It seems to me that the subscription to any system -- political, religious, economic -- is predicated on the acceptance of at least some absolutes or irreducible propositions. There is an enormous body of literature in all of these areas going back hundreds of years that substantiates this notion. It seems to me that many anarchists want their cake and would like to eat it as well.
Proper Stories:It seems to me that the subscription to any system -- political, religious, economic -- is predicated on the acceptance of at least some absolutes or irreducible propositions.
I would agree.
Proper Stories:It seems to me that many anarchists want their cake and would like to eat it as well.
If you assume said anarchist desires anarchy because it "ought" to be, not because they simply desire it.
Jackson LaRose:You can't have your cake and eat it too. By asserting that there is truth, you assume the capability of man (in this case, yourself) to have perfect judgement. Either you believe truth is knowable, or you don't. Which is it?
We've had this discussion before and by your theory of liberalism, I was 100% right, you definitely are a liberal.
Angurse:We've had this discussion before and by your theory of liberalism, I was 100% right, you definitely are a liberal.
How so?
Jackson LaRose:No. It is dependent on faith.
"Dependent on faith", no faith means belief in the supernatural, otherwise it applies to everyone. Making it meaningless as a tool of demarcation.
Jackson LaRose:What I meant was that "(God, Logic, reason, science, etc)" are examples of methods employed to justify an ideology's beliefs.
OK, including etc... everyone is an ideologue then. Making it meaningless as a representative phrase.
Jackson LaRose:Because you have to presume omniscience to believe that something is capable of perfect judgment. I call it deification, as an analogy to the supposed perfection of God. You can just substitute "omniscient being" if it makes you feel better.
An omniscient being would have perfect knowledge, we aren't presuming perfection among men. Liberals accept that men make mistakes, not analgous to god or any omniscient being.
Jackson LaRose:Bringing out the ad hominem stuff already? Man, you must be getting pissed, or desperate... Anyways, yes I have been doing some serious self-reflection since joining the forums. The whole reason I joined was to challenge my beliefs against others, to see if they withstood criticism, not to have my biases endlessly confirmed. So forgive me for learning, and not leaning on my faiths and shutting off my mind.
Not leaning on your faiths? Hardly, that's exactly what you are doing (see above). And it isn't an ad hominen, as I didn't use your posts to discredit the argument put forth, as replied directly perhaps when you chopped them out you got confused.
Jackson LaRose:No. I have accepted that "truth", as espoused by a non-omniscient entity, is just them talking out their ass.
As have liberals. Liberals just think some people's asses are worth listening to when compared to others, hardly omniscience.
Jackson LaRose:OK, just place "I think that" in front of all those suppositions. I didn't for the sake of brevity, but that is what I mean before I make any assertion. Sorry if this confused you. I have faith in what I think, but at least I'm honest enough with myself to admit that's all it is, rather than pretentious enough to claim it as "truth".
Thats quite a conundrum you put yourself in though, just read nigrahamUK's responses. Let's grant that expressing an opinion isn't expressing a truth for now though.
Jackson LaRose:It's unfortunate that you've (presumably) read what I posted and assert that I think that anything/everything is equally possible. What you perceive as "more/less probable" is based on your accumulated knowledge of reality (which in turn is based on observation). This narrows down the size of the "probability cloud", but since your perception and knowledge is limited (unless you are omniscient), it would be impossible for the "waveform of probability" to collapse to a point, a "truth". Do you understand?
Yeah, you are a raging liberal. Accumulated knowledge of reality doesn't actually narrow the size of the truth cloud though as reality could all be an illusion. We've had this discussion.
Jackson LaRose:Than man cannot determine truth
Sure, you've just decided that "truth" lies slightly out of reach, just as liberals.
Jackson LaRose: Liberalism is an ideology that asserts "man should be free" as a truth. So Liberalism must be taken on faith (just as any ideology/religion). QED
Liberalism is an ideology that asserts "man should be free" as a truth.
So Liberalism must be taken on faith (just as any ideology/religion). QED
Just as well...everything. Remember
Jackson LaRose:I have faith in what I think
Either everyone is a religious ideologue, making the very terms useless and your entire argument moot, or the terms should be used with more scrutiny.
Jackson LaRose:I don't know man, his position seems fairly consistent to me. You might want to give it another read at some point.
Maybe you should give it another read as one of us is clearly a huge fan of old Saint Max. He doesn't seem to fully grasp his own argument. His entire critique against Feuerbachianism (which I think is where your characterization of all liberalism stems) while good, just points to a restructuring of... liberalism. Maybe if he wrote more it could be settled.
