A tautology merely restates what has been said, and is usually the product of an analysis of the terms in a definition (e.g. all bachelors are unmarried men.) He's referring to the very foundations of knowledge.
-Jon
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Fear not, Geoffrey! As far as the meaning of mathematics is concerned this question belongs to the topic of the philosophy of mathematics. Seemingly Len embraces the school of thought called formalism, which widespread and respected but by no means dominant. Rumor has it that between half and two thirds of mathematicians are platonists, about one third formalists, about one tenth constructivists or intuitionists. I think formalists are yet to prove why math is more than mere mental masturbation, and yet to account for [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unreasonable_Effectiveness_of_Mathematics_in_the_Natural_Sciences]this[/url.]
Ah yes, Hoppe invokes a lot of constructivists (e.g. Paul Lorenzen) in his epistemological works. I was reading through them today. I hadn't made much note of the references in the past, but I think it merits further investigation, especially since I recently covered modal logic on my Logic course. I have a hard time figuring out where Aristotelian logic fits in with all of this.
Ego: There doesn't need to be a God or karma for the idea of "wrong" to exist; logical, rational human beings can make that judgement.
There doesn't need to be a God or karma for the idea of "wrong" to exist; logical, rational human beings can make that judgement.
And by what reasoning is someone's rational judgment perhapse greater/better than anothers?
What exactly are you asking? Are you asking how do one know whether one person is more reasonable than another? I could ask you that!
Don't allow leftists to play games with definitions! Some of the libertarian-leaning leftists at this forum will try to redefine "left-wing" back to its original defition (Third Estate, limited government, free-markets, laissez-faire reforms, etc.). Fine! We non-leftists can't stop them from using their own personal definitions; they can use whatever labels they want to describe any concept they want.However, they have the audacity to then use their personal definition of "left-wing" (remember, the original definition, which is no longer valid) to prove that modern leftists are more libertarian than modern rightists! They will say that libertarianism is "inherently leftist" (again, using the original, no longer valid definition), and use that to insist that we should prefer and side with modern leftists over modern rightists.
Question their motives.
How is what he said tautologous?
Ego: What exactly are you asking? Are you asking how do one know whether one person is more reasonable than another? I could ask you that!
By what justification do you have in dictating one person's unreasonableness over another? How can you say one person is wrong in the absense of some infinite entity dictating what is naturally right and wrong? Or are you saying that someone is wrong in your eyes and not necessairily anothers? That their actions are not wrong objectively, but are merely wrong based on your subjective premise?
I remember those references too, but I was not impressed by their work however interesting. Would Hoppe really reject exluded middle? lol I cannot, so I support Aristotelian logic. I also do not totally get the difference between formalists and logicists.
The problem of who is right and who is wrong exists no matter what; my point is simply that there doesn't need to be a God (or karma) for individuals to determine what's right and wrong; in fact, we'll still need to do that no matter what!
Ah, I see now. Anyway. nearly every "refutation" of the law of the excluded middle I've seen has been horribly sloppy quasi-philosophical confusion as opposed to sound argument, that drops the context.
scineram:It was not, I disproved him. What he said do not exist are called tautologies.
You're slightly off there: I discussed proof. A tautology is not proven. It is inherently true because it includes a statement of the form "A or not A" or other statement that can never be false by the rules of logic itself. More importantly, tautologies are never interesting. In particular, you cannot set up the nonaggression axiom as a tautology.
Tautologies can be rhetorically fun for trapping the weak-minded though. For example, my usual style of discourse is to open with a tautology of the form "A or not A," and then present (subjective) arguments against "not A," leading one to realize, hopefully, that one must either take A as an axiom, or "not A."
It's a good tight beginning place, but the weak-minded always end up disputing the statement "A or not A" itself, which marks them as complete idiots. (The especially amusing ones are the suckers who argue that "A or not A" is a false dichotomy. It is, of course, the very definition of a true dichotomy.)
--Len
Ego:The problem of who is right and who is wrong exists no matter what...
