I'm starting to understand why Leo Strauss thought the way he did. Look around at society and ask yourself if all it cares about is wealth, sex, and entertainment. The vast majority of people (at least in the US) will not drag themselves out of their world of wealth, sex, and entertainment until they face death. Fear of dying (or at least the fear of no longer being able to live in that world) is the only thing that will draw people into politics. It is no wonder that the neoconservatives want to instill some kind of virtue into people. And it is no wonder why they are willing to lie to people. People are stupid. That is why they can be lied to. Ironically, it is also _why people lie;_ the vulgar masses that is. this is why Plato said that people are not really suited for liberty. it is only the Nietzsche's, the Plato's, and the Goethe's that are deserving of liberty. All liberty means to the vulgar is wealth, sex, and entertainment. Now, there is definitely a nuance in Plato's conception of the noble lie and the Straussian noble lie, but nevertheless it is a nuance that the vulgar won't catch. Why do we bother with liberty for everyone? Why do we care about what the vulgar want? If saving your life meant giving up anyone of the three tenets of vulgar life do you think that you'd be saved? Do you think that liberal democracy cares?
I always figured you were an elitist at heart. Thanks for taking the mask off some more.
With that said, what's wrong with caring about wealth, sex, and entertainment?
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
All liberty means to the vulgar is wealth, sex, and entertainment
And? It seems like all we care about is rambling on internet forums. Perhaps you'll want to claim that we're interested in fine art, or something, but I'm not really sure that there is some radical difference between this and what you criticize.
Idk too much about Strauss but I did hear that he thought Plato's political ideas were satire. If that's true, then what should we think of the "noble lie"? Is that a statement of how things are, should be, or both?
But even taking your interpretation of Strauss ( which for all I know, is the right one) for granted, I think there is a subtle sense in which the noble lie implies that people are smarter than a straussian philosopher-king would credit. The idea of the philosopher king needing to lie in order to get his ideas accepted by the people, is like saying "I'm king of my castle, and my wife is the mere peasant. Now, if only I could find a way to sneak my bowling shoes out before my wife comes home." ; If the people were really so dumb, then why would you need to lie to them in order to advance your position? Isn't the mind that can process an elaborate lie, also process a truth?
I always figured you were an elitist at heart. Thanks for taking the mask off some more. With that said, what's wrong with caring about wealth, sex, and entertainment?
What's wrong with being an elitist that both one has to mask it and others seem to need to take off that mask if it is being worn?
you are damn right I am an elitist, auto. I'll gladly say that I matter more than the people who live and breath sports statistics. Permenance is what is important in philosophy. Sport Stats don't matter immediately after they are finished collecting them every season.
Wheylous, the problem is that people not caring about anything but themselves is that the world becomes base.
Here is an interview with an anti-Straussian Straussian: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5010.htm
If the people were really so dumb, then why would you need to lie to them in order to advance your position?
Because they are not worthy of the unadaulterated truth. They don't appreciate it. And when everyone knows (we're all familiar with economics here) it's value is diminished. let them fumble over their Gods that scare them into their behavior patterns.
Isn't the mind that can process an elaborate lie, also process a truth?
This misses the point. the Platonic noble lie conceals a truth (esoteric vs exoteric) at its core. It is not about politics, but philosophy (the truth of reality). Strauss and his ilk aren't really concerned with truth in the same capacity as Plato. They exploit people's fear of God in order to goad them into somekind of democratic political action. but democracy is base. The masses don't know anything about geopolitics or macroeconomics. So, why must they be the ones that get to deal with those problems? the Straussians believe that the truth of politics is that the natural order is not of egalitarian freedom, but of subjection. the masses minds aren't meant for freedom. Instead, they are meant for subjection. In the interview posted above it is compared to the greek Gods playing tricks on mortals for their own enjoyment. Simliar to Nietzche's aesthetic justifcation for the world.
Also, Plato's politics is not satire. he is simply, according to Strauss, not speaking through Socrates (in bk I).
