1) Argumentation ethics can not stand up to Stirnerite egoistic dialects
- Argumentation ignores context, perspective, expectations - while radically overestimates "rational conversation", which is nothing more than one fraction of something in a fraction of time in a complex stew.
2) Argumentations ethics suppose some "rationalization" or "abstraction" that simply are irrelevant from the imperative to act.
3) Dialectics are an anti-psychologism /" anti- language idealization" method that describ the imperatives of the process of action. This is done by showing the acting agent what his actions are, not proving
4) The adoption of an amoral dialectial egoistic materialism methodological approach will show the "deus ex machina" of every psychologism and every "rational" subsidy which functions as a Platonic "fixed idea" that is in place and start to shake at it's foundation any "macro-economic entity" that social scientists take for granted
5) The adoption of such a dialectic will also show what the imperative to act socially actually means. The consequences of actions will aligne much more with the rule consequentialism, what you see when you look out the window, and "amoralness" of actions which align with a more post-modernist Kantian framwork as proposed by Mises and the subjectivism that Menger and all other German "subjectivists" worked so hard to defend.
6) It will also show the meaning of actual radical subjectivism in a much more clear light, putting uniquness and functioning at "the margins of equilibrium / averagness" in a much more clear and un-ignorable context.. It may even go one step further in saying that paying attention to "standards", or conformity (such as obeying a stupid argument because the words were "right" at a given point in time) is a type of suicide and not "good" for any society that wishes to survive.
7) Austrian Economics is not English Newtonian mechanics which produce fire crackers, it is Germanic Einstenian relativity which produces Atomic Bombs. Atomistic not Mechanic
"I am owner of my might, and I am so when I know myself as unique. In the unique one the owner himself returns into his creative nothing, of which he is born. Every higher essence... weakens the feeling of my uniqueness, and pales only before the sun of this consciousness. If I concern myself for myself, the unique one, then my concern rests on its transitory, mortal creator, who consumes himself, and I may say:
All things are nothing to me."
-Max Stirner, Der Einzige und Sein Eigentum
-
"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann
"When A Man Dies A World Goes Out of Existence" - GLS Shackle
Amendment:
Egoism used this way probably works better as "perpectives and uniquness" rather than some Randian or other crude ways the word could be used
I think you used a lot of words here without telling us what any of them mean. You can't bring concepts to an argument assuming everyone knows precisely what they mean. A lot of this seems like purely stylistic aphorism, rather than a coherent set of arguments. Unless this is a parody and you want to use arguments without the expectation that they are 'true' or 'false', given your opposition to argumentation. In which case you could have said anything you want, or better yet nothing at all. And it would be all the same. Your last statement has no meaning whatsoever.
(Newton's theory had nothing to do with firecrackers, which were invented in China. And relativity was irrevelavant to the Atomic Bomb, except to describe the amount of energy used. And Einstein's only statement about the bomb was to write the president telling him not to use it. So he saw the potential and that it was disasterous. Ergo, the analogy is not a good one. It would be like if Mises saw the implications of his ideas and completely opposed the free market). Also, your adjectives 'English' and 'Germanic' are meaningless. You might as well say Christian and Jewish science, ala Hitlerian Deutsch Physik. This is odd for someone promoting egoism.
I think you used a lot of words here without telling us what any of them mean.
Obviously - a real argument would obviously take a lot of work, and would be not suitable for a forum. This is at best, just points to bring up to anyone who can follow my train of thought.
This is in the same vein as a similar post I used earlier, I guess I forgot to stipulate that. It's sort of live "notes to self".
You can't bring concepts to an argument assuming everyone knows precisely what they mean
Yes I can. I do it everday in conversation. I am not defending anything I am writing down. I am using them as starting points. If you can not start where I began, don't enter the conversation. Once again, I forgot to stipulate this was part of a thread I did earlier, and these numbers are not a train of argumentation, just 6 points I find that I want to think about.
Newton's theory had nothing to do with firecrackers, which were invented in China.... 'English' and 'Germanic' are meaningless
If you honestly thought # 7 was an argument or premise, seriously, dude...don't be such a nerd. If you don't like the picture painted there is no need to drink haterade, just look at another picture. There is nothing to analyize in that comment, chill
EDIT:
the internet has no "tone", my last remark about point 7 was not "snide" - it was in good humor - sorry if that looks offensive
At the risk of being called a nerd by Vive, I have a couple of questions:
1) Argumentation ethics can not stand up to Stirnerite egoistic dialects - Argumentation ignores context, perspective, expectations - while radically overestimates "rational conversation", which is nothing more than one fraction of something in a fraction of time in a complex stew.