Angurse:"Dependent on faith", no faith means belief in the supernatural, otherwise it applies to everyone. Making it meaningless as a tool of demarcation.
You are misunderstanding. Faith that man is capable of making absolute judgments, not faith that man of capable of making judgments.
Angurse:OK, including etc... everyone is an ideologue then. Making it meaningless as a representative phrase.
Again, you misunderstand. an ideology states that someone ought to do/be something. That is an example of an absolute judgment. The difference between ideologues and agnostics. I agree with your position that both utilize these deductive tools. The difference is that once a deduction has been reached, an agnostic abstains from assuming the deduction is absolutely appropriate i.e., true/false, right/wrong.
Angurse:An omniscient being would have perfect knowledge, we aren't presuming perfection among men
Then you are contradicting yourself the minute the words "(fill in the blank) is true" or (fill in the blank) is false" hit the page, or dribble out of your mouth.
Angurse:Liberals accept that men make mistakes
Again, you've contradicted yourself. A mistake implies your belief that there is an objective meter (of which you are capable of knowing) upon which actions can be judged as correct or incorrect.
Angurse:I didn't use your posts to discredit the argument put forth
Yes, you used them to attempt to discredit me directly, to make my argument seem less plausible. Isn't that an ad hominem attack?
Angurse:As have liberals
So why was I able to quote all of your references to truth? Shouldn't you have said "believe it's true", or "what I think is the truth"? If that's what you meant, I would argue that you aren't a liberal.
Angurse:Thats quite a conundrum you put yourself in though, just read nigrahamUK's responses.
and read "The Tortoise and Achilles" to how far Nirgraham's argument can get you. Argumentation ethics only works if the opponent claims a contrary position, not if he is agnostic. That's why he laughs when I say "I don't know", since not having the pretension of absolute knowledge is a completely foreign concept to him (if you've ever debated him, you know what I mean).
Angurse:Let's grant that expressing an opinion isn't expressing a truth for now though.
I still don't understand why you insist that it has to be.
Angurse:Accumulated knowledge of reality doesn't actually narrow the size of the truth cloud though as reality could all be an illusion.
Well, yes that's a possibility. Again, this position is based on my perception of reality. I could be totally wrong. It doesn't bother me to admit my shortcomings. I don't know.
Angurse:Sure, you've just decided that "truth" lies slightly out of reach, just as liberals.
Unless you happen to be omniscient, and I don't know how objective knowledge of absolute truth could be possible. I'm not saying that it is impossible, If you know of a way, please let me know, because that would be awesome...
Angurse:Just as well...everything. Remember Jackson LaRose:I have faith in what I think Either everyone is a religious ideologue, making the very terms useless and your entire argument moot, or the terms should be used with more scrutiny.
Once again, you misunderstand. Ideologues make absolutes out of their faith. Agnostics do not.
Angurse:while good, just points to a restructuring of... liberalism
I think you've just read it through the eyes of an ideologue (black or white). Try it again with an open mind.
Jackson LaRose:You are misunderstanding. Faith that man is capable of making absolute judgments, not faith that man of capable of making judgments.
Then its just a no for liberals.
Jackson LaRose:Again, you misunderstand. an ideology states that someone ought to do/be something. That is an example of an absolute judgment. The difference between ideologues and agnostics. I agree with your position that both utilize these deductive tools. The difference is that once a deduction has been reached, an agnostic abstains from assuming the deduction is absolutely appropriate i.e., true/false, right/wrong.
An ideology is a group of ideas that one used to guide their actions and expectations, people who share similar ideas can be placed into categories for convenience. It isn't an example of an absolute judgment, its ones opinion guiding them. Liberals don't just stop learning once they've reached point X of ideas, this is obviously true since many refine, alter and abandon their ideas, some so much that they don't meat the minimal criteria.
Jackson LaRose:Then you are contradicting yourself the minute the words "(fill in the blank) is true" or (fill in the blank) is false" hit the page, or dribble out of your mouth.
Or you are just approaching them from an absolutist perspective and presuming more than you should.
Jackson LaRose:Again, you've contradicted yourself. A mistake implies your belief that there is an objective meter (of which you are capable of knowing) upon which actions can be judged as correct or incorrect.
No, it means there is a relative meter that cannot even be fully discovered. Like measuring the acceleration due to gravity.
Jackson LaRose:Yes, you used them to attempt to discredit me directly, to make my argument seem less plausible. Isn't that an ad hominem attack?
