wilderness: That was a discussion between you and me. I don't know what you are asking because in that thread you linked I responded to it.
That was a discussion between you and me. I don't know what you are asking because in that thread you linked I responded to it.
In that link, I substantiate my case that, from the perspective of the person holding them, ultimate ends are neither correct nor incorrect. In the quotation that I sent you from "Theory and History", he explains the two senses of the term, that you keep conflating. Whether you hold a certain ultimate end is either correct or incorrect. For example, you might hold ultimate end A and not B. But, from your point of view, you holding A instead of B is neither correct nor incorrect, it is just given. The latter is what I meant.
If I wrote it more than a few weeks ago, I probably hate it by now.
I never keep conflating anything, hog-wash....lol
I never even used the word "ultimate end". So I don't know what you are asking.
The Buck Stops Here. He was a terrible president in regards but that's a really good saying.
wilderness: I never even used the word "ultimate end".
I never even used the word "ultimate end".
When I said "preferences not subject to proof or disproof" and "personal preferences, not subject to proof or disproof", I was talking about "ultimate ends".
My prefences are facts. They are proved or disproved. Are you questioning my existence again?
What you are saying isn't making any sense.
wilderness: My prefences are facts. They are proved or disproved.
My prefences are facts. They are proved or disproved.
Do you agree with what I wrote in the post to which I linked you?
Wilderness: My prefences are facts. They are proved or disproved.
What if I don't agree with your preferences? Moreover, what if I don't care about them? Just asking.
bloom,
What if I don't care if you don't care whether I exist or not? Just asking.
I. Ryan,
I suggest reading through my response to that post. I'm not going to re-respond to the whole thing. It was long.
Wilderness: What if I don't care if you don't care whether I exist or not?
What if I don't care if you don't care whether I exist or not?
This is exactly the problem. Neither one of our values carries any more weight than the other.
wilderness: I suggest reading through my response to that post. I'm not going to re-respond to the whole thing. It was long.
Do you agree with these:
I. Ryan: Now to call these ultimate desires either correct or incorrect from the perspective of the person having the desire, we have to point to a more fundamental desire. But because of the fact that we defined that desire as an ultimate desire, that more fundamental one does not exist. So it makes no sense to say that, from the perspective of the person having the ultimate desire, it is either "correct" or "incorrect".
Now to call these ultimate desires either correct or incorrect from the perspective of the person having the desire, we have to point to a more fundamental desire. But because of the fact that we defined that desire as an ultimate desire, that more fundamental one does not exist. So it makes no sense to say that, from the perspective of the person having the ultimate desire, it is either "correct" or "incorrect".
I. Ryan: So although it does not make sense to say that your ultimate desires are either "true" or "false", it does make sense to say that it is true or false that you have certain ultimate desires, which is what I think that Mises was trying to say in the passages that I posted earlier, in this thread.
So although it does not make sense to say that your ultimate desires are either "true" or "false", it does make sense to say that it is true or false that you have certain ultimate desires, which is what I think that Mises was trying to say in the passages that I posted earlier, in this thread.
Bloom: Neither one of our values carries any more weight than the other.
Neither one of our values carries any more weight than the other.
Yet they both still exist. (Not a disagreement.)
bloomj31:This is exactly the problem. Neither one of our values carries any more weight than the other.
Where you see a problem, I see a solution.
I. Ryan: Yet they both still exist.
Yet they both still exist.
Exactly. Case closed end thread. lol, I'm just kidding.
Wilderness: Where you see a problem, I see a solution.
Exactly.
I. Ryan:So although it does not make sense to say that your ultimate desires are either "true" or "false", it does make sense to say that it is true or false that you have certain ultimate desires,
What are " " (quotation marks) supposed to do? This sentence only contradicts itself.
If Lilburne only made as much sense as you do at times bloom. I agree with what you said. But I don't know if this has anything to do with the totality of the thread.
wilderness: What are " " (quotation marks) supposed to do? This sentence only contradicts itself.
Why did you not respond to the other quotation? My ultimate ends, that is, my judgements of value, do not "carr[y] any more weight than [yours]"; yet both mine and yours exist.
I. Ryan:Why did you not respond to the other quotation?
I didn't know they were necessarily separate. I thought they were a package deal.
I. Ryan:My ultimate ends, that is, my judgements of value, do not "carry any more weight than yours"; yet both mine and yours exist.
yes, so? Why does Lilburne attack my values then? I guess he doesn't realize this yet. That's another flaw in his theory to add to the pile.
Wilderness: I agree with what you said. But I don't know if this has anything to do with the totality of the thread.
I agree with what you said. But I don't know if this has anything to do with the totality of the thread.