Auto, you won't be able to look past the elitsit thing to even comprehend what I am saying here. That is why the vulgar shouldn't be allowed to "rule" in politics. The diminishment of the human mind is not what I want them to do, but something I don't want them to do. now I'm going to go riot over a basketball game that my team won.
fakename:Idk too much about Strauss but I did hear that he thought Plato's political ideas were satire. If that's true, then what should we think of the "noble lie"? Is that a statement of how things are, should be, or both? But even taking your interpretation of Strauss ( which for all I know, is the right one) for granted, I think there is a subtle sense in which the noble lie implies that people are smarter than a straussian philosopher-king would credit. The idea of the philosopher king needing to lie in order to get his ideas accepted by the people, is like saying "I'm king of my castle, and my wife is the mere peasant. Now, if only I could find a way to sneak my bowling shoes out before my wife comes home." ; If the people were really so dumb, then why would you need to lie to them in order to advance your position? Isn't the mind that can process an elaborate lie, also process a truth?
That just goes to show you that "people are stupid" often really means "people are unwilling to do what I want them to do".
Aristophanes:you are damn right I am an elitist, auto. I'll gladly say that I matter more than the people who live and breath sports statistics.
I appreciate your honesty (really). Now please prove that you matter more than the people who live and breathe sports statistics - or else admit that that's really just your own opinion that no one else is obligated to share.
fakename:What's wrong with being an elitist that both one has to mask it and others seem to need to take off that mask if it is being worn?
I'm not sure what you're asking here, sorry. Could you please clarify?
So you're a Zionist now, finally.
My humble blog
It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer
I'll just refer you to Nietzsche,
So your a Zionist now, finally.
One, your syntax is incorrect. Two, TAKE THAT BACK. hah
Aristophanes:I'll just refer you to Nietzsche,
I don't accept that as an answer. Try again.
Even if we accept everything that you say about the current state of human society as true:
1. What should people be striving for?
2. Why should we give some the right to control others when those who are in control are equally likely to be just as, if not more vulgar? Indeed a look at the history of most aristocracy would indeed show that what they really care most about include: war, sex, entertainment, wealth, power, and sometimes god. This doesn't seem like that much of an improvement.
3. Since you admit that there are those who do deserve liberty, then why should tyranny be the proposed alternative when this would infringe upon the liberty of those who do deserve liberty?
I have a similarly negative view of the common man, even though I think that I have a slightly different idea of his values and how he spends his time.
Edit
Also, I love Nietzsche as a philosopher, but I find it exceedingly odd that you count him among the sort of person who deserved liberty, because in his personal life he really wasn't. He chased after a girl that ended up breaking his heart for several years, started self-medicating after taking a basic first aid course, and ended up going insane after a mental breakdown while trying to protect a horse. Other than that he lived as a professor, but in his personal life he seems less than deserving, and certainly less than someone who had achieved true happiness.
Truth, whatever it is.
2. Why should we give some the right to control others when those who are in control are equally likely to be just as, if not more vulgar?
Because that is the natural order of things. And yes, who is truly at the top is a question simply for those who think about it. I am not necessarily advocating a political elite, but a human elite.
Again, Nietzsche answers this. those that are deserving of it should not be bound by the morals that society constructs (he refers, as do I) to artists not politicians. We are all works of art. Some are simply better than others. thoughts are what matter.
Most philosophers that are not moralists do.
Some punctuation would help: What's wrong with being an elitist that both, one has to mask it and others seem to need to take off that mask, if it is being worn?
"Truth, whatever it is."
Why? Also, I agree with Nietzsche that truth is by no means the highest value. Indeed, why not rather untruth?
"Because that is the natural order of things. And yes, who is truly at the top is a question simply for those who think about it. I am not necessarily advocating a political elite, but a human elite."
But merely because it is natural does not mean that it is good. Indeed in the modern society some sort of democracy may indeed be seen as the natural order. How exactly would this "human elite" come about? What do you mean by the first sentence? Are you saying that the people who really benefit the system might not be at the top of the pyramid?
"Again, Nietzsche answers this. those that are deserving of it should not be bound by the morals that society constructs (he refers, as do I) to artists not politicians. We are all works of art. Some are simply better than others. thoughts are what matter."
