In the context of acheiving a goal, some actions are better than others, and there is nothing wrong with finding a best one.
For the record, I do consider mself a radical subjectivist. Goals, means, and ends are things that exist in our minds and with our evaluations to the world around us. That puts them squarely in the world of the subjective.
Furthermore, you're going to have to explain how you are not in the world of some form of Platonism where there is some "ideal" that is dictating this. I think this may be where the confusion is lying in the conversation. The "best", would simply exist "for our purposes", or something similar to that notion.
You say "there is always context"
With that line, how are you seperating yourself from our position?
EDIT
"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
I think a discussion of ethics is lost on this site, or forum. For the most part Mises' 'subjective value' has, because of a misunderstanding of that term, attracted almost entirely young moral nihilists who reject any objective value or morality as being superstition.
For the most part Mises' 'subjective value' has, because of a misunderstanding of that term, attracted almost entirely young moral nihilists who reject any objective value or morality as being superstition.
Mikachusetts: I never use the word objective in my post, let alone talk about "objective best." You've made nonsense out of this because you've stripped away the context. In the context of acheiving a goal, some actions are better than others, and there is nothing wrong with finding a best one.
I never use the word objective in my post, let alone talk about "objective best." You've made nonsense out of this because you've stripped away the context. In the context of acheiving a goal, some actions are better than others, and there is nothing wrong with finding a best one.
Mikachusetts: It isn't normative, and it isn't subjective.
It isn't normative, and it isn't subjective.
There are positive and normative statements. If the statement you asked me to consider was not a normative statement, then it was a positive statement. You asserted that it was not a normative statement. This means you were asserting it was a positive statement. It turns out that it was a normative statement after all, but that doesn't change the fact that you were asserting it was a positive statement.
Anyway, in the context of achieving goals, "better" and "best" are still subjective. The only way you might be able to twist it into a positive statement is if you state your subjective criteria for your goals. So, you might say, "I want to go to NYC." Okay, what's the "best" way to get there? You could fly in a plane. You could drive a car. You could take a train. You could bike there. You could walk. What's the "best" way?
Okay, so now we clarify what your goal is. You say your goal is really, "I want to go to NYC the fastest way possible." Okay. So I guess it's the plane. But now it's just too expensive. Okay, so your goal is modified yet again, "I want to go to NYC the fastest way possible within my financial means." Okay, so now we have to examine your car. Well, there is the matter of gas and wear and tear on your car. Now let's look at the train ticket. Okay, but are those still within your financial means? Maybe. But what if you want to save more money so that when you get to NYC you can spend more? So now it's the bike. But wait! How are you going to carry all your stuff that you buy in NYC back home? So, maybe you bike to NYC and buy a train ticket back?
You have all sorts of means to achieving your ends. And these means are rated in all sorts of different ways. There might be time efficient means, there might be financially efficient means, there might be fun efficient means (huh? well I guess you could say means that are more fun for you), etc. What are the best ways to achieve your ends? It's all subjective. It depends upon your ends and how you rate your means.
Nobody rates their means and ends in the same way. These are all subjective. You might be able to say that you consider X means more fun than Y means, so X means is better to achieve end Z. But so what? This is all in your opinion. You think X is more fun for you. Not objectively more fun.
Now, again, you'll say that I am introducing the word "objective" where you don't want to talk about it. But you were the one who is saying that these are not normative statements (and therefore they are positive statements). And if you believe that these are not objective, why the hell are you disagreeing with me?
Mikachusetts: People have different ideas about physics. Does that mean physics is subjective? No, of course not. Don't confuse beliefs about X with X itself.
People have different ideas about physics. Does that mean physics is subjective? No, of course not. Don't confuse beliefs about X with X itself.
I have confused nothing, thank you very much. Physics is a positive subject. Physics is the study of how things are. Morality is not a positive subject. It is not a subject of how things are. It is a subject of what people consider to be right and wrong.