You're looking for objective weight in subjective values, right? But if human action reveals anything, it's that different people value different things for different reasons. None of their values are "right" or "wrong" in the objective sense. Even if we all agree that a certain value is "right" that doesn't mean it objectively is.
I personally think the term " natural law" should be changed to "commonly recurring human values." Then the terminology would be less misleading. Man has no laws other than that he acts. How he chooses to act depends on his values which are purely subjective. It may seem that a great many people tend to share the same values but, in fact, many values are not shared. That's where man's law comes in. Agree or disagree?
EDIT: Also, I don't think Lilburne is attacking your values. I think he's attacking your idea that somehow your values can have some kind of special weight over anyone else's.
wilderness: yes, so?
yes, so?
Finally.
wilderness: Why does Lilburne attack my values then?
Why does Lilburne attack my values then?
He never did that, bro'.
bloom:You're looking for objective weight in subjective values, right?
No. Remember: I said objective/subjective false dichotomy.
And meanwhile I said 'natural law' is think for your self or do you not think that people think? Thinking is a human action.
wilderness: Why not just define it as your preferences not subject to proof or disproof? That would be less obscure.
Why not just define it as your preferences not subject to proof or disproof? That would be less obscure.
So now you should understand what I meant there.
False. Lilburne has spent over 50 posts attacking my values. What do you think this thread and the countless others are about? In the other thread he has just said paraphrasing: he doesn't think some people can cooperate to even form a society at all.
That's a blatant unfounded assertion. I live in a society right now where some people manage to cooperate.
Wilderness: And meanwhile I said 'natural law' is think for your self or do you not think that people think? Thinking is a human action.
I am positive that people think I am also positive that not all people agree.
Also, no one's attacking your values I just don't understand why you think yours matter more than mine or anyone else's.
Who said this was about agreement? I never did. Respect ok. Honor yes. But for a person to actually question my existence because I don't need to be told over and over again by Lilburne that my existence is an error and is wrong. I never said nobody's existence matter's more than anybody else's. I'm a natural law theorists that desires justice, truth, economic action, peace, and the establishment of a cooperative society that maintains private property for Christ's sake.
I'm done. See ya. This forum has gone bunk with people trying to philosophically attack that some people don't even exist in this world and quote Hobbes and Machivelli to get their violent might v. right to dominate the values of some people like myself that maintain peace and civility.
wilderness: Lilburne:The existence of you can be proved Being means existence. Being is comparative to is (the copula in a proposition). That's the error in your theory. You have been trying to prove my being as either correct or incorrect, when you yourself say right here my existence can be proved. Perhaps this will make the distinction you're missing clear. Let's use the rope-snake scenario from Indian philosophy. A man walking with a companion sees a rope on the road and thinks it's a snake. He has the belief, "That is a snake," and makes the proposition to his companion, "That is a snake." The existence of his belief is a fact. The belief's being, once it is recognized that it's there, can neither be correct nor incorrect. But the content of his belief can be correct/incorrect. And in fact it is incorrect. The man then decides between turning around and walking back from whence he came or taking a closer look to see if it's dead or not. He forms the preference in his mind that he would prefer to take a closer look. He expresses his preference to his companion by saying, "We should take a closer look rather than walking away." The existence of his preference is a fact. The preference's existence, once it is recognized that it's there, can neither be correct nor incorrect. But a preference is different from a belief in that its content also can neither be correct nor incorrect, even though the beliefs that informed his preference can be. His companion then says, "No, snakes are unclean. It is morally wrong to approach a snake. Therefore, I will use physical force to prevent you from approaching the snake." (Please note, this is not an aspect of any Indian belief afaik, I'm just making this part up to demonstrate a concept.) The existence of the companion's moral preference is a fact. The preference's existence, once it is recognized that it's there, can neither be correct nor incorrect. But a moral preference, just like any other preference, is different from a belief in that its content also can neither be correct nor incorrect, even though the beliefs that informed his preference (like belief in the existence of some snake-hating god) can be.
Lilburne:The existence of you can be proved
Being means existence. Being is comparative to is (the copula in a proposition).
That's the error in your theory. You have been trying to prove my being as either correct or incorrect, when you yourself say right here my existence can be proved.
wilderness: I. Ryan: Why not just define it as your preferences not subject to proof or disproof? That would be less obscure. Is my person not subject to proof? Do I not exist? Am I not real? What kind of question is that!
I. Ryan: Why not just define it as your preferences not subject to proof or disproof? That would be less obscure.
Is my person not subject to proof? Do I not exist? Am I not real? What kind of question is that!
