- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Lindependence 2008 - In the Books and Out of The Blocks
|
|
Comments (142)
122 earlier comments in the full thread.
For those who say my reasoning is circular I guess you want some axioms to hold on to, so here are some:
1. No human individual can think or act instead of another one.
You can convey an idea to a friend, but it is still him who has to process it, not you. You can force someone to act the way you want, but it is still him which executes the acts. If he has no fear whatsoever, and never complies to your threat of force, you'll have to make a choice between making good on your threat or leaving him alone. Another thing for *your* mind to process. Another act *you* have to make for yourself.
2. Everything in the universe is fundamentally a process of action and reaction and then reactions to those reactions and so on.
We as humans are part of that universe and it is in nature of our existence that we can think and act consciously. However, that does not mean we control the universe and that the universe wont, quite coldly and without emotion on its part, react to our every action. No matter what your moral and other value judgments are, every act will have a consequence. Your value judgments are what makes you like one particular consequence and hate another. If you get consequences you don't like you just have to adjust your acts in pursuit of better consequences.
My own moral judgment is that coercing people is wrong, but that is *my own* moral judgment and you can disagree. However, if you do coerce people you will face some sort of a consequence. You decide for yourself whether you like it or not. If you do, good for you (and bad for me if I'm the one you'll coerce next ;) ). If not, then you might come to a consentual agreement with me (and become a fellow voluntaryist. ;-) ).
3. All of the above axioms may be disproven sometime by someone.
And I guess that spoils your dream of certainty a bit. ;) Nothing, no axiom and no scientific truth is really safe from disproval. One could argue that even law of gravity itself can be disproven, and our falling down to earth as we perceive it is actually due to something entirely else, something we're yet incapable to understand.
However, neither of the above axioms nor such scientific laws as gravity seem very likely to be disproved anytime soon to me, and I think that about everyone else here would agree, in which case on that particular point we have ourselves a consensus, a shared premise. And it is on this premise on which we can build a shred of certainty.
What this third axiom does, however, is only serve as a reminder that this premise is indeed forged by a mere consensus, and that this consensus does not equal absolute, infinite and eternal truth.
However, the third axiom does not say that absolute truth does not exist. It merely says that it is always unlikely for an individual to ever assume (s)he has 100% access and understanding of it and actually be right about that in light of that absolute truth.
1. No human individual can think or act instead of another one.
You can convey an idea to a friend, but it is still him who has to process it, not you. You can force someone to act the way you want, but it is still him which executes the acts. If he has no fear whatsoever, and never complies to your threat of force, you'll have to make a choice between making good on your threat or leaving him alone. Another thing for *your* mind to process. Another act *you* have to make for yourself.
2. Everything in the universe is fundamentally a process of action and reaction and then reactions to those reactions and so on.
We as humans are part of that universe and it is in nature of our existence that we can think and act consciously. However, that does not mean we control the universe and that the universe wont, quite coldly and without emotion on its part, react to our every action. No matter what your moral and other value judgments are, every act will have a consequence. Your value judgments are what makes you like one particular consequence and hate another. If you get consequences you don't like you just have to adjust your acts in pursuit of better consequences.
My own moral judgment is that coercing people is wrong, but that is *my own* moral judgment and you can disagree. However, if you do coerce people you will face some sort of a consequence. You decide for yourself whether you like it or not. If you do, good for you (and bad for me if I'm the one you'll coerce next ;) ). If not, then you might come to a consentual agreement with me (and become a fellow voluntaryist. ;-) ).
3. All of the above axioms may be disproven sometime by someone.
And I guess that spoils your dream of certainty a bit. ;) Nothing, no axiom and no scientific truth is really safe from disproval. One could argue that even law of gravity itself can be disproven, and our falling down to earth as we perceive it is actually due to something entirely else, something we're yet incapable to understand.
However, neither of the above axioms nor such scientific laws as gravity seem very likely to be disproved anytime soon to me, and I think that about everyone else here would agree, in which case on that particular point we have ourselves a consensus, a shared premise. And it is on this premise on which we can build a shred of certainty.
What this third axiom does, however, is only serve as a reminder that this premise is indeed forged by a mere consensus, and that this consensus does not equal absolute, infinite and eternal truth.
However, the third axiom does not say that absolute truth does not exist. It merely says that it is always unlikely for an individual to ever assume (s)he has 100% access and understanding of it and actually be right about that in light of that absolute truth.