I approached the argument head on "The reasons for determining truth aren't the tools at all. The reason (motivation) differs, its generally to further one's understanding to improve one's odds of survival, gain wealth, or even to discover "truth."" so there simply isn't an ad hominen.
Jackson LaRose:So why was I able to quote all of your references to truth? Shouldn't you have said "believe it's true", or "what I think is the truth"? If that's what you meant, I would argue that you aren't a liberal.
We've had this discussion before, I had already made it clear my views on truth and absolutes. Unless you think I'm god, its obvious that I can only express my opinion, most would assume as such. Famous liberals have argued this very point.
Jackson LaRose:and read "The Tortoise and Achilles" to how far Nirgraham's argument can get you. Argumentation ethics only works if the opponent claims a contrary position, not if he is agnostic. That's why he laughs when I say "I don't know", since not having the pretension of absolute knowledge is a completely foreign concept to him (if you've ever debated him, you know what I mean).
It wasn't an application of AE, it looked like a clever point on this trivial knowing/thinking dichotomy and relativism. Saying "I think..." before a statement doesn't make it knowledge neutral. Because stating I think is implicitly stating "I know that I think...: and on to infinite.
Jackson LaRose:Well, yes that's a possibility. Again, this position is based on my perception of reality. I could be totally wrong. It doesn't bother me to admit my shortcomings. I don't know.
As are all positions! Why your position isn't an ideology is just you not wanting to call it as such.
Jackson LaRose:Once again, you misunderstand. Ideologues make absolutes out of their faith. Agnostics do not.
Then you are still in the same boat as liberals. Perhaps the terms need more scrutiny.
Jackson LaRose:I think you've just read it through the eyes of an ideologue (black or white). Try it again with an open mind.
LOL. I'll take an informed mind thank you very much. There isn't any reason to hold him above critical analysis.
Angurse:(on Nirgraham's argument)... It wasn't an application of AE, it looked like a clever point on this trivial knowing/thinking dichotomy and relativism. Saying "I think..." before a statement doesn't make it knowledge neutral. Because stating I think is implicitly stating "I know that I think...: and on to infinite.
simply browsing this thread, skipping along, saw this, and yes, nirgraham made a clever point indeed as I remember that argument.
Angurse:Then its just a no for liberals.
Our whole discourse was based our agreed definition of Liberalism:
"Man should be free'''
Angurse:if you mean definition I think it works fairly well
This contains an absolute, the should.
Angurse:An ideology is a group of ideas that one used to guide their actions and expectations
based upon absolute definitions:
"An ideology is a set of aims and ideas that directs one's goals, expectations, and actions. An ideology can be thought of as a comprehensive vision, as a way of looking at things (compare worldview), as in common sense (see Ideology in everyday society below) and several philosophical tendencies (see Political ideologies), or a set of ideas proposed by the dominant class of a society to all members of this society (a 'received consciousness' or product of socialization). The main purpose behind an ideology is to offer change in society, and adherence to a set of ideals where conformity already exists, through a normative thought process. Ideologies are systems of abstract thought (as opposed to mere ideation) applied to public matters and thus make this concept central to politics. Implicitly every political tendency entails an ideology whether or not it is propounded as an explicit system of thought." - Wiki
Angurse:people who share similar ideas can be placed into categories for convenience.
That is irrelevant to the definition of ideology.
Angurse:Liberals don't just stop learning once they've reached point X of ideas, this is obviously true since many refine, alter and abandon their ideas, some so much that they don't meat the minimal criteria.
At which point they are no longer Liberals. I'm not saying that people can't change their minds.
Angurse:Or you are just approaching them from an absolutist perspective and presuming more than you should.
I approach them that way because they are absolute terms by definition:
"Truth can have a variety of meanings, from the state of being the case, being in accord with a particular fact or reality, being in accord with the body of real things, events, actuality, or fidelity to an original or to a standard." - Wiki
I apologize if I was incorrectly presuming you were using words as they are defined.
Angurse:No, it means there is a relative meter that cannot even be fully discovered.
I don't really understand this passage. If the meter is relative, than there would be no "mistakes" as everyone could define them differently, or if you posit it is unknowable, then it would be external to our perception, hence objectively exist, we just can't fully understand it. This is what I've been saying with the whole omniscience thing.
Angurse:Like measuring the acceleration due to gravity.
I don't understand the analogy.
Angurse:I approached the argument head on "The reasons for determining truth aren't the tools at all. The reason (motivation) differs, its generally to further one's understanding to improve one's odds of survival, gain wealth, or even to discover "truth."" so there simply isn't an ad hominen.