Mikachusetts: "If you want to acheive goal Y, then you ought to take action X." The reason I don't say must is because its not really a must. If I want to be a successful musician, what is it that I must do? Practice my instrument everyday? Well, isn't it possible that I become successful without doing that? I say I ought to practice everyday, because it is conducive to that end, it is more likely to help me acheive it. Just because I can choose to do otherwise doesn't make it subjective, it just means that I have the free will (don't take this to mean anymore than it does in the context) to either act in accordance with or against this prescription. Must vs. ought is more of a debate about certainty, not about subjectivity.
"If you want to acheive goal Y, then you ought to take action X."
The reason I don't say must is because its not really a must. If I want to be a successful musician, what is it that I must do? Practice my instrument everyday? Well, isn't it possible that I become successful without doing that? I say I ought to practice everyday, because it is conducive to that end, it is more likely to help me acheive it.
Just because I can choose to do otherwise doesn't make it subjective, it just means that I have the free will (don't take this to mean anymore than it does in the context) to either act in accordance with or against this prescription. Must vs. ought is more of a debate about certainty, not about subjectivity.
You are very confused about this subject. You don't know that practicing everyday will be more conducive to being a successful musician. For that matter, what is a successful musician? Answer me that, and then we'll talk.
I don't know if I can easily answer this. I certainly agree when you say:
"Goals, means, and ends are things that exist in our minds and with our evaluations to the world around us."
I think the difference is the conclusions we draw from this. This is a kind of lengthy speech by Long, but it does a good job of explaining the position I hold. I guess in a quick answer: I think you can accept the quote above without being committed to a position of ethical subjectivism or ethical nihilism.
they said we would have an unfair fun advantage
Well this should be an interesting show.
gotlucky:There are positive and normative statements. If the statement you asked me to consider was not a normative statement, then it was a positive statement. You asserted that it was not a normative statement. This means you were asserting it was a positive statement. It turns out that it was a normative statement after all, but that doesn't change the fact that you were asserting it was a positive statement.
What are you talking about? Yes, I was asserting that the statement I made was a positive one. You disagree. So what?
Anyway, in the context of achieving goals, "better" and "best" are still subjective.
No, they aren't. If it was a subjective manner, then the best way to acheive a goal would be entirely a matter of what the person aiming at the goal believes -- but this is absurd. We are both trying to get to NYC, and you think the best way to get there is to drive, and I think the best way to get there is to stand on my roof and flap my arms. Despite my beliefs that flapping my arms will get me there, it just won't. Your means are better suited for the goal.
And again, this isn't subjective, you're just changing the goal. If I want to get to NYC for as cheap as possible, then some means will be better than others. If I want to get to NYC as quickly as possible, then some other means might be better. This isn't even a contraversial opinion, this is straight out of Mises.
Objective and subjective are not synonymous with positive and normative, so I'm not sure what you are saying here. I also don't believe in an objective-subjective dichotomy, so I disagree with you when you attribute the objective to my position simply because I disagree with the subjective.
Morality is not a positive subject. It is not a subject of how things are. It is a subject of what people consider to be right and wrong.
This is frustrating. On the one hand, you are right because every ethical theory put forward was put forward by someone, and in that sense, is an expression of what they believed. However, people like Aristotle, Aquinas, Kant, Bentham, Mill, etc. were not simply expressing their opinions, they were trying to say what really is right and wrong.
There's no reason to resort to nitpicking every little thing like this, its just being argumentative for the sake of it. I do know that practicing everyday is more conducive to becoming a successful musician than not practicing at all, FOR THE MOST PART.
How about this example:
"If I want to lose weight, I ought to exercise and eat a healthy diet." You know damn well that this is a true statement without needing me to define how much weight, what kind of exercise and what kind of diet. Now, that being said, it's possible to lose weight without doing those things. I could starve myself, or catch a stomach virus. But exercise and diet is better than those things IN THE CONTEXT OF HOW PEOPLE DESIRE TO LOSE WEIGHT.
Haven't gotten to the Long video yet, I wont reply again until I see it.
I don't think anyone denies there is a certain logic to success. It is a very Weberian concept, and if that's the case I don't think a Max Weber "Ideal Type" is going to go in the direction you seem to be implying (he was a "nihilist" too).
Anyway,
Assuming these are not useless tautology, do you think there is a differnece between these statements?
"If I want to lose weight, I ought to exercise and eat a healthy diet."
