Veritas Veritatum. - All Comments

re: Early bird gets WAR CE

Drew — Wed, 09 Mar 2011 02:03:57 GMT

Warhammer was amazing, too bad they didn`t know how to succesfully market themselves.

re: Explorations in teleocentric forms of ethics

wilderness — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 23:32:59 GMT

i figured it out. imperatives are "oughts" and are practical. yet theoretical knowledge informs practical reason, thus, oughts can be informed by facts. so i guess the question proposed, in this article and other circles undoubtedly, is this "ought" of self-ownership informed by a fact of theoretical reasoning in which epistemology would answer yes or no. Epistemology is informed by metaphysics, but it seems there is this "being" called self-ownership, yet, is it true or not. This is what epistemology can bring to light and inform ethics with the fact of self-ownership instead of only a possibility of self-ownership.

i think i'm geting it. Kant's "Intro. to Logic" helped out.

re: Explorations in teleocentric forms of ethics

wilderness — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 23:38:50 GMT

Instead of saying categorical imperatives "automatize", but instead replace that word with "will" as in the person rationally wills it universal, though, it may not be per se universal. Maybe that would make more sense?

re: Explorations in teleocentric forms of ethics

wilderness — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 15:47:32 GMT

I don't know if you hold this view still or not, but since I've been trying to self-educate reading Aristotle's books and picking up what I can as I go, I'm wondering.

So you don't think self-ownership is assertoric (simply is in a reasonable way), but it is something of an "ought" that begs the question? Thus are you saying categorical imperatives automatize and are not chosen by reason?

My questions could be so off the mark it's not even funny, but in my asking, it's not completely to get your perspective without my own pondering - I am trying to sort through this. It's more that I find you to be an authority in the terminology so it helps me understand these concepts by the way you may use them in your response, if that makes sense. hope so.

re: A critique of defeatism

Thedesolateone — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 19:56:48 GMT

Really excellent. After the recent UK budget I fell into depression for about 24 hours, but I realised I've just got to stick with it, and try and let them affect my life as little as possible. I want to go to university and learn more, I want to start a business, I want to do some good work, I even have an ambition of rising to the top of the Adam Smith Institute or the Institute for Economic Affairs (the two leading free market think tanks in the UK - basically like not-as-good LvMIs).

Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito.

re: A critique of defeatism

WisR — Sun, 19 Apr 2009 08:32:45 GMT

Hi Jon - this is the second time I've read this post by you, and it was good both times. Stoicism is the best attitude to have, thanks for the reminder twice over.

re: A critique of defeatism

Anonymous — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 20:47:06 GMT

Excellent post!!!1

re: A critique of defeatism

wombatron — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 00:40:12 GMT

Excellent post! Also, while the large-scale looks pretty bad right now, the small-scale is actually looking quite good. As the crisis gets worse, things like agorism and microsecession become that much more powerful. While liberty for everyone in our lifetimes is unlikely, liberty for yourself is quite doable.

re: A critique of defeatism

Anonymous — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 23:11:43 GMT

Very good blog entry.

re: A critique of defeatism

Jon Irenicus — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 22:01:45 GMT

Oh don't mistake me, I am idealistic too. But I find it only has a positive influence if combined with a stoicism of sorts. Otherwise it is draining and self-defeating in the ultimate.

re: A critique of defeatism

Christoffer — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 21:47:34 GMT

Very good blog entry.

I myself is very idealistic and sometimes I try to force the change through. However it is very hard to live like that and I will try to change what I can and educate others if they are open minded.

re: Explorations in teleocentric forms of ethics

Jon Irenicus — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 12:11:08 GMT

It's metaethics, so the long-windedness is unfortunately difficult to avoid. R&DU's two books are relatively to the point though, as is Veatch's.

The biggest problem for self-ownership is that it is of the form of a categorical imperative, and that it makes use of universalizability (see Hoppe's defence of it for instance.) Universalizability cannot suffice on its own to get the result we want it to have.

re: Explorations in teleocentric forms of ethics

Stephen — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 02:51:33 GMT

I don't see how this "[mode of analysis] has a better justification than the so-called axiom of self-ownership." I'm not disagreeing. It just isn't apparent to me.

I've mostly read Hoppe and Rothbard, but I've become a little more interested in the neo-Aristotilean approach as a result of it repeatedly coming up on the mises.org forum. I read Rasmussen's "A Groundwork for Rights: Man's Natural End". I've started reading Plauch's "Chapter 2: Eudaimonia, Virtue, and the Right to Liberty". Unfortunately though, I find these kinds of works tedious and long-winded, unlike the succinct and pithy style of Rothbard and Hoppe. Are there any neo-Aristotilean works that are straight to the point, so to speak?

And how is this approach superior to the traditional self-ownership axiom?

re: Explorations in teleocentric forms of ethics

Jon Irenicus — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 16:04:48 GMT

Henry Veatch's Aristotle: A contemporary appreciation and Rational Man, as well as Rand's Virtue of Selfishness. They're oriented mainly towards non-philosophers. A primer in metaethics might be needed to understand R&DU's works or Veatch's discussion of more advanced topics.

re: Explorations in teleocentric forms of ethics

liberty student — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 15:52:30 GMT

What is preferred basic material?