By the way, I was just using the terminology of Mises:
Ludwig von Mises: Judgments of value are voluntaristic. They express feelings, tastes, or preferences of the individual who utters them. With regard to them there cannot be any question of truth and falsity. They are ultimate and not subject to any proof or evidence.
Judgments of value are voluntaristic. They express feelings, tastes, or preferences of the individual who utters them. With regard to them there cannot be any question of truth and falsity. They are ultimate and not subject to any proof or evidence.
So I am not sure why you got so confused.
wilderness: I. Ryan, False. Lilburne has spent over 50 posts attacking my values. What do you think this thread and the countless others are about? In the other thread he has just said paraphrasing: he doesn't think some people can cooperate to even form a society at all. That's a blatant unfounded assertion. I live in a society right now where some people manage to cooperate.
Heh. Do you really believe that?
Wilderness: I'm a natural law theorists that desires justice
I'm a natural law theorists that desires justice
What is justice? More importantly, what if I don't agree with your idea of justice, who is right who is wrong?
False. Lilburne has spent over 50 posts attacking my values
No, Lilburne has spent this time attacking your beliefs, not your values. In fact, if you'd been willing to take your fingers off the keyboard for more than a few seconds, you'd understand that to Lilburne the entire notion of attacking values is incoherent. Seriously, focus on saying more and speaking less.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
wilderness:he doesn't think some people can cooperate to even form a society at all.
Tell that to Rothbard:
I don't see what that has to do with what I'm saying Lilburne. I have absolutely no interest in and there is no need to prove the correctness of my personal preferences. Mises and Rothbard are both wrong on some things. It seems like people are constantly conflating forward-looking ethics (economics is also forward-looking) with backward-looking legal theory.
An instance of where I have improved libertarian theory by using Austrian methodology to investigate law is in regards to children's rights. This analysis can be extended to the infirm, elderly, prisoners, etc. Rothbard was half right on this subject for recognizing the importance of potential, but the focus on consent is flawed when we instead look at the interplay of humans' actions and, moreover, that there exists intermediate periods of inaction. As Mises has distinguished between economics categories and ideal types, we can see that legal theory has it's own sort of categories.
The only reason that libertarianism is a "spurious political doctrine" or whatever it is you said exactly, is because you are confused what is going on.
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.
ERO:The only reason that libertarianism is a "spurious political doctrine" or whatever it is you said exactly
I didn't say libertarianism itself is spurious. I myself am a libertarian (an anarcho-capitalist, actually). It is doctrines like natural law and argumentation ethics that I regard as spurious.
Lilburne, I think what you are doing is kind of the reverse of "thick libertarians", who try to make libertarianism into more than it really is by conflating political philosophy with legal philosophy. Instead, you refuse to see the whole picture. There is more to praxeology than economics, and there is more to law than praxeology. By doing this, you stoke these pointless conversations that remain on the outside of solving problems and forming theory.
There is more to praxeology than economics, but all human action is guided solely, entirely and apodictically by subjective value within perceived means-end frameworks.
There is more to law than praxeology, in fact as law is a practiced art and not a philosophical category, praxeology only has indirect bearing on it.
“Socialism is a fraud, a comedy, a phantom, a blackmail.” - Benito Mussolini"Toute nation a le gouvernemente qu'il mérite." - Joseph de Maistre
in fact as law is a practiced art
I guess, but there's thought behind the practice. I've seen you and another guy stress customary law. Obviously cultural mores are a factor, but it is a secondary factor.
praxeology only has indirect bearing on it.
if you say so
I guess, but there's thought behind the practice. I've seen you and another guy stress customary law.
There's thought behind any practice. But there's no 'wrong way' to do law, any more than there's a 'wrong way' to do engineering. It all depends on who's doing it and for what end.
lol the only "wrong" way to do law, imo, is to make a bunch of laws and then never enforce them.
Not sure where I said anything about wrong ways of doing law, but legislation would be one. I've posted a paper on this numerous times, but neither of you two are here to learn anything so whatever.
Legislation and statuatory law tend to create chaos and promote conflicts rather than resolve them. But resolving disputes and creating order (while things I would like out of jurisprudence) are not automatically 'right' ways to do things. As I've said, it depends on who is doing it and what they get out of it. For some people (especially those in command of a theological State) creating disorder and failing to protect property is precisely what they aim to get out of jurisprudence. The reason for this difference is that jurisprudence reflects the interests of those involved in creating it, in a customary legal system it is the disputant parties and those affected by their externalities; in a statuatory legal system it is the State elite whose interest and views it promotes.
But just because you don't like this arrangment doesn't mean they are doing it wrong, any more than an engineer is doing his job 'wrong' because he designs a bomb that will be used to kill you.