OK, then you've just conceded that right and wrong are not objective absolutes. Two people disagree whether X is wrong, and there's no resolving it, because "the problem of who is right and who is wrong exists no matter what." I quite agree! That's what makes the NAP an axiom: Libertarians assume it, but can't escape the fact that others reject it. There's no absolutely objective way to make everyone accept it, unless we can construct an experimental process for measuring "wrongness."
my point is simply that there doesn't need to be a God (or karma) for individuals to determine what's right and wrong
Right. But there does need to be a God, or karma, for right and wrong to be objective absolutes. Without God, or karma, morality is nothing more than my word against yours.
Jon Irenicus:I have a hard time figuring out where Aristotelian logic fits in with all of this.
It's just the framework; the ground rules. Aristotelian logic is what forbids us to say, "X is true, but it's also false." It forbids us to say, "X or Y is true, but in fact both are false." It prevents us from ever doubting that "A or not A" is true, and it prevents us from ever believing that "A and not A" can ever be true.
Complying with the rules of logic is not sufficient to build a morality, but it is necessary. Any argument that breaks the rules of logic is invalid and self-contradictory. Sometimes I'll describe such arguments more loosely as idiotic, or retarded, or stupid. By that I simply mean that they involve assumptions like "A and not A."
That's what makes the NAP an axiom: Libertarians assume it, but can't escape the fact that others reject it. There's no absolutely objective way to make everyone accept it
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Juan: That's what makes the NAP an axiom: Libertarians assume it, but can't escape the fact that others reject it. There's no absolutely objective way to make everyone accept it An axiom can't be meaningfully denied...
That's just wildly false. All sorts of axioms can meaningfully be denied. "Can't be meaningfully denied" is no part of the definition of "axiom."
You can't deny that you "own yourself" (so to speak) without contradiction.
That's Hoppe's argument, but it's flawed. That I argue proves that I "own" myself enough to offer an argument, but Hoppe's notion of self-ownership critically depends on ownership entailing exclusive use. Arguing proves that I have some use of my body, but doesn't remotely begin to prove that I have exclusive use of my body. The flaw is an equivocation on two meanings of "ownership." In other words, he fails to exclude notions such as joint ownership, or part-time ownership, or non-exclusive ownership.
His argument is marvelously convincing, though, because everyone believes that he owns his own body. So it's extremely easy to convince people to assume that as a given.
Is that why you rely on the other argument he uses for self-ownership (the one involving direct use over one's body to attain indirect control over another's, thereby implicitly assuming the right to directly control one's own body whilst denying it to another)?
Jon Irenicus:Is that why you rely on the other argument he uses for self-ownership (the one involving direct use over one's body to attain indirect control over another's, thereby implicitly assuming the right to directly control one's own body whilst denying it to another)?
Either one is great for convincing. Neither one is sufficient as proof. This argument, like the first, fails to exclude partial ownership. It convincingly argues that I use my body to control others, but fails to prove that still others can't, in turn use their bodies to control mine. Actual proof is impossible: you can't set up self-ownership as a tautology; and you can't prove it without assuming something, which simply moves the goal-post by requiring you to "prove" whatever you assumed.
Len: Juan: You can't deny that you "own yourself" (so to speak) without contradiction. That's Hoppe's argument, but it's flawed.
Juan: You can't deny that you "own yourself" (so to speak) without contradiction.
That I argue proves that I "own" myself enough to offer an argument, but Hoppe's notion of self-ownership critically depends on ownership entailing exclusive use
Juan:It is self-ownership plain and simple - it's a fact - and facts don't need to be proved.
That's an utterly perfect example of circular reasoning: it's true because it's true. If you had said, "It's true because it's true, dammit," that would have been "proof by emphatic assertion."
But the simple fact is that many people, probably a majority, believe that humans are NOT self-owners, and they'd answer your assertion with an equally invalid circular argument of their own: it's not true because it's not true (dammit). Instead, they will say, "We belong to each other," and the main consequence of their assumption is that we have certain positive obligations toward others, such as providing food, clothing and shelter to anyone who needs it.