I thought the point of AE was to demonstrate that argumentation is the alternative to violence, and that certain arguments run counter to the point of argumentation. If I were to say that "if you do not resolve our dispute in a manner that I like, then I will resort to violence", that would not go against AE as I understand it. But if I were to say that "there is no such thing as self-ownership", then I would be speaking nonsense, as by speaking I am demonstrating self-ownership.
So, my question regarding this part is, in what way do you see AE ignoring context, perspective, and expectations?
Could you explain what you mean? As I understand it, the point of AE is to demonstrate that many statements people make while arguing are nonsense, and that there are certain concepts we can derive from the act of arguing.
That's all.
At the risk of being called a nerd by Vive
I made an edit on that comment, it came off a bit harsher than I thought (it was supposed to be a light joke) - sorry if that looked brutish
I thought the point of AE was to demonstrate that argumentation is the alternative to violence
(I am assuming AE is Arg Ethics and not Aus Econ) My point is that it can do no such thing, it's a hyper formalized highly "rationalistic"train of thought - it doesn'tstand up to always going ever changing action. If one is to look at all things as unique actions, and one is making the action of argument, it holds no ground to every other action that is occuring.
The argumenthas no bearing on my being. Austrian Economics however, does clearly show the consequences and of social action and the fruits it brings - Arg Ethics does not.
As I understand it, the point of AE is to demonstrate that many statements people make while arguing are nonsense,
What if it's important nonsense?
Also, at the crux of this, and what I was tring to illustrate - and this is what I don't want to get into - simply because it would take forever:
Dialectic vs Argument.
I think someone else on this thread (Adrianne Healy) is bringing up Husserlian phenomonology - which is a breath of fresh air. There an actual papaer with an actual argument is written unlike my rambling thoughts. If you want a link (seriousl though just look at the 1st or 2nd page of the discussion forum) I'll link it
I was just teasing you
All things may be unique actions, but they can be categorized. Two such categories can be violent action and nonviolent action. The act of arguing falls into the latter category. As I understand it, according to Hoppe, if one is to argue, then one has decided not to pursue violent action for the duration of the argument. If one has decided to argue, then there are certain norms that develop and that people follow. Stating that one does not wish to follow these norms is a perfomative contradiction, as you are using the act of arguing to state you do not wish to argue. So that leaves people with two choices, to argue or not to argue.
Well I'm not so sure that can happen. One can state that the rules of argumentation are wrong and should not be followed, but this can never be stated in an actual argument, because to do so would be a performative contradiction. At best, one could make this statement outside of an argument, such as in a speech or while beating someone up. But it could never be debated because to do so would to be engaging in argument, which the speaker is claiming he should not be doing.
This quote by Avicenna is somewhat relevant:
Those who deny the first principle should be flogged or burned until they admit that it is not the same thing to be burned and not burned, or whipped and not whipped.
Since I'm lazy,
if you want to look and discuss something in a more formal light, I suggest we use this thread as a starting point as this is a position I am much more sympathetic to:
http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/20492.aspx
"Yes I can. I do it everday in conversation. I am not defending anything I am writing down. I am using them as starting points. If you can not start where I began, don't enter the conversation"
Granted you can bring some concepts such as 'cat' or 'dog', but it seems you are bringing a lot of jargon simply to muddy the waters. I am not asking for more complicated or formal theories, but only to understand something more clearly and simply.
Anyway, it seems to contradict anti-AE if you:
1) Have an argument and believe it is more correct than another, namely your point of view contra AE. Which assumes your self-ownership, opposition to violence, and that arguments can be valid.
2) Believe that is correct, and thus moral, to change behavior according to said argumentation. Namely to adopt your views. And that it is incorrect, and thus immoral, not to do such a thing.
yes there is a lot of jargon used on this thread, as well as aphorisms that is why is simply a very difficult thread to cut through if you can't see what I'm trying to say. This whole thing is just me trying to "dehomogenize" my thoughts. That said I am trying to put up sign posts, etc with such jargon to try and paint a picture as best I can.
The jargon is not to muddy the waters it is to seperate wheat from chaff to help me use this as a better sounding board