That wasn't what I was referring to:
Angurse:two, by your previous posts on the fora seem like a complete character change. Just read nirgrahamUKs hilarious trouncing. Regardless...
Not ad hominem?
Angurse:I had already made it clear my views on truth and absolutes.
You've made them known, but judging by your numerous self-contradicting statements, I don't think they are very clear (even to you).
Angurse:Unless you think I'm god, its obvious that I can only express my opinion, most would assume as such.
I think we agree on this. Of course, to claim you are a believer in Liberalism (men should be free), would imply that you are willing to trust your opinion as if it were truth (hence be on par with omniscience, or god), so I'm not sure what your position is on the matter.
Angurse:Famous liberals have argued this very point.
Than I would argue they aren't Liberals.
Angurse:before a statement doesn't make it knowledge neutral. Because stating I think is implicitly stating "I know that I think...: and on to infinite.
It is claiming an (non-omniscient) absolute to claim that one must exist to think.
Angurse:As are all positions!
Unless deemed true by faith.
Angurse:Why your position isn't an ideology is just you not wanting to call it as such.
It's me not claiming it as truth.
Angurse:Then you are still in the same boat as liberals. Perhaps the terms need more scrutiny.
Not according to our formerly agreed upon definition. Perhaps you should re-evaluate what you consent to labeling yourself as.
Angurse:LOL. I'll take an informed mind thank you very much. There isn't any reason to hold him above critical analysis.
Well, you can interpret it any way you want, and I'm sure Stirner would challenge anyone to subject his ideas to the most intense critical analysis they can muster.
I just think you are missing some important points he makes. He doesn't posit that he should or ought to be free, he simply points out how an ideology is simply a religion, and how Liberalism has replaced man with God. I don't remember reading passages where he betrays those positions to support a new argument, or where he contradicts himself.
Jackson LaRose: Our whole discourse was based our agreed definition of Liberalism: "Man should be free'''
But I said that wasn't a definition. And our whole discourse hasn't been really based on anything.
Jackson LaRose:based upon absolute definitions:
Read the first sentence. "An ideology is a set of aims and ideas that directs one's goals, expectations, and actions." looks familiar...
Jackson LaRose:That is irrelevant to the definition of ideology.
Sure, but its useful when categorising them. Like say... liberal
Jackson LaRose:At which point they are no longer Liberals. I'm not saying that people can't change their minds.
Are you just agreeing with me now? If they meet the commonality "liberty" then they are, if they stray from that then aren't. I've mentioned several who don't stray from the commonality. Using your sentence at the beginning: If a person, say, Alain says "people should be free because they are generally well behaved and won't harm one another" hes a liberal, "people should be free" after all. After years of study he changes his mind, "people are just awful, however they're are so awful putting one in power would be stupid so they should be free" hes still a liberal.
Jackson LaRose:I approach them that way because they are absolute terms by definition:
Not really, even the definition you've provided is open ended. It even provides a link for you can explore it further.
Jackson LaRose:I don't really understand this passage. If the meter is relative, than there would be no "mistakes" as everyone could define them differently, or if you posit it is unknowable, then it would be external to our perception, hence objectively exist, we just can't fully understand it. This is what I've been saying with the whole omniscience thing.
What is still ultimately relative can still be accepted by many. One can measure G and declare its 9.81m/s, further 9.806m/s etc... or they can measure it to be 32.2ft/s etc... Either way gravity will never be fully realized. Or one can play the role of the eternal skeptic and say "you're instruments are faulty, you're methods are faulty, ... don't even bother this may all be a dream." Even if his last contention is correct and it is relative to somethings fantasy is in fact correct it doesn't matter. Again, read Popper.
Jackson LaRose:Not ad hominem?
I didn't say your argument was wrong because your a manchild (ad hominem). I said 1. your first sentence is false (not an ad hom) and the following seemed odd (not an ad hom). You still haven't explained yourself, instead you jumped on the ad hom wagon.
Jackson LaRose:You've made them known, but judging by your numerous self-contradicting statements, I don't think they are very clear (even to you).
If I've made them known then those self-contradicting statements cease to be so.
Jackson LaRose:I think we agree on this. Of course, to claim you are a believer in Liberalism (men should be free), would imply that you are willing to trust your opinion as if it were truth (hence be on par with omniscience, or god), so I'm not sure what your position is on the matter.