Although I think that you phrased this awkwardly, I'm actually of a similar turn of mind in principle, but how would you ever enforce such a rule? Indeed Nietzsche's problem is that he never does answer this. Those who follow the child's ethic, the free spirits, those who are truly most valuable because they are sources of value all deserve to be free, yet in the free society they are and they can perfectly well break away from conventional morality. It is in the society with tyranny and political rule that the big headed bunch who hold political power can force their will on the true societal elites. How do you design a system where only the people who should get liberty are the ones that do get liberty?
Aristophanes, I'm still waiting for you to prove to me that you matter more than the people who live and breathe sports statistics, but in the meantime, I'll note that this notion presumes that value is objective, which conflicts with the notion of subjective value.
fakename:Some punctuation would help: What's wrong with being an elitist that both, one has to mask it and others seem to need to take off that mask, if it is being worn?
I'm sorry but the added punctuation doesn't make it clearer to me.
I'll note that this notion presumes that value is objective, which conflicts with the notion of subjective value.
Which is why i referred you to Nietzsche; you simply would not understand. You get too hung up on the embracing of 'unequal' as the natural state of humans. I don't need to justify it because it cannot be justified. [But somehow I am held to the ethic of the crowd, which also cannot be justified. 0_o Justify that.]
Why do we bother with liberty for everyone? Why do we care about what the vulgar want?
Because if you're thinking about things sociologically you have to, it's your job. Or at least when you say something like "liberty for everyone": that ends up as some type of conclusion to a line of reasoning you think to be correct.
"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
haha, you get it. "Why?" indeed.
But merely because it is natural does not mean that it is good. Indeed in the modern society some sort of democracy may indeed be seen as the natural order.
"the good" is just as questionable as "the truth." Democracy, in political terms, certainly cannot be the case. If people can simply be tricked into voting for something (again, this is evident of the US) they are not at the top of the pecking order. They strive for "equality" - as does Autolykos. Auto wants to think that we are all equal and that no one is better than anyone else simply because there is no objective ethic. Some people simply know better. the non-existence of objective ethics does not logically imply equality and it does not preclude the opposite. however, we can prove neither.
How exactly would this "human elite" come about?
It doesn't come about. It already exists. T. Jefferson simply reffered to it as the 'natural aristocracy'; Robert Michaels the oligarchs of virtually any organization; Lenin's, "fewer better...but better."
What do you mean by the first sentence? Are you saying that the people who really benefit the system might not be at the top of the pyramid
Yes. The political system is itself a sham (everyone here knows this). The point I am trying to make is that the people who are capable of living outside of the system of morality imposed by our surroundings cannot...because of the political system. This is why I cannot support "libertarians" partaking in the political system.
How do you design a system where only the people who should get liberty are the ones that do get liberty?
I don't know. further, I am not of the persuasion that it is even possible. We just want out of it.
Why do we bother with liberty for everyone? Why do we care about what the vulgar want? Because if you're thinking about things sociologically you have to, it's your job. Or at least when you say something like "liberty for everyone": that ends up as some type of conclusion to a line of reasoning you think to be correct.
But, I am considering things from a philosophic point of view, not sociology.
@Smiling Dave.
I am aware that Strauss was a Zionist, but that aspect of his own unjustifiable moral position is not what I was referring to. I simply referred to the claims of elitism being natural. I don't support his carrying over into politics any of what he says. I simply find him to be a political Nietzsche (N was not political at all) and wanted to see how controversial it would be taken by the economic community of subjectivists.
"haha, you get it."
Oh trust me, it it's Nietzsche I probably have at least some grasp on it.
"Yes. The political system is itself a sham (everyone here knows this). The point I am trying to make is that the people who are capable of living outside of the system of morality imposed by our surroundings cannot...because of the political system. This is why I cannot support "libertarians" partaking in the political system."
This is what I don't understand about what you are advocating, and this seems to be the heart of the matter. Here you seem to say that because of politics those who are superior individuals (I'll just refer to them as free spirits) cannot escape the morality of society, yet here you are criticizing the only group that seeks to actually remove the forcible moral shackles of society in the first place.
"I don't know. further, I am not of the persuasion that it is even possible. We just want out of it."
Then what are you advocating exactly? And who is "we"?