Quoting:The point does not remain the same. The use of second person is a statement that your failings apply to somebody other than you. As to whether you are your own worst enemy, I am in no position to judge that.
I'm just saying "you" or "I" can essentially mean anyone, but fair enough. I think we sufficiently understand each other on that.
Quoting:And yet you write paragraph after paragraph trying to bring us around to your way of thinking (trying to win.)
Winning is not the only motive there is.
> The point is that you can't decide right or wrong relative to someone else instead of that somene else.
If their actions harm me or mine, I most certainly can and will. And I will act accordingly. As long as they don't harm me or mine, I have no desire to do so.
Now, what value I place on that person and/or their actions is another matter entirely. That too is a judgment.
> You don't know me that well to be able to make that statement with enough certainty for it to be meaningful.
I don't need to. I've known enough people and been through enough myself to know the signs. Whether you believe that or not is up to you.
> And even so, it is entirely irrelevant to the content of ideas presented.
It's relevant in that some (perhaps many) of us have already considered the ideas you're presenting. They're not new to us.
If their actions harm me or mine, I most certainly can and will. And I will act accordingly. As long as they don't harm me or mine, I have no desire to do so.
Now, what value I place on that person and/or their actions is another matter entirely. That too is a judgment.
> You don't know me that well to be able to make that statement with enough certainty for it to be meaningful.
I don't need to. I've known enough people and been through enough myself to know the signs. Whether you believe that or not is up to you.
> And even so, it is entirely irrelevant to the content of ideas presented.
It's relevant in that some (perhaps many) of us have already considered the ideas you're presenting. They're not new to us.
jdixon:
> If their actions harm me or mine, I most certainly can and will.
How? I think we're not speaking the same language here. You can't somehow transfer your persona, soul or whatever, to that other person. Even if you would it would still be you, only in a different body. :P That's what I mean. You just can't have the value judgment of another inside your own head. And trying to think and act as if you can is IMHO an obvious contradiction and consequences can be painful (you're actually hurting yourself and wearing yourself off when you try to think by someone elses mind, because doing that is actually, for all we know, impossible).
If someone's actions harm you then your reaction is something you do based on your own value judgment. You're still controlling only yourself, not the one you're defending from.
Cheers
> If their actions harm me or mine, I most certainly can and will.
How? I think we're not speaking the same language here. You can't somehow transfer your persona, soul or whatever, to that other person. Even if you would it would still be you, only in a different body. :P That's what I mean. You just can't have the value judgment of another inside your own head. And trying to think and act as if you can is IMHO an obvious contradiction and consequences can be painful (you're actually hurting yourself and wearing yourself off when you try to think by someone elses mind, because doing that is actually, for all we know, impossible).
If someone's actions harm you then your reaction is something you do based on your own value judgment. You're still controlling only yourself, not the one you're defending from.
Cheers
>"Oh it can be intelligently discussed because we are already doing so."
Well, some of us are. :)
>"Did you perhaps expect me to come into this discussion wearing a perspective of someone other than myself?"
Not at all. I would expect objectivity, instead of the doggedly closed relativism you remain encased in. Mind you, I understand it well; you're answerable only to yourself, responsible for nothing outside of your own values, and king of your own little universe. As I said above, it amazes me that you haven't grasped the consequences of such philosophy through the many examples provided by the history of the world.
>"As far as I can see I am not talking with myself here so the discussion is by all means not framed only by myself."
You've framed the discussion in terms defined by you. How you define a subject limits dramatically the questions and assumptions that can be made about a given topic. I'm sorry if I didn't express this simply enough earlier.
>"I hope you don't believe I have the power to control your own mind."
I'm not entirely convinced you're displaying the power to control YOUR own mind. :)
>"Bottom line is, if you can't convince someone let him be and learn on his own, face his own consequences."
Sadly, I suspect that is the only way you'll be able to come to a better understanding of such issues - the hard way. Good luck with that.
Well, some of us are. :)
>"Did you perhaps expect me to come into this discussion wearing a perspective of someone other than myself?"
Not at all. I would expect objectivity, instead of the doggedly closed relativism you remain encased in. Mind you, I understand it well; you're answerable only to yourself, responsible for nothing outside of your own values, and king of your own little universe. As I said above, it amazes me that you haven't grasped the consequences of such philosophy through the many examples provided by the history of the world.