"If I don't care about my weight, I do as I do"
"If I want to have fun, I ought to play video games"
"If I want to not have fun, I ought to flog myself"
"If I don't care one way or the other about fun, I do as I do"
Mikachusetts: What are you talking about? Yes, I was asserting that the statement I made was a positive one. You disagree. So what?
It's one or the other, but not both. And it most certainly was not a positive statement about reality. You are making a suggestion as to what you think is the optimal course of action. The only objective fact in that statement is that you believe X to be the optimal means to Y. But that does not mean the X is the most "optimal" means to Y.
Mikachusetts: No, they aren't. If it was a subjective manner, then the best way to acheive a goal would be entirely a matter of what the person aiming at the goal believes -- but this is absurd. We are both trying to get to NYC, and you think the best way to get there is to drive, and I think the best way to get there is to stand on my roof and flap my arms. Despite my beliefs that flapping my arms will get me there, it just won't. Your means are better suited for the goal.
Flapping your arms is not a means of travel to NYC. You are making a category error.
Mikachusetts: And again, this isn't subjective, you're just changing the goal. If I want to get to NYC for as cheap as possible, then some means will be better than others. If I want to get to NYC as quickly as possible, then some other means might be better. This isn't even a contraversial opinion, this is straight out of Mises.
Some options might be cheaper than others, and if your only goal is to find the cheapest option, then one could say that the cheaper an option, the better it is for your goal. But this does not contradict what I've been saying. The only objective fact you can determine is that you believe X to be the better/best means to achieving Y. These do not translate to anyone else. I believe we are in agreement on this point, as you have stated that you consider these things to be contexualized for each individual.
But the problem lies here:
John Ess: For the most part Mises' 'subjective value' has, because of a misunderstanding of that term, attracted almost entirely young moral nihilists who reject any objective value or morality as being superstition.
You said you agreed with this statement. There are no objective values. Values are subjective. You may be able to make objective statements about the means to an end, but the end is subjective. We do not all share the same ends. There may be certain biological facts about humans, that we must eat and drink to survive. But that doesn't translate to any objective morality.
Mikachusetts: Objective and subjective are not synonymous with positive and normative, so I'm not sure what you are saying here. I also don't believe in an objective-subjective dichotomy, so I disagree with you when you attribute the objective to my position simply because I disagree with the subjective.
As I said before, positive statements are statements about what is, and normative statements are statements about what ought to be. Here are some definitions of objective and subjective for you. Objective claims are claims about reality. You cannot claim that morality is objective. Morals do not exist. They are not real. They are abstract. Physics is abstract. But the difference between physics and morals is that physics has to do with explaining the world as it is. Morals are about what people believe to be right and wrong. They do not describe the world as it is. So, yes, it is true that objective and subjective are not synonymous with positive and normative, but morals are neither objective nor positive. Physics is at least positive, even if it is abstract.
Mikachusetts: This is frustrating. On the one hand, you are right because every ethical theory put forward was put forward by someone, and in that sense, is an expression of what they believed. However, people like Aristotle, Aquinas, Kant, Bentham, Mill, etc. were not simply expressing their opinions, they were trying to say what really is right and wrong.
Yes, they were trying to make it a positive subject, and they never did. Economics is a positive subject. It describes the world as it is. Morality is not a positive subject. It is a normative subject. And it is necessarily abstract. It is not objective. It is subjective. It is all perception. I still feel very strongly about my view on morality, but I can at least recognize that it is not some objective and positive fact about reality.
Mikachusetts: There's no reason to resort to nitpicking every little thing like this, its just being argumentative for the sake of it. I do know that practicing everyday is more conducive to becoming a successful musician than not practicing at all, FOR THE MOST PART.
This is not notpicking. Firstly, I did not make a claim about practicing everyday and not practicing at all. Second, there is not much we can talk about until you define what is a successful musician, and that may not line up with my view of what a successful musician is.
Your belief as to what constitutes a successful musician is representative of your own subjective values. There is no objective measure of "successful musician". Was Yehudi Menuhin a successful musician? He was one of the greatest child prodigies of the 20th century, but he lost most of skill when he became an adult. Yet he was still one of the most popular violinists of his day. Was he successful? He was a rich musician, but he was not a very skilled musician. The fact is that if you believe he was a successful musician, that is your own subjective value. If you believe he was not a successful musician, that is your own subjective value. So what is the best method to becoming a successful musician? Marrying rich? Practicing a lot? Marketing yourself?