Philosophy is a big subject and you're going to have to start qualifing a lot of terms:
being something of an anti - platonist, I'm not too keen on words in a void like "liberty", "Wealth", as things-in-themsleve so a lot of alarm bells start ringing in my head when I hear such words.
What philosophy category are you in ethics, aesthetic, ontology, how do you qualify these terms so the discussion can be productive?
If you're bringing up Strauss, Plato, and Nietzsche: even here the category is too broad, when they do use terms like "liberty" it gets used in various ways.
If you are in ethics: being the good little Stirner boy I am, I'll simply refuse the possibility of "caring about someone's liberty for the sake of liberty" - it's a silly notion - or even about caring to be "liberated for it's own sake". It's a means to an end, or of no meaning what so ever.
And a quick thought: I think it isn't good to think in stagnant terms when relating to actual things - the variables, actions, and actors are unique, not elite and herd, though there may very well be real institutional tensions. And the world is kaledescopic - deterministic inflexible models of unique actors is bound to get you into an odd mode of thinking.
Once you start applying broad sociological terms to a vague philosophic flavors, they are in danger of being platonified and losing any substance other than that of a critic. If Nietzchean categories are to exist: spledid beast, herd, master, slave - and they very well can, let's try to state how and why - what necessitates such categories.
EDIT
yet here you are criticizing the only group that seeks to actually remove the forcible moral shackles of society in the first place.
Well, I am only criticizing their attempts to use the States as a means to free the 'free spirits.' It seems to me that once that road is taken all of the philosophy becomes a giant contrqadiction. and not a good contradiction like the objective/subjective ethic.
In a way I am asking if there is a justification for anyone (I say us to refer to both free spirits (the ones who can think outside of morality) and the libertarians (who at the same time cannot think outside morality) to impose morality on anyone else. The point of the OP was just meant to be polemic as I figured most people would react like Auto did (I was wrong). The advocation is not there. I was asking if people should give a shit about people who care about base things. It would be like someone from the masses accusing someone else of being greedy then demanding that they be taxed so that the masses can benefit. Liberty is a way for us to escape the chains of vulgar morals.
What philosophic category are you in ethics, aesthetic, ontology, how do you qualify these terms so the discussion can be productive?
Let's go with aesthetics. Ethics is out, obviously (which means no NAP for politics). Ontology will just open the floor to those who want to construct counterfactuals. Aesthetics leaves us with the crux of Nietzsche; why can politics not be funny all the time? Humor comes from tragedy; tragedy from suffering; suffering from existence (simplified a bit for the thread). Why do I have to pretend like I am offended or surprised when politicians don't do what they say? It comes as no surprise to me - it is funny when people get upset by it. Further, why do I have to pretend to care about democracy when it acts against my will? (It is funny that people think that democracy has any kind of justificatory characteristic, but it seeks to punish me for thinking so) Democracy is just a way for people to equalize everyone which is to say bring the people who don't need it or politics down to the level of those who do (If we are all art, then why do we want a bunch of the same paintings and music?). Further, the Straussian doctrine of the unique being privileged over the masses seems to fit right into Neitzsche's thought (with the exception of politics, of course). So, the aesthetic quality of this dialogue is politics.
In other words, it seems to me, that the vulgar would need to justify why politics can rule over the unique. Why do (should) I care about them? Those that need politics (or religion for that matter) can have it. Why should we not just lie in politics? Just to see how screwed up we can make it? (This would throw a wrench into any conception of justice and derail any political system...
Once again - I would "deplatonize" and explode the concept of the Straussian unique - and show that there are an incalcuable number of these things shooting off at various times creating unintended consequences and byproducts along with various institutional tensions that arise - and questions like "why should I deal with X" all the sudden becomes "I am dealing with X in the form of asking the question".
There is no controlling these actors as things in themselves: there is only contextualizing and utilizing them according to your plan and orientation
And to use Stirner again (and probably Freud):
In so much as as you ought to "listen to X": I would say the fact is, you are not - you've created a "spook" and it somehow becomes something that tyranizes your own mind, it's a product and a figmant of the mind.
I care about the "vulgar" because if they aren't free, they aren't benefiting me as much as they can.