>"As far as I can see I am not talking with myself here so the discussion is by all means not framed only by myself."
You've framed the discussion in terms defined by you. How you define a subject limits dramatically the questions and assumptions that can be made about a given topic. I'm sorry if I didn't express this simply enough earlier.
>"I hope you don't believe I have the power to control your own mind."
I'm not entirely convinced you're displaying the power to control YOUR own mind. :)
>"Bottom line is, if you can't convince someone let him be and learn on his own, face his own consequences."
Sadly, I suspect that is the only way you'll be able to come to a better understanding of such issues - the hard way. Good luck with that.
Dumper:
> I would expect objectivity, instead of the doggedly closed relativism you remain encased in.
I see "closed relativism" as an oximoron. It sounds like "closed open mind". :) What are you refering to? I'm curious.
> I'm not entirely convinced you're displaying the power to control YOUR own mind. :)
Should I? If yes, then we agree. I still don't know what you're refering to.
> Sadly, I suspect that is the only way you'll be able to come to a better understanding of such issues
Yep, another agreement. :D
You seem to be circling something, but not quite stating it. Is there anything to state? If yes I'm curious to hear it. What is it that I'm missing according to you? I'm really not trying to win anything here. I just find discussions like this fun and a good way to challenge what I know and understand. A little exercise.
> I would expect objectivity, instead of the doggedly closed relativism you remain encased in.
I see "closed relativism" as an oximoron. It sounds like "closed open mind". :) What are you refering to? I'm curious.
> I'm not entirely convinced you're displaying the power to control YOUR own mind. :)
Should I? If yes, then we agree. I still don't know what you're refering to.
> Sadly, I suspect that is the only way you'll be able to come to a better understanding of such issues
Yep, another agreement. :D
You seem to be circling something, but not quite stating it. Is there anything to state? If yes I'm curious to hear it. What is it that I'm missing according to you? I'm really not trying to win anything here. I just find discussions like this fun and a good way to challenge what I know and understand. A little exercise.
> How?
If a person harms my property, I will take any necessary actions within my power and the law to insure he doesn't do so again. If I think he's a threat to me or my family, I will take any actions within my power to make sure he is no longer a threat, and I won't be too concerned about the legality of the matter? Is that simple enough? If he's not competent enough to recognize harm when he causes it, then I will make the judgment for him, and enforce it to the best of my ability.
And, adding something I should have commented on earlier;
> Nothing, no axiom and no scientific truth is really safe from disproval.
Fine. To demonstrate how old a discussion this is: Disprove your own existence. We'll wait. :)
The first fundamental act of dealing with reality is to accept that you exist and that something outside yourself exists. The exact nature of this existence may be uncertain, but you have to accept it to have a starting point. That is, by definition, an axiom.
Descartes: "Cogito, ergo sum".
If a person harms my property, I will take any necessary actions within my power and the law to insure he doesn't do so again. If I think he's a threat to me or my family, I will take any actions within my power to make sure he is no longer a threat, and I won't be too concerned about the legality of the matter? Is that simple enough? If he's not competent enough to recognize harm when he causes it, then I will make the judgment for him, and enforce it to the best of my ability.
And, adding something I should have commented on earlier;
> Nothing, no axiom and no scientific truth is really safe from disproval.
Fine. To demonstrate how old a discussion this is: Disprove your own existence. We'll wait. :)
The first fundamental act of dealing with reality is to accept that you exist and that something outside yourself exists. The exact nature of this existence may be uncertain, but you have to accept it to have a starting point. That is, by definition, an axiom.
Descartes: "Cogito, ergo sum".
>"It sounds like "closed open mind". :) What are you refering to? I'm curious."
I've mentioned this earlier as well. I'd recommend you read Allan Blooms 'Closing of the American Mind'.
>"Should I? If yes, then we agree. I still don't know what you're refering to."
It was just a joke, my friend. Don't sweat it.
>"You seem to be circling something, but not quite stating it."
ROTFLMAO. :) I'm just trying to address the concepts you've brought up, you've set the direction throughout. In any case, I've done my best to convey where and why I think you're mistaken. I'm not sure there's much exercise in it for me as we're not covering any new ground, it's becoming a simple expenditure of energy. I have no personal investment in your beliefs, so I'll leave it here and wish you well.