Most definitely not nitpicking.
Mikachusetts: How about this example: "If I want to lose weight, I ought to exercise and eat a healthy diet." You know damn well that this is a true statement without needing me to define how much weight, what kind of exercise and what kind of diet. Now, that being said, it's possible to lose weight without doing those things. I could starve myself, or catch a stomach virus. But exercise and diet is better than those things IN THE CONTEXT OF HOW PEOPLE DESIRE TO LOSE WEIGHT.
This is absolutely not true, whatsoever. Perhaps you have heard of people who drink some ridiculous concoction and essentially starve themselves for a week so as to lose a few pounds. Some of the actresses in Hollywood use this method for quick weight loss. Considering their ends, it is most certainly the "best" means.
That you disagree with their ends only shows how much of this is subjective.
"
"If I don't care one way or the other about fun, I do as I do""
weight loss can be objectively measured etc, while having "fun" is subjective and cannot be measured..
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
so this is at the end of the book.
so would this mean people that read his book would prefer to become athiest and anarchist or prefer to throw the book in the trash? that anyone who does not follow the book and see it as a success is anti upb? if he can't convice people who are already athiest and anarchist that his book is a success, then how will the book be expected to convince thiest statists? is it UPB that people don't accept truth? UPB that people don't accept Stefan?
Below, please find a summation of the core argument for morality.
1. Reality is objective and consistent.
2. “Logic” is the set of objective and consistent rules derived from the consistency of reality.
3. Those theories that conform to logic are called “valid.”
4. Those theories that are confirmed by empirical testing are called “accurate.”
5. Those theories that are both valid and accurate are called “true.”
6. “Preferences” are required for life, thought, language and debating.
7. Debating requires that both parties hold “truth” to be both objective and universally preferable.
8. Thus the very act of debating contains an acceptance of universally preferable behaviour (UPB).
9. Theories regarding UPB must pass the tests of logical consistency and empirical verification.
10. The subset of UPB that examines enforceable behaviour is called “morality.”
11. As a subset of UPB, no moral theory can be considered true if it is illogical or unsupported by
empirical evidence.
12. Moral theories that are supported by logic and evidence are true. All other moral theories are
false.
Marko: One thing that was interesting to me about the exchange is this: What do we find out about David Gordon from reading his piece? Well we find out what he thinks of Stef, his book and the goal Stef had set out to accomplish in writing it, which is what his article is about. In other words we don't find out anything about David Gordon that isn't the theme of the article. Meanwhile what do we find out about Stef from his reply? That is, what do we find out about him beyond what is the theme of his reply (ie that his book does not suck and why he thinks that is the case). We find out: a.) That he has contacted mises.org about publishing his reply b.) That he is always sceptical when a review starts with insults c.) That he has studied playwriting and acting at the National Theatre School in Montréal d.) That he spent a long time writing his book e.) That he was disappointed at David for not discussing his seven ethical categories No wonder he feels insulted when he can not seperate himself from his work. The discussion should be about the book Stef, who cares where you studied to be a playwright, etc.
One thing that was interesting to me about the exchange is this: What do we find out about David Gordon from reading his piece? Well we find out what he thinks of Stef, his book and the goal Stef had set out to accomplish in writing it, which is what his article is about. In other words we don't find out anything about David Gordon that isn't the theme of the article. Meanwhile what do we find out about Stef from his reply? That is, what do we find out about him beyond what is the theme of his reply (ie that his book does not suck and why he thinks that is the case). We find out: a.) That he has contacted mises.org about publishing his reply b.) That he is always sceptical when a review starts with insults c.) That he has studied playwriting and acting at the National Theatre School in Montréal d.) That he spent a long time writing his book e.) That he was disappointed at David for not discussing his seven ethical categories No wonder he feels insulted when he can not seperate himself from his work. The discussion should be about the book Stef, who cares where you studied to be a playwright, etc.
Ah hem.
You getting this, MMMark?
