain activities that you
>>associate with government?
>
> Right... "no government" in the sense of a dismantling modern
> governments.like anarchists would want. They seem to think they would
> be hounded less by force. I personally think the opposite would
> happen. Force would become more common as there would be many more
> freelancers with it.
We don't seem to be communicating very well here. :-(
>>If so, what might those activities be?
>
> We've gone full circle so again my ideal is occasional experiments and
> take measurements. Let the measurements decide along with the
> occasional democratic vote that acts as a barometer of the people's
> happiness (experiments could be towards libertarianism too right?).
> There are more tributaries to pet theory but I'll leave it perhaps for
> another day's discussion.
>
> :)
Fair enough.