LOL. It doesn't mean that you are willing to trust your opinion as if it were absolute truth at all. It means you trust your opinion as far as it hasn't been falsified yet (that you know of). To be directly contrasted with religious people who believe in the Qur'an despite it being shown to be incorrect.
Jackson LaRose:It is claiming an (non-omniscient) absolute to claim that one must exist to think.
What is an "(non-omniscient) absolute?" Absolutes come from Omniscience, no? I don't why see one couldn't exist without thinking though.
Jackson LaRose:Unless deemed true by faith.
Question-begging (or complete non-sequitar, your choice)
Jackson LaRose:It's me not claiming it as truth.
And neither are liberals. "It isn't an example of an absolute judgment, its ones opinion guiding them." "Liberals don't believe that man is perfect in judgement at all." You are in exact the same boat when it comes to making claims.
Jackson LaRose:Not according to our formerly agreed upon definition. Perhaps you should re-evaluate what you consent to labeling yourself as.
When never agreed that ideology was a matter of making absolutes. And what I label myself as is irrelevent to your attempts to try and fuse ideology with religion.
Jackson LaRose: I just think you are missing some important points he makes. He doesn't posit that he should or ought to be free, he simply points out how an ideology is simply a religion, and how Liberalism has replaced man with God. I don't remember reading passages where he betrays those positions to support a new argument, or where he contradicts himself.
Maybe you have a selective memory. Yes, he does expose Feuerbachian Humanism to be replacing god with man, and many liberals at the time (and area) were Feuerbachian Humanists. You've already conceded that Humanism isn't liberalism so your (and his) conclusion about liberalism (as a whole) are false. Further, he didn't point out how ideology itself is simply religion, thats a case you are trying to make. I didn't say he contradicted himself I said he didn't seem to fully grasp what he was saying as he laid very big grounds for liberalism itself. His ranting about the state are great, his ranting about morals running people are shortsided. And his elevating freedom is pretty obvious.
Jackson LaRose: Angurse:while good, just points to a restructuring of... liberalism I think you've just read it through the eyes of an ideologue (black or white). Try it again with an open mind.
I think Stirner's critique of liberalism was only directed at certain branches of it (and possibly before the term took on an evolution in meaning). I mean Von Mises and de Jasay are considerd liberals. The word itself seems a bit confusing. I set up a topic to hopefuly help me seek clarity on the definition.
Dondoolee: I think Stirner's critique of liberalism was only directed at certain branches of it (and possibly before the term took on an evolution in meaning). I mean Von Mises and de Jasay are considerd liberals. The word itself seems a bit confusing. I set up a topic to hopefuly help me seek clarity on the definition.
Quit agreeing with me!
Angurse:But I said that wasn't a definition. And our whole discourse hasn't been really based on anything.
Jackson LaRose:If this is the case, can we agree that an appropriate ideological statement of liberalism (in the broadest possible sense) would be: "Man should be free''' Is that fair?
Is that fair?
Angurse:I'm not sure what an ideological statement is, if you mean definition I think it works fairly well with a little reformatting.
So Liberalism is not an Ideology. Is that what you are saying?
Angurse:Read the first sentence. "An ideology is a set of aims and ideas that directs one's goals, expectations, and actions." looks familiar...
And ignore the whole:
Because it would not serve your purpose.
Angurse:Are you just agreeing with me now? If they meet the commonality "liberty" then they are, if they stray from that then aren't
don't understand, try using more prepositions next time
Angurse:hes still a liberal.
Yes, exactly. Because he has made a judgment in the absolute sense, the should. Unless you are specifying what sect of Liberalism, how he comes to understand his faith in that absolute is irrelevant.
Angurse:I didn't say your argument was wrong because your a manchild (ad hominem). I said 1. your first sentence is false (not an ad hom) and the following seemed odd (not an ad hom). You still haven't explained yourself, instead you jumped on the ad hom wagon.
"An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument toward the person" or "argument against the person") is an argument which links the validity of a premise to an irrelevant characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise." - Wiki
Angurse:If I've made them known then those self-contradicting statements cease to be so.
Not if they keep getting altered to suit your case.
Angurse:LOL. It doesn't mean that you are willing to trust your opinion as if it were absolute truth at all.
Then please explain the "should"
Angurse:It means you trust your opinion as far as it hasn't been falsified yet (that you know of)
As true in the objective sense.
Angurse:To be directly contrasted with religious people who believe in the Qur'an despite it being shown to be incorrect.
How?
Angurse:What is an "(non-omniscient) absolute?"
Claiming an absolute without omniscience.