Sun. 12/07/08 17:39 EDT.post #210 John James:You getting this, MMMark?You think Molyneux "is a narcissist," and you think Marko's post, which you've reproduced, bolsters your assertion.Is that what you are asking if I'm "getting"?Well, I do get that, John.Marko wrote "The discussion should be about the book Stef, who cares where you studied to be a playwright, etc."When Marko uses the word "should," what I immediately think of is "according to whom?"When Marko rhetorically asks "who cares?", generating an answer is a facile task; for example: vive la insurrection : I think I heard he was a professional actor at one point in his life. vive la insurrection :Ha! I was right he is an actor, ...and also John James:- He's a pretty good actor too.- just for effect,- its' still so "rehearsed".- it's basically a caricature he's created and refined- I'm not saying he's completely different in real life and only "gets into character" for the camera- What I'm saying is it's not as genuine and off-the-cuff and raw- he's definitely got the persona down quite well.- But being good at portraying a jerkish personality doesn't exactly endear me as a viewer when someone is trying to win my mind, as opposed to an Oscar.When someone is trying to win my mind, what I'm interested in are his arguments. The fact that he is or was an actor, or "a narcissist," is not germane ... but, I realize that "that's just me." People are different, and "I sorta like the diversity part."
John James:You getting this, MMMark?
vive la insurrection : I think I heard he was a professional actor at one point in his life.
vive la insurrection :Ha! I was right he is an actor, ...
John James:- He's a pretty good actor too.- just for effect,- its' still so "rehearsed".- it's basically a caricature he's created and refined- I'm not saying he's completely different in real life and only "gets into character" for the camera- What I'm saying is it's not as genuine and off-the-cuff and raw- he's definitely got the persona down quite well.- But being good at portraying a jerkish personality doesn't exactly endear me as a viewer when someone is trying to win my mind, as opposed to an Oscar.
Vive,
I don't think there's a difference between the weight loss and fun statements in form or type, but whether or not we would say each of them are true would come down to different criteria. I mean, if you really hate video games, they might not be very much fun. But just as in the weight loss statement, there is an actual relationship between having fun and video games (or whatever it is that you find fun). i don't think we have different opinions on this.
Also, check my last statement to gotlucky below. I think it might help you see what I'm trying to say.
gotlucky,
What if I believed it was? You said that "If you want to acheive goal Y, then you ought to do action X" is a subjective claim. So I said "if you want to travel to NYC, then you ought to flap your arms." Now, if this is a subjective claim, there isn't really any problem so long as I believe that flapping your arms is a good way to get to NYC. But that's absurd. We both know that arm flapping won't get you there, despite anyone's belief otherwise.
And this is the problem with saying that anything is subjective. It doesn't tell us anything useful about what's going on.
There are no objective values. Values are subjective.
You cannot claim that morality is objective. Morals do not exist. They are not real. They are abstract.
For the millionth time, I don't claim that morality is objective. I am rejecting the entire objective-subjective dichotomy. I am saying that morality is not subjective. But even if I did claim that morality is objective, you aren't presenting an argument here. You just keep asserting that morals aren't real and that there are no objective values. How do you know? I'm not even disagreeing with you right now. I just want to know how you know that you are correct.
And the reason why I am not claiming that morality is objective, is because it doesn't say anything at all.
Morality is not a positive subject. It is a normative subject. And it is necessarily abstract. It is not objective. It is subjective. It is all perception.
Just say what you mean! Morals do not exist, but they are abstract and subjective? If something doesn't exist, how can it have qualities?
Your belief as to what constitutes a successful musician is representative of your own subjective values.
Just to drive my point home: If I believed my neighbor's dog's howling made the dog a successful musician, would that make it so? If not, then its not subjective. And, of course, the answer is no; it would not be the case. A successful musician is a musician that is successful. What that means exactly is determined by context and use, NOT by my own opinion. If Wittgenstein taught us anything, its this.
MMMark:Is that what you are asking if I'm "getting"? Well, I do get that, John.
btw, got those examples of my protests?