I only participate in society to get access to other people's minds and knowledg. (Machines will be able to take the place of most bodily tasks eventually). If other people aren't free, their ability to reason and acquire knowledge will be crippled, and thus their ability to produce goods I need and want will be crippled.
Maybe that is vulgar, but the way I see it is that I am going to die a horrible death no matter what, and I want to get as much out of life as possible. I am only 21 and sixty years of tyranny during my life and sixty years of freedom during my life will yield very different results.
And to use Stirner again (and probably Freud): In so much as as you ought to "listen to X": I would say the fact is, you are not - you've created a "spook" and it somehow becomes something that tyranizes your own mind, it's a product and a figmant of the mind.
I've not read Striner. But, what you just described could easily be turned against Freud in virtually every capactiy. this is too close to hermenuetics for me to care.
EDIT - But, I do, now, see what you are saying. thanks.
understandable, get rid of Freud. No need to try to set up from where I am comming from with this, He was an afterthought .
>Look around at society and ask yourself if all it cares about is wealth, sex, and entertainment
>>What should people be striving for?
>Truth, whatever it is.
Wealth enables things like the Large Hadron Collider, which is a tool to reveal truths.
Sex enables production of more human beings, who can think about truths.
Entertainment stimulates the imagination and the production of truths; for example, the Alcubierre drive. "Miguel Alcubierre made a special appearance on the TV productions "How William Shatner Changed the World"[5] and Michio Kaku's Sci Fi Science: Physics of the Impossible,[6][7] in which his warp bubble theory was discussed." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miguel_Alcubierre
Your ideal world, with a bunch of "elite", abstinent philosophers sitting around in squalor and thinking about Strauss or whatever, leads to extinction. In that case there will be no true ideas because there will be no minds to hold them.
How well thought out, kid. You should brush up on pretty much all philosophy before taking this thread as the totality of what I am getting at.
the people who come up with the ideas that you point out as refutation are who I am referring to. The physicists are part of elite. The great poets (I mentioned Goethe) are elite. The bankers that establish lines of credit for production of goods are elite (as heinous as we here might think they are). The philosophers that come up with ideas that lead to physics or psychology are elite.
Sex, (for procreation as you put it) simply need not be at the center of everything (turn on your TV watch an advertisement, FOX news; virtually anything that is sold is sold through appeal to sex).
Wait, was it the vulgar masses that decided to pour their money into the LHC or was it states that forcibly took it from them?
Huxley (another elite that stimulated the imagination of the other, latter, elites) is behind me on the entertainment aspect as were most Roman thinkers; panem et circenses. It is merely a metaphor; the fact of the matter is that once people begin to live their lives around impermenance (the shadows in Plato's cave), such as sports or reality shows, the human intellect will be what goes extinct.
Socrates on truth (ironically he was abstinent as is joked about by Plato). Also, Indian and tibetan monks practice 'medatative sublimation' (having sex a lot but not having orgasms) so that they might channel that energy into mental ends (aka NOT for procreation). Truth is what kills religion (as Kant showed even though he didn't mean to) ultimately liberating the masses from their own ignorance and fear whether they want it or not.
Michio Kaku is just as absurd as any other theoretical physicist (and I like him). M-string theory only goes as far as philosophy will take it (the theory itself is so far beyond empiricism that it will take centuries to even get close to proving).
The elite do not sit artound in squalor either. They know they can mobilizethe masses into production so that they can live high on the hog. I'll give you an example: ancient Athens where 30 thousand citizens ruled over 300 thousand slaves.
In other words, you are just as shallow and worthless of a thinking human being as any basketball player. But, you love to give the players money. After all, they benefit you so much.
No one has even mentioned music as intellectual entertainment; Probably because vive and Neo are the only ones who would get it. So, Jonas Brothers or (early haha) Wagner?
Maybe I'm just a sucky punctuator then.
Here's what I mean: Why is it wrong that if someone is an elitist, then that that person would have to both mask that quality from others and risk someone other than him discovering it?
I see an engineering undergrad who recently added a philosophy minor.
Ambition is a dream with a V8 engine - Elvis Presley
>The point of the OP was just meant to be polemic as I figured most people would react like Auto did
So we have an elite truth-seeker playing games rather than being an honest, truth-seeking debate participant.