Angurse:And neither are liberals. "It isn't an example of an absolute judgment, its ones opinion guiding them."
Then Liberalism is not an Ideology, so it is a meaningless term. Why use it at all?
Angurse:When never agreed that ideology was a matter of making absolutes.
Of course you didn't. You don't have to either. Hell, from now on, to me "Ideology" is going to mean the stuff I find in my belly-button. Without agreement on definitions, this debate has devolved into simple contradiction. If you don't want to accept the definition of words, you don't have to.
Angurse:And what I label myself as is irrelevent to your attempts to try and fuse ideology with religion.
Ideology and Religion are absolute statements of belief, just like truth is an absolute statement. But if we disagree about the definition of truth as absolute, then the whole argument is just wasted characters. It is obvious that neither side has a reason to concede, since each has firmly decided that the respective meanings they've attached to the groupings of letters in question is correct. I suggest a draw, as this has no end in sight.
Angurse:You've already conceded that Humanism isn't liberalism so your (and his) conclusion about liberalism (as a whole) are false
I was really going out beyond Stirner with Liberalism, because it is still a set of fixed ideas that one must abrogate himself to.
Angurse:Further, he didn't point out how ideology itself is simply religion, thats a case you are trying to make.
I never said he did. But I will say that Ideologies are fixed ideas, and Stirner has loads to say about them.
Angurse:I said he didn't seem to fully grasp what he was saying as he laid very big grounds for liberalism itself. His ranting about the state are great, his ranting about morals running people are shortsided. And his elevating freedom is pretty obvious.
It's terrible what a great work can be contorted to in the hands of an ideologue. I implore you to read it again. Actually, it would be great if you could write up a critique. Marx's was 400+ pages though, so be warned, those are some pretty big shoes to fill.
Jackson LaRose: So Liberalism is not an Ideology. Is that what you are saying?
I've said repeatedly that it is an ideology. "The word basically means 'a political ideology, stressing the importance of liberty for a variety of reasons.'"
Jackson LaRose: And ignore the whole: Because it would not serve your purpose.
Read the whole, it doesn't proclaim ideologues as pushers of absolute truth at all. In fact, an ideologue could push something that they believe is false.
Jackson LaRose:don't understand, try using more prepositions next time
That would probably sting more if you didn't chop the explaining (and preposition-filled!) body off.
Jackson LaRose:Yes, exactly. Because he has made a judgment in the absolute sense, the should. Unless you are specifying what sect of Liberalism, how he comes to understand his faith in that absolute is irrelevant.
Except, there was nothing indicating he made a judgment in the absolute, rather from his own observations. Unless you are saying he has faith in his observations... which you know you shouldn't be. And "that absolute" is a nonsensical term.
Jackson LaRose:"An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument toward the person" or "argument against the person") is an argument which links the validity of a premise to an irrelevant characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise." - Wiki
Exactly. Nothing about asking what your position is can even be insinuated as an attempt at invalidation. I'm still trying to get your premises straight as they aren't clear.
Jackson LaRose:Not if they keep getting altered to suit your case.
Good thing I've made my self clear already.
Jackson LaRose:Then please explain the "should"
There is nothing to explain really. My saying what you should do doesn't imply a belief in absolute truth. For example I see you standing in the middle of a dark street at night, I see two headlights coming towards you fast. I shout "you should move!" however as it turns out it was really two motorcyclists riding along side one another. I didn't know absolutely, in fact, I even knew what a motorcycle was and that they had lights, however that didn't seem likely. So I proceeded in yelling. Nothing absolute, no faith.
Jackson LaRose:As true in the objective sense.
The objective sense isn't obtainable, remember we could be in a dream.
Jackson LaRose:How?
Its an contrasting device, I'm not going into Qu'ran problems.
Jackson LaRose:Claiming an absolute without omniscience.
That isn't being done in this case though.
Jackson LaRose:Then Liberalism is not an Ideology, so it is a meaningless term. Why use it at all?
Or you could use a better term for ideology that isn't necessarily fused at the hip with religion, it would makes more sense, and been more in line with the general useage.
Jackson LaRose:Of course you didn't. You don't have to either. Hell, from now on, to me "Ideology" is going to mean the stuff I find in my belly-button. Without agreement on definitions, this debate has devolved into simple contradiction. If you don't want to accept the definition of words, you don't have to.
"An ideology is a set of aims and ideas that directs one's goals, expectations, and actions." And please don't lie. "Not according to our formerly agreed upon definition." vs. "Of course you didn't."