Mikachusetts: What if I believed it was? You said that "If you want to acheive goal Y, then you ought to do action X" is a subjective claim. So I said "if you want to travel to NYC, then you ought to flap your arms." Now, if this is a subjective claim, there isn't really any problem so long as I believe that flapping your arms is a good way to get to NYC. But that's absurd. We both know that arm flapping won't get you there, despite anyone's belief otherwise.
It's a category error, regardless of what you believe. Flapping arms != travelling.
Mikachusetts: And this is the problem with saying that anything is subjective. It doesn't tell us anything useful about what's going on.
Not just anything is subjective. If I said otherwise, then I was mistaken when I said so. Ends are subjective. Means can be evaluated, but considering how fluid ends are, rating means is not going to be of much help. Any of us who are alive do want to eat in order to continue living, but our ends are not just "to eat". Some people don't eat meat, for instance. So their end is not just "to eat". I seriously doubt if anybody can truly have the same identical ends, however similar they may appear.
And just to clarify, the reason that statement is subjective was because the ends are subjective.
Mikachesetts: For the millionth time, I don't claim that morality is objective. I am rejecting the entire objective-subjective dichotomy. I am saying that morality is not subjective. But even if I did claim that morality is objective, you aren't presenting an argument here. You just keep asserting that morals aren't real and that there are no objective values. How do you know? I'm not even disagreeing with you right now. I just want to know how you know that you are correct.
Objective is mind-independant. Subjective is one's perspective. Morals do not exist outside of the mind. They are mind dependant. Values are mind-dependant. That is what subjectivity is. Values are not inherent in any object. People (subjects) value objects. It makes no sense to talk of morals as existential objects. One can only talk of morals in the context of one's own beliefs or another's beliefs.
That is subjectivity. Morals can only be subjective, by definition.
Mikachusetts: Just say what you mean! Morals do not exist, but they are abstract and subjective? If something doesn't exist, how can it have qualities?
Morals do not exist as objects. I have been saying this all along. I have not stated otherwise. But things can exist in logical space without existing in physical space. Morality is an abstract subject, just as math is. But math is not a subjective subject. It is not mind-dependant. 2+2=4 regardless of the subject (person) in question.
I'll link to the wiki on abstract and concrete in my edit, as I don't want to get wait-listed for my post.
Mikachusetts: Just to drive my point home: If I believed my neighbor's dog's howling made the dog a successful musician, would that make it so? If not, then its not subjective. And, of course, the answer is no; it would not be the case. A successful musician is a musician that is successful. What that means exactly is determined by context and use, NOT by my own opinion. If Wittgenstein taught us anything, its this.
No, that is not the case.
Language is intersubective. The concepts conveyed can be objective or subjective. For instance, consider the word "dog". Dog is an abstract thought, however your specific pet dog is a concrete object. But dogs exist independant of one's mind. Dogs are not subjective, even if the word used to convey the thought "dog" is intersubjective.
Sun. 12/07/08 18:40 EDT.post #211 John James:btw, got those examples of my protests? (sic: protestations)John, the examples are the first two quotes in my post.I'm using a phrase from Hamlet to highlight the insincerity, or at least the dubitable sincerity, expressed in your two statements.The fact that you ask me (twice now) to produce something that already exists and was directed specifically to you, tends to reinforce your appearance of insincerity.Also, it's a niggling matter. Why the fascination with it?I just don't think you've been entirely sincere, and I simply pointed it out.I mean, it's not as though I'm calling you "a narcissist" or anything.I'm sure you'll survive.
John James:btw, got those examples of my protests? (sic: protestations)
Edited to (hopefully) improve clarity.
You separate one sentence (of a sidebar comment, no less) into two separate quotations, and then accuse "continued participation" after "protestations", and spend the entirety of your post focusing on it...and then call it a "niggling matter" ask me about the fascination with it? And you want to lecture me about sincerity?
That'll do, troll. That'll do.
Sun. 12/07/09 19:09 EDT.post #212Hooooo boy.
I see what you are trying to say, but math is considered to be abstract. Abstract thoughts != subjective. Some the links I provided for Mikachusetts were here and here and here.
I can try to find something more thorough than wikipedia about the subject, but it might take a while.
edited to add: those links dont clear anything up for me. Discretion is a subjective task. Discrete partitions dont exist outside of minds to perceive them. Numbers are a part of natural language, and operations performed on them are rational. Basically, "2+2=4" is as objective as the identity axiom.