>The great poets (I mentioned Goethe) are elite.
"There once was a man from Nantucket" - where is the secret truth therein? Aristophanes the Genius can tell us.
>No one has even mentioned music as intellectual entertainment; Probably because vive and Neo are the only ones who would get it. So, Jonas Brothers or (early haha) Wagner?
Music is no different from sex for pleasure. Eargasms or orgasms; both are meaningless stimulation. There are no algorithms for creating beautiful music or for identifying a sequence of vibrations as beautiful music or cacophony. It's all subjective and there's not a whit of truth to be found.
>once people begin to live their lives around impermenance (the shadows in Plato's cave), such as sports or reality shows
There's nothing wrong with sports or reality shows. See Human Action p. 2: "It is futile to approach social facts with the attitude of a censor who approves or disapproves from the point of view of quite arbitrary standards and subjective judgments of value.". Anyway, it sounds like you are a vulgar, poetry-loving audiophile and just another umbral troglodyte.
BTW, Plato's shadows conflict with von Mises's neo-Kantianism. For example, see The Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science: "From the praxeological point of view it is not possible to question the real existence of matter, of physical objects and of the external world". And why does impermenance [sic] matter in light of the Rietdijk-Putnam argument? Things extend in space and in time; what of it?
>the human intellect will be what goes extinct
The human mind will be obsolete erelong: "The Blue Brain Project is an attempt to create a synthetic brain by reverse-engineering the mammalian brain down to the molecular level." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Brain_Project
>The philosophers that come up with ideas that lead to physics or psychology are elite.
Pretty much anyone respectable moves out of philosophy into a real branch of science. Philosophy is generally a cesspool where unproven ideas (like Strauss's) stagnate for centuries or even millenia and nothing is decided. How does that help find truth? In mathematics, ZFC is canonical; in physics, we have the Standard Model. In philosophy, we have a whole bunch of dead people who don't agree.
>they can live high on the hog.
Let's leave your mom out of this.
>I'll give you an example: ancient Athens where 30 thousand citizens ruled over 300 thousand slaves.
So do you advocate slavery? Have you learned nothing from Hoppe? Or from von Mises ("If one treats men like cattle, one cannot squeeze out of them more than cattle-like performances." - Human Action p. 630).
>you are just as shallow and worthless of a thinking human being as any basketball player
Many professional basketball players are African Americans. Combined with the slavery comments you made, I can't help but think there are racist undertones in your comments. Why not just come out and state what you really think?
Yeah notes and vibrations don't resonate in ways that are dischordant or harmonious. you've studied music theory as well, I see. The concept of the symmetry of vibrations and sound didn't lead directly to M STRING THEORY (Michio Kaku knows all about it, genius boy, it is his theory). Tesla didn't build his physics on understanding harmonies of intense oscillating frequencies of energy. Dumbass.
Anyway, Plato's shadows conflict with von Mises's neo-Kantianism. For example, see The Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science: "From the praxeological point of view it is not possible to question the real existence of matter, of physical objects and of the external world". And why does impermenance [sic] matter in light of the Rietdijk-Putnam argument? Things extend in space and in time; what of it?
Again, a cursory glance at Nietzsche revelas his influence by Schopenhauer who in turn was influenced by the Kant. In which (the 1st critique) he develops the thesis that we cannot know "thing in themselves" but only their features. Schopenhauer calls this the principle of Sufficient Reason. but, your sophomore refutation is example of you ignorance on this subject. you were simply offended (as is often the slave) by my tone and now are scrambling to find things that could refute what I have said. All in vain; demonstrations of the shallowness of the common man's ability to research things in which he has an emotional reaction to. (Plato's Forms and the shadows of his cave DO NOT go against Kant; they are precisely what he was describing - Schopenhauer too. You need to, metaphorically, shut your ignorant slave mouth and read a book)
building a fake brain is one thing. Describe to me the mind/body problem then how it applies to reconstructing the physiology of the brain. Searle says with some level of coherency (vibing from Ryle and Wittgenstein) that an AI will never be possible due to the virtual impossiblity of self-locating knowledge in a vat. How can a machine understand "I', "today" "this" or "that"? It cannot as far as we know and philosophers have been considering the implications of the complexity of the mind since Descartes (a long time ago; Descartes linked geometry to algebra through philosophical inquiry). In fact only in combing the advancements of all kinds of pschological investigations do we now have proof that the mind can influence the brain's chemistry. but, wait, doesn't the mind stem from the brain? o_0?? but, you probably know all about that too.