I've mentioned this earlier as well. I'd recommend you read Allan Blooms 'Closing of the American Mind'.
>"Should I? If yes, then we agree. I still don't know what you're refering to."
It was just a joke, my friend. Don't sweat it.
>"You seem to be circling something, but not quite stating it."
ROTFLMAO. :) I'm just trying to address the concepts you've brought up, you've set the direction throughout. In any case, I've done my best to convey where and why I think you're mistaken. I'm not sure there's much exercise in it for me as we're not covering any new ground, it's becoming a simple expenditure of energy. I have no personal investment in your beliefs, so I'll leave it here and wish you well.
> If a person harms my property, I will take any necessary actions within my power and the law to insure he doesn't do so again.
Well, I'd just defend myself and attempt to detain him until he pays reparations, but we're not here to discuss the finer points of libertarianism. This is a bit more fundamental. I think that may be part of the misunderstanding, that what I'm arguing here isn't even such to me most fundamental moral values as non-aggression, but a layer beneath it.
I mostly agree with you actually. I just disagree that your judging that you have the right to defend yourself from harm done by another person is a judgment you make instead of him. He made a choice to harm you and you made a choice to defend yourself. it's not like you made a choice for him to harm you and he made a choice for you to defend yourself. See what I mean? Can't think with a brain that isn't within your skull, but one that actually is.
Sadly, I think some people actually act as if they can.. and get a severe headache, in the least, or become politicians. :P
> Fine. To demonstrate how old a discussion this is: Disprove your own existence. We'll wait. :)
Well.. I've had some discussions with another friend that goes to those kinds of depths, but you may be right that those are just discussing the nature of existence, not the existence itself. So I concede to your point and accept that axiom in its full. :)
That said, the fact that we can't disprove our existence might not be because it's impossible, but because we just aren't capable of doing it, and it's not like any of us is really particularly motivated to disprove our own very existence. :D
So yeah, I think therefore I am. And I love it. :)
Cheers
Well, I'd just defend myself and attempt to detain him until he pays reparations, but we're not here to discuss the finer points of libertarianism. This is a bit more fundamental. I think that may be part of the misunderstanding, that what I'm arguing here isn't even such to me most fundamental moral values as non-aggression, but a layer beneath it.
I mostly agree with you actually. I just disagree that your judging that you have the right to defend yourself from harm done by another person is a judgment you make instead of him. He made a choice to harm you and you made a choice to defend yourself. it's not like you made a choice for him to harm you and he made a choice for you to defend yourself. See what I mean? Can't think with a brain that isn't within your skull, but one that actually is.
Sadly, I think some people actually act as if they can.. and get a severe headache, in the least, or become politicians. :P
> Fine. To demonstrate how old a discussion this is: Disprove your own existence. We'll wait. :)
Well.. I've had some discussions with another friend that goes to those kinds of depths, but you may be right that those are just discussing the nature of existence, not the existence itself. So I concede to your point and accept that axiom in its full. :)
That said, the fact that we can't disprove our existence might not be because it's impossible, but because we just aren't capable of doing it, and it's not like any of us is really particularly motivated to disprove our own very existence. :D
So yeah, I think therefore I am. And I love it. :)
Cheers
Ok, dumper (geez why does your nick almost sound like I'm insulting you when I say it :D )... I'm gonna look for that book. Might even read it at some point (I've got a few more to read first).
Cheers :)
Cheers :)
>> geez why does your nick almost sound like I'm insulting you when I say it
Don't be ridiculous. You can't insult him. It is only he that can choose to be insulted or not.
Now imagine the expanse of space. Nothing but space and vacuum. See the vacuum. Feel the vacuum. Be the vacuum.
Hey! Libervis! Where'd ya' go?
Don't be ridiculous. You can't insult him. It is only he that can choose to be insulted or not.
Now imagine the expanse of space. Nothing but space and vacuum. See the vacuum. Feel the vacuum. Be the vacuum.
Hey! Libervis! Where'd ya' go?
I choose not to be insulted, and there is no spoon.
However, I reserve my right to be insulted at a later date, should I so choose.
Maybe I'd better give this more thought. . . . It's not my fault I'm insulting, you've caused yourself to be insulted. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it. How liberating.
I'm going to have to try this out, who wants to cause themselves to feel insulted? Any takers?? :)
However, I reserve my right to be insulted at a later date, should I so choose.