Self-ownership is something you believe, and lots and lots of people don't believe. Pounding the table and saying how truly truly true it is will not change their minds. It's fundamentally impossible to change their minds, if they insist on rejecting your assertion.
Len: Juan: It is self-ownership plain and simple - it's a fact - and facts don't need to be proved. That's an utterly perfect example of circular reasoning:
Juan: It is self-ownership plain and simple - it's a fact - and facts don't need to be proved.
Juan:It is not circular reasoning - you really don't get it. If I say, a la Descartes, "I think" I'm merely stating a fact.
Juan: I own myself. That's simply a statement of fact.Marx: No, you don't. And THAT is simply stating a fact.Juan: Do!Marx: Do not!Juan: Do!Marx: Do not!Juan: You're just wrong!Marx: YOU'RE just wrong!(repeat forever)
I don't need to prove that I exist because it is something that can't be meaningfully denied.
You're just a figment of my imagination, and I imagine yourself pitifully insisting on your own existence. Even claiming to think, of all things! You neither think nor are; I merely imagine you claiming those things.
It is not possible to construct a political theory that 'proves' 'logically' that A has the 'right' to coerce B.
That's correct. NOR is it possible to construct a political theory that proves logically that A has NOT the right. I do like to force the aggressor to prove he has the right, because it puts the burden of proof where it belongs and shifts the benefit of the doubt to my advantage. If the aggressor decides to shoot me, instead of playing patty-cake all day to convince me of things, then I lose.
Unless you claim that some people are naturally born slaves, that might makes right, or something alone those lines.
I don't. Many do.
Your claim that self-ownership is not real...
No, I claim it's not provable. And you may rest assured, it isn't.
People can say all sort of wrong things - that proves nothing.
That's right. Your claim to own yourself, and their claim that you don't, are equally worthless. Neither can be proven.
On the other hand, if you bother to study how people act, you might conclude they indeed are self-owners.
I'm afraid you lose on that front as well: many people act as if they own themselves and others; many more people--practically all people in fact--act as slaves. They obey as if they have no choice, and believe they have no choice. Which is precisely the case that Hoppe fails to exclude: that people are only part-owners of themselves. Their masters are 51% partners.
Len: Juan: I don't need to prove that I exist because it is something that can't be meaningfully denied. You're just a figment of my imagination, and I imagine yourself pitifully insisting on your own existence.
Juan: I don't need to prove that I exist because it is something that can't be meaningfully denied.
Len: Juan: Your claim that self-ownership is not real... No, I claim it's not provable. And you may rest assured, it isn't.
Juan: Your claim that self-ownership is not real...
Juan: Len: Juan: I don't need to prove that I exist because it is something that can't be meaningfully denied. You're just a figment of my imagination, and I imagine yourself pitifully insisting on your own existence. Yes, that's the kind of nonsense you need to resort to - or perhaps you believe that the universe is an illusion created by your mind. In either case, we are wasting our time...Or you are.
You are deeply confused. Descartes said "cogito, ergo sum," precisely because he DID want to prove that he actually exists. In other words, to prove that life, or his own existence, isn't all a great delusion. What you're dismissing as a "waste of time" is precisely what Descartes was seriously worried about.
What I'm pointing out is that his argument is enough for ME to prove TO MYSELF that I exist. It is NOT enough to prove to anyone ELSE that I exist; nor is it enough to prove to ME that anyone ELSE exists. The reason is that I know that I myself think, and can reasonably deduce that I must therefore exist. I do not know that you think; all I know is that I think I hear you claiming it--which isn't nearly enough to prove that you think, let alone that you exist.
Descartes' argument is ingenious, but it is not tautological, it is not "a plain and simple fact," and it does not prove nearly as much as you think it does. It doesn't prove that the universe is real, nor that anyone other than myself actually exists.
facts don't need to be proven
Here, too, you're deeply confused. That you think something is a fact certainly doesn't make it one. You are confusing reality itself with assertions about reality. Reality doesn't "need to be proven," because it just is. It might be very different than anyone thinks, though--so any assertion about reality must be proven. For example, whether or not God exists is a fact. Whichever happens to be true, IS true, even if everyone in the universe believes differently. But my assertion that God does (or does not) exist does require proof.