Jackson LaRose:Ideology and Religion are absolute statements of belief, just like truth is an absolute statement. But if we disagree about the definition of truth as absolute, then the whole argument is just wasted characters. It is obvious that neither side has a reason to concede, since each has firmly decided that the respective meanings they've attached to the groupings of letters in question is correct. I suggest a draw, as this has no end in sight.
Restating your refuted premises doesn't help your case. There was never a reason to think that ideology demands absolute statements of belief over mere expression of opinions the definitions even agree, so accept it, Stirner won't look down at you.
Jackson LaRose:I was really going out beyond Stirner with Liberalism, because it is still a set of fixed ideas that one must abrogate himself to.
One mustn't abrogate oneself though. One mustn't do a thing.
Jackson LaRose:I never said he did. But I will say that Ideologies are fixed ideas, and Stirner has loads to say about them.
Fixed ideas are ideas that have subjected man, ideas that people embrace because they believe them to be correct and beneficial aren't. I believe drinking water will keep me from dying, idealogue! Perhaps you should re-read him and get a better understanding (or read others)
Jackson LaRose:It's terrible what a great work can be contorted to in the hands of an ideologue. I implore you to read it again. Actually, it would be great if you could write up a critique. Marx's was 400+ pages though, so be warned, those are some pretty big shoes to fill.
Really, I can see a little cult being built around him already, which is sad as I liked the book, but just because I liked it doesn't mean I'm going to "subject myself to it!"
Saint Max Indeed.
Angurse: Really, I can see a little cult being built around him already, which is sad as I liked the book, but just because I liked it doesn't mean I'm going to "subject myself to it!" Saint Max Indeed.
The book is merely a tool of understanding. It puts many things into perspective.
Do I subject myself to it? No.
I maintain beliefs and opinions about the world. The thing is to keep them under your will, not to modify your will to suit the idea. If you maintain the belief that men should be free, you must ask yourself if you control that belief, or if the belief controls you. Oughts are fixed ideas, shoulds are fixed ideas.
Saint Max? You really don't understand. Which is strange, because apparently you no longer hold fixed ideas. I guess that makes you an egoist, because without principle, you are only driven by your wants to take what you can through acts of will. Welcome to the fold, brother.
An ideology is a set of aims and ideas that directs one's goals, expectations, and actions. An ideology can be thought of as a comprehensive vision, as a way of looking at things (compare worldview), as in common sense (see Ideology in everyday society below) and several philosophical tendencies (see Political ideologies), or a set of ideas proposed by the dominant class of a society to all members of this society (a 'received consciousness' or product of socialization). The main purpose behind an ideology is to offer change in society, and adherence to a set of ideals where conformity already exists, through a normative thought process.
Please read this statement, especially the bold, underlined text. I would appreciate it if you payed special attention to the word "normative".
In economics, a normative statement expresses a judgement about whether a situation is desirable or undesirable. "The world would be a better place if the moon were made of green cheese" is a normative statement because it expresses a judgement about what ought to be. Notice that there is no way of disproving this statement. If you disagree with it, you have no sure way of disproving someone who believes the statement that he or she is wrong. Normative statements usually contain the modal verbs 'should', 'would' or 'could'.
Ideologies that aren't fixed ideas are non-existent, by definition. I am really nonplussed how you can argue this. That's what it means. It's quite pathetic you have resorted to lying to yourself to keep holding on to your word.
All people are driven purely by wants, a point Stirner missed, the fold includes everyone, brother.
Jackson LaRose:Ideologies that aren't fixed ideas are non-existent, by definition. I am really nonplussed how you can argue this. That's what it means. It's quite pathetic you have resorted to lying to yourself to keep holding on to your word.
Argue what? I'm arguing that the concept of fixed ideas itself is faulty, so the arguing via its definition isn't going to help your case. "Fixed ideas are ideas that have subjected man, ideas that people embrace because they believe them to be correct and beneficial aren't." So, you have either been missing a point I've made repeatedly now, or just don't want to deal with the errors of Saint Max. However, your definition is still false, ideologies are based off of ideas they aren't the ideas themselves. Moving on, I'm glad you've abandoned the "ideologies declare absolute truth" blather, it was completely unfounded. As for normative, I really have no qualms with using the normative thought process to further an ideology. Not being able to disprove the statement "You should do X because it will cause Z" is of no consequence, because its descriptive form "X causes Z" can be disproven.