Bertrand Russel points this fact out as well. However, he notices that logic, geometry, algebra, newtonian physics, psychoanalysis were all born out of philosophical investigation (See: the problems of philosophy; it is beginner stuff). When philosophy discovers a truth, it moves into a category of science; that is the value of philosophy. So, this is another null "point."
(are you in high school?)
(are you in high school?) - ope, you answered my question before I could even finish this response.
Okay, I will tell you what I think. You are desperate for ideas to refute what I have said and are now scraping the bottom of the barrel.
Also, Nietzsche's slave/master ethics is a negative argument meaning that it is not consisting of assertions. I wonder if you can even understand that.
Overall I think you aren't fully expressing your ideas here because you are embarrassed by them being both socially unacceptable and logically unjustified. (See Human Action page 2 "It is futile to approach social facts with the attitude of a censor who approves or disapproves from the point of view of quite arbitrary standards and subjective judgments of value.")
hahhahah. We're way past what economics has to offer. Mises is too far above your head, kid. Start as far back as your mind can handle. He is a neoKantian. you mentioned this, but were unaware of the Kantian position and how it led to Nietzsche. I vote you: go kill yourself.
We're talking about aesthetics...not social facts or economics.
Again, we're not concerned with efficiency; we're not talking about economics.
I'll finish with a quote to demonstrate what I mean through Nietzsche's own words:
Many too many are born: for the superfluous ones was the state devised! ... Just see these superfluous ones! They steal the works of the inventors and the treasures of the wise. Culture, they call their theft—and everything becomes sickness and trouble unto them! Just see these superfluous ones! Sick are they always; they vomit their bile and call it a newspaper. They devour one another, and cannot even digest themselves.
...
Just see these superfluous ones! They steal the works of the inventors and the treasures of the wise. Culture, they call their theft—and everything becomes sickness and trouble unto them!
Just see these superfluous ones! Sick are they always; they vomit their bile and call it a newspaper. They devour one another, and cannot even digest themselves.
@Aristophanes
What is the problem that needs to be solved (or can't be solved). I am afraid I haven't read strauss, but the ideas you are talking about are interesting. Could you just state what you think is wrong here?
It seems like you think that a lot of people have misplaced values. What values should they have?
I tried to approach the problem from the perspective of prudence, but no one responded to my idea, so I suppose that I misunderstood the point of contention in this thread. Do you not think that it is prudent for most people (no matter how they spend their time) to be free?
@Baxter, Aristophanes response to you was rude and uncalled for, but your accusations of racism are really off the wall and pointless to the discussion.
Could you just state what you think is wrong here?
Well, the basic argument behind the NAP is one. Furter, why should the upper echelon of intellectuals care at all about the common man's conception of "good"? they have their own and it is very different.
It is not my place to decide. But, from an aesthetic perspective it is possible to criticize ethics. There is justification for aesthetic qualities, but not ethical ones.
Do you not think that it is prudent for most people (no matter how they spend their time) to be free?
I'd like to think so, but I cannot find anything truly redeeming about the ethics of democracies and equalitarians (the most common political, i.e, ethical, doctrines).
let the kid call me racist. he knows not what he does.
>It seems like you think that a lot of people have misplaced values. What values should they have?
rudeness playing games avoiding direct responses wasting neurons on listening to music and reading poetry and arguing about people who died thousands of years ago etc.
>Well, the basic argument behind the NAP is one [wrong thing].
So where did Hoppe go wrong? Let's hear it.
>the upper echelon of intellectuals
How do you propose to sort people and draw the line to determine the upper echelon? What if other people's proposals differ? Why is there only one "elite" echelon, and not a second, uberelite one? Which echelon would you place yourself in, and why?
@baxter, you are a kid. You need to catch up to everything in my last post before I will respond to your slave requests anymore.
Yeah, I'm rude and youcall people racist when you get offended. F****in' A!