Maybe I'd better give this more thought. . . . It's not my fault I'm insulting, you've caused yourself to be insulted. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it. How liberating.
I'm going to have to try this out, who wants to cause themselves to feel insulted? Any takers?? :)
Actually, NoDough, you nailed it. He chooses whether to feel insulted or not. I may choose to *try* to insult him by describing him with words which are consensually considered as "insults", but if he chooses not to feel insulted I have failed. :)
And I might even come to believe he's a better man than I am. :P
About being the vacuum. I can't be the vacuum. And I already agreed with jdixon on the axiom of existence. I also conceded to dumper that I am not a 100% relativist and that I do believe in existence of the absolute truth. So I think we're all much closer to an agreement here than it may have initially seemed.
The difference may merely be one of degrees or semantics, on that level of thought. I can accept as absolute truth only those statements which even after applying a scientific process to it I find I just cannot disprove, like the axiom of existence. And the only room for doubting that truth is in consideration of the possibility that I am merely incapable of disproving it at this point in time, as unlikely as it may seem.
In all honesty, I think this is a case closed. And the point has been beaten enough times. The original intent for my trying to divert this discussion was to encourage participants to follow their own path and stop wasting *that* much energy trying to convince another it is the right one. Now looks like the original perpetrators of the thread have all dispersed so I suppose that's what they might have begun or continued doing. ;)
And I wish all of you good luck, too. :D
And I might even come to believe he's a better man than I am. :P
About being the vacuum. I can't be the vacuum. And I already agreed with jdixon on the axiom of existence. I also conceded to dumper that I am not a 100% relativist and that I do believe in existence of the absolute truth. So I think we're all much closer to an agreement here than it may have initially seemed.
The difference may merely be one of degrees or semantics, on that level of thought. I can accept as absolute truth only those statements which even after applying a scientific process to it I find I just cannot disprove, like the axiom of existence. And the only room for doubting that truth is in consideration of the possibility that I am merely incapable of disproving it at this point in time, as unlikely as it may seem.
In all honesty, I think this is a case closed. And the point has been beaten enough times. The original intent for my trying to divert this discussion was to encourage participants to follow their own path and stop wasting *that* much energy trying to convince another it is the right one. Now looks like the original perpetrators of the thread have all dispersed so I suppose that's what they might have begun or continued doing. ;)
And I wish all of you good luck, too. :D
Quoting:The original intent for my trying to divert this discussion was to encourage participants to follow their own path and stop wasting *that* much energy trying to convince another it is the right one.
So basicly you were attempting (successfully) to impose your will onto others?
*couldnt resist*
Azer, I know you're joking, but just to be on the safe side.
"Encourage" is a word. And it has a meaning. And its meaning is not equal to "impose". ;)
If you wish to redefine the word for this discourse, let me know first. :)
Cheers
"Encourage" is a word. And it has a meaning. And its meaning is not equal to "impose". ;)
If you wish to redefine the word for this discourse, let me know first. :)
Cheers
Libervis, yup, but you gave such a good set up for that I just couldnt resist taking the bait.
Hehe, understood. :)
> So I think we're all much closer to an agreement here than it may have initially seemed.
Almost certainly. But believe or not, that was obvious from the start.
> I can accept as absolute truth only those statements which even after applying a scientific process to it I find I just cannot disprove,
That's fine, but you'll find that you often have to act without such truths. In such cases, you can only make your best judgment based on the information you have available and act accordingly. And many questions (such as the existence of God or gods) tend to be unprovable one way or the other; while others simply aren't worth the effort to determine
> In all honesty, I think this is a case closed.
For the sake of all concerned, that's probably a good idea. :)
Almost certainly. But believe or not, that was obvious from the start.
> I can accept as absolute truth only those statements which even after applying a scientific process to it I find I just cannot disprove,
That's fine, but you'll find that you often have to act without such truths. In such cases, you can only make your best judgment based on the information you have available and act accordingly. And many questions (such as the existence of God or gods) tend to be unprovable one way or the other; while others simply aren't worth the effort to determine
> In all honesty, I think this is a case closed.
For the sake of all concerned, that's probably a good idea. :)
Yeah, I pretty much agree. :)
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
And yet you write paragraph after paragraph trying to bring us around to your way of thinking (trying to win.)