Sun. 12/07/09 19:33 EDT.post #213John, I've edited my previous post in hopes of clarifying what I'm referring to as "a niggling matter."As augmentation, I'll further explain here.What the "niggling matter" is, is your fascination with whether I'm suggesting you've made a single, or multiple, "protestations."Okay?
I understand that my lack of faith in your sincerity (with regard to these two statements of yours) is a somewhat more serious matter.Jeez.Communicating with you is taking a lot of effort.
Just chill a bit, try to read what I write a bit more carefully.
Edit to (hopefully) improve clarity:The "niggling matter" started here: John James:I fail to see even one "protest" here, but I would be very interested for you to show me the multiple instances of this "protest" against participation.progresses to here: John James:No examples of my "protests"?and appears at least one more time.So hopefully, I've delivered what you've been asking for, even though it was sitting right there in my original post, all along.
John James:I fail to see even one "protest" here, but I would be very interested for you to show me the multiple instances of this "protest" against participation.
John James:No examples of my "protests"?
I hope this makes the world a better place, in some small way.
Here are some more articles I came across. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosphy seems to be a very good site, but it is hard to search it well. However, one of their articles is full of shit, so it is not a perfect source. But the other links I am about to provide seem to be better, as they describe various philosopher's thoughts instead of providing the author's thoughts.
Abstract Objects (I recommend this one the most)
Possible Objects
Nonexistent Objects
Anyway, some philosophers have stated that math is subjective, but it seems to be far more common for philosphers to state that it is abstract and not subjective. I'm trying to find articles on subjectivity and objectivity, but it is strangely hard to find one on the SEP, so you'll have to wait some more. I'll post a link when I find some good articles.
@ Mika:
All I am going to say is I really don't agree with Long at all. Probably for the same reasons I don't agree with his assesment of De Jassay or care much for his virtue ethics approach.
And if you are going to underpin economics with ethics, I would bet a small fortune you are going to end up here everytime:
http://mises.org/journals/aen/shackle.asp
Either way, I really have no taste for discrediting a person's ethics, so I'm out - unless they are a supreme jackass like Stephan Molyneaux...in which case I'll amuse myself from time to time in various ways on such a personality.
From this previous post:
http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/29527/473928.aspx#473928
no clue if this is true or not, but I found this comment about Rothbard, which I can't defend one way or the other, but it struck a bit of an "intuitive ring" in my ears, and I found it interesting:
On the other side is Rothbard. Sqaurely a radical rationalist. He takes his inspiration from Catesian rationalists, and Hobbs, Rousseau, Bentham, and J.S. Mill. He opposes Smithian economics and moral philosophy. Those in the Rothbard camp are not rule utilitarians, but radical rational individualist utilitarians (though most deny they are utiltarians at all) who hold that moral acts are first and foremost rational acts, and can only be justified through our perfect reason. Man is first and foremost a happiness (pleasure maximizing)seeking individual, and codified traditional rules often repress the pursuit of ultimate(happiness).
To this camp of thinkers, the irrational is immoral, and therefore morality is derived like a cartesian construction. The higher self is the rational creature who has been liberated from the irrationality of the traditional social institutions which repress pleasure-seeking and intrapersonal freedoms. The market is a wonderful free for all, where everyone uses everyone else to boost his own happiness, just as long as negative liberties are enforced. Morality is often judged by the end result of the action, not the intent. The market is the ultimate arbitrator of morality, since it brings the greatest pleasure to the greatest number.
Malachi,
I found more stuff that should be more relevant:
Mathematical Platonism (I read the introduction, gonna read it tomorrow)
Objectivity (I read this one)
Interesting.
As far as anti-Platonist math goes, and I'm about to go WAY beyond my grasp here, ever hear of Mandlebrot's fractal geometry?
@ Mika again,
What if I believed it was? You said that "If you want to acheive goal Y,
I think this would probably fall in a certain subset of an epistemological category that would just put me in the traditional camp of positivism / non-cognitivism at this point.
Anyone know if Molyneux has responded to Gordon's response, and where to find it?