Even to begin classifying self-ownership (or any right) as a fact is beyond laughable: a right is an abstraction, which means it exists only in minds. A universe devoid of sentient creatures would also be devoid of rights. To call something that only exists in minds objective truth is really, really effed up.
As I pointed out to your infinite superior, Irenicus, if right and wrong have objective existence, then they can be measured experimentally.
Len Budney:That's Hoppe's argument, but it's flawed. That I argue proves that I "own" myself enough to offer an argument, but Hoppe's notion of self-ownership critically depends on ownership entailing exclusive use. Arguing proves that I have some use of my body, but doesn't remotely begin to prove that I have exclusive use of my body. The flaw is an equivocation on two meanings of "ownership." In other words, he fails to exclude notions such as joint ownership, or part-time ownership, or non-exclusive ownership.
Actually he does consider all other forms of ownership as being non-universal, that is to say they would result in mass extinction if applied as a universal ethic.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Stranger:Actually he does consider all other forms of ownership as being non-universal, that is to say they would result in mass extinction if applied as a universal ethic.
That argument also fails. He uses a reductio ad absurdam inappropriately, because it results in a false choice. For example, he considers the case that "everybody" owns my body, and I must seek a referendum on every move I make--which does produce the paradox that I can't seek a referendum without first getting permission to, via referendum...
But that's obviously not the only alternative to exclusive self-ownership. Positive obligations are all examples of non-self-ownership: they imply that in certain cases, I am required to use my body in a certain way regardless of my own wishes in the matter. Proving exclusive self-ownership is equivalent to proving that no positive obligations exist, and such can't be proven.
Well, one wouldn't even be able to ask permission from one's co-owners without full ownership over himself. He'd have to ask them permission to ask them permission etc. It's a ridiculous notion.
Len, I was under the impression you were staunchly convinced by Hoppe - so do you really think your entire position is groundless then, a matter of willingness to enforce your right over yourself? Not even contractarians take it that far.
Len Budney: But that's obviously not the only alternative to exclusive self-ownership.
But that's obviously not the only alternative to exclusive self-ownership.
It is the only universal alternative.
Len Budney:Juan: I own myself. That's simply a statement of fact.Marx: No, you don't. And THAT is simply stating a fact.Juan: Do!Marx: Do not!Juan: Do!Marx: Do not!Juan: You're just wrong!Marx: YOU'RE just wrong!(repeat forever)
Jon Irenicus:Well, one wouldn't even be able to ask permission from one's co-owners without full ownership over himself. He'd have to ask them permission to ask them permission etc. It's a ridiculous notion.
But that's patently untrue. All you need is the ability to ask, which is considerably less than full ownership. Further, a viable model of part-ownership is one in which you can do anything you wish unless instructed otherwise by other part-owners.
Jon Irenicus:Len, I was under the impression you were staunchly convinced by Hoppe - so do you really think your entire position is groundless then
I didn't say groundless. I said it can't be proven, which it can't. That doesn't make it false. "Provable" is not a synonym for "true," even though mathematicians usually pretend it is. For two people who agree which axioms to use, provable essentially becomes a synonym for true--which is pretty much always the case for mathematicians.
Morality, like any other intellectual construct, has basic assumptions. They can't be proven logically, because that's the nature of basic assumptions. They also can't be proven empirically, because doing so would require agreement in advance what criteria should be used, and agreement won't be had for precisely the same reason that people can't agree on their moral assumptions. Convincing arguments can be made, but only to the extent that the participants do share common assumptions--since "convincingness" is just a measure of agreement on the premises.
a matter of willingness to enforce your right over yourself? Not even contractarians take it that far.
Pretty much everyone thinks there's a self-evident, objective morality out there waiting to be discovered. And, wonder of wonders, they all think it matches their own preferred morality.
It's a kind of superstition: a belief that murderers, say, are just plain bad, where they haven't the faintest idea what that means. It doesn't mean that bees are more likely to sting them; it doesn't mean that they're always caught and punished; it doesn't mean that they have more lower-back pain; it doesn't mean that they live shorter lives; it doesn't mean that they emit gamma radiation... In the case of sociopaths, it doesn't even mean that they suffer pangs of conscience. In no objective sense is a murderer different than anyone else. In our minds the murderer is painted black. We really, truly believe it. But it's not true: an objective test will never be invented that can distinguish murderers from non-murderers. If it could, we could also dispense with jury trials, which are extremely error-prone.
The bottom line is that folks who declare a certain moral principle a "fact," are doing nothing more nor less than expressing a deep personal conviction.
Stranger: Len Budney:But that's obviously not the only alternative to exclusive self-ownership. It is the only universal alternative.
Len Budney:But that's obviously not the only alternative to exclusive self-ownership.
Which makes a d*mn bit of difference because...? Because universal moral rules are better than non-universal ones? Says you! That's just an assumption you choose to make, that most people don't.
scineram:John: (A and not A) is possible. Not a contradiction.Len: It is a contradiction.
You keep injecting tautologies as if they're interesting. They're not. You can't set up any interesting proposition, notably any moral proposition, as a tautology. Any proof that contains a tautology can be rewritten without the tautology. Tautologies, like paradoxes, are logical curiosities with no relevance to this discussion.
Len Budney: Stranger: Len Budney:But that's obviously not the only alternative to exclusive self-ownership. It is the only universal alternative. Which makes a d*mn bit of difference because...? Because universal moral rules are better than non-universal ones? Says you! That's just an assumption you choose to make, that most people don't. --Len
That is a convention of ethics.
How does such a system get off the ground without falling into contradictions? Why assume all one has ownership over is the ability to ask? Why not just say everyone has x% of ownership over every aspect of him? In which case, asking too would be a matter of getting permission.
Jon Irenicus: But that's patently untrue. All you need is the ability to ask, which is considerably less than full ownership. Further, a viable model of part-ownership is one in which you can do anything you wish unless instructed otherwise by other part-owners. How does such a system get off the ground without falling into contradictions? Why assume all one has ownership over is the ability to ask? Why not just say everyone has x% of ownership over every aspect of him? In which case, asking too would be a matter of getting permission.
It's better to take the least absurd concept of part-ownership: that we own ourselves except that we're bound to obey certain positive obligations. It's got nothing to do with "getting permission" at all. It just means that in certain situations, positive obligations kick in and we're forced to take certain actions regardless of our wishes in the matter. More or less everyone on earth believes that there are some positive obligations. An obligation to save your biological offspring from any danger that threatens them, for example.
Len Budney: It's better to take the least absurd concept of part-ownership: that we own ourselves except that we're bound to obey certain positive obligations. It's got nothing to do with "getting permission" at all. It just means that in certain situations, positive obligations kick in and we're forced to take certain actions regardless of our wishes in the matter. More or less everyone on earth believes that there are some positive obligations. An obligation to save your biological offspring from any danger that threatens them, for example.
That is not a problem of social relations.
Stranger: Len Budney: Stranger: Len Budney:But that's obviously not the only alternative to exclusive self-ownership. It is the only universal alternative. Which makes a d*mn bit of difference because...? Because universal moral rules are better than non-universal ones? Says you! That's just an assumption you choose to make, that most people don't. That is a convention of ethics.
Len Budney: Stranger: Len Budney:But that's obviously not the only alternative to exclusive self-ownership. It is the only universal alternative. Which makes a d*mn bit of difference because...? Because universal moral rules are better than non-universal ones? Says you! That's just an assumption you choose to make, that most people don't.
Here "convention" means precisely that it's an assumption. Appealing to "convention" certainly indicates that you realize it can't be proven.
Stranger:That is not a problem of social relations.
Stay on target. Any positive obligation contradicts self-ownership. More or less all humans on the planet assume the existence of at least one positive obligation. In so doing, they postulate a morality without self-ownership--and it doesn't involve putting one's every decision to a vote.