Jackson LaRose: E. R. Olovetto:I don't feel like reading this whole thread, but what does this have to do with it? I have taken the position that Liberalism and all it's sects (Classical Liberalism, Libertarianism, communism, social liberalism, fascism, nazism, socialism, etc.) are faith based ideologies, or religions. The rest of your post is just the result of confusion over definitons/semantics.
E. R. Olovetto:I don't feel like reading this whole thread, but what does this have to do with it?
I have taken the position that Liberalism and all it's sects (Classical Liberalism, Libertarianism, communism, social liberalism, fascism, nazism, socialism, etc.) are faith based ideologies, or religions.
The rest of your post is just the result of confusion over definitons/semantics.
The only confusion is on your part. Libertarianism is not a religion, nor is it a sect of liberalism (either definition), and it is distinct from the other things you listed. Can you figure out why?
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.
Angurse:"Fixed ideas are ideas that have subjected man, ideas that people embrace because they believe them to be correct and beneficial aren't.
This definition is close, but no cigar, the "aren't" at the end presumes you objectively know what is beneficial, and what isn't. I find it hard to accept a definition of the concept of fixed ideas, based on a fixed idea! You really don't get it.
Angurse:So, you have either been missing a point I've made repeatedly now
Which point is that?
Angurse:or just don't want to deal with the errors of Saint Max
It's not Stirner's fault you read his work with blinders on.
Angurse:However, your definition is still false, ideologies are based off of ideas they aren't the ideas themselves
Then you have been misinterpreting my definitions. They are belief systems based on fixed ideas derived from a normative thought process. I've been saying this all along.
Angurse:Moving on, I'm glad you've abandoned the "ideologies declare absolute truth" blather, it was completely unfounded.
I'm sorry, fixed ideas are concepts in the absolute. One ought, one should want, it is right to.
Angurse:As for normative, I really have no qualms with using the normative thought process to further an ideology. Not being able to disprove the statement "You should do X because it will cause Z" is of no consequence, because its descriptive form "X causes Z" can be disproven.
So you are able to exchange one fixed idea for another, to give the puppet master pulling the strings guiding your life a new name tag. How liberated you are! Of course you don't have a problem with normative ideas, as an ideologue, a puppet, your life would have no direction without striving to your higher calling. You've done a better job exposing yourself for the intellectual fraud that you are than I ever could. Thanks for the help.
E. R. Olovetto:Can you figure out why?
No, why?
Jackson LaRose: E. R. Olovetto:Can you figure out why? No, why?
Maybe then you should stop blabbering, read something related to what you are arguing against, and learn to think on your own. It isn't a hard question.
E. R. Olovetto:Maybe then you should stop blabbering, read something related to what you are arguing against, and learn to think on your own. It isn't a hard question.
Enlighten me, Padre.
Jackson LaRose:This definition is close, but no cigar, the "aren't" at the end presumes you objectively know what is beneficial, and what isn't. I find it hard to accept a definition of the concept of fixed ideas, based on a fixed idea! You really don't get it.
"What is it, then, that is called a 'fixed idea'? An idea that has subjected the man to itself. When you recognize, with regard to such a fixed idea, that it is a folly, you shut its slave up in an asylum."
Jackson LaRose:Which point is that?
Stirner didn't realise that people do act selfishly, hence the silly ness of "half-egoist."
Jackson LaRose:It's not Stirner's fault you read his work with blinders on.
Or you have just deified him.
Jackson LaRose:Then you have been misinterpreting my definitions. They are belief systems based on fixed ideas derived from a normative thought process. I've been saying this all along.
Yet, that is false. Belief systems aren't based on ideas derived from a normative thought process, the ideas are derived from a descriptive thought process then applied normatively.
Jackson LaRose:I'm sorry, fixed ideas are concepts in the absolute. One ought, one should want, it is right to.
Those aren't necessarily concepts in the absolute though, more question begging - read the last three pages or so.
Jackson LaRose: So you are able to exchange one fixed idea for another, to give the puppet master pulling the strings guiding your life a new name tag. How liberated you are! Of course you don't have a problem with normative ideas, as an ideologue, a puppet, your life would have no direction without striving to your higher calling. You've done a better job exposing yourself for the intellectual fraud that you are than I ever could. Thanks for the help.
You control what ideas you accept, not the other way around. LOL at the last half, more cult-like by the day. Give me 10 "Hail Max" to reaffirm your faith.
Angurse: Jackson LaRose:I'm sorry, fixed ideas are concepts in the absolute. One ought, one should want, it is right to. Those aren't necessarily concepts in the absolute though, more question begging - read the last three pages or so.
I think this whole talk has been unnecessary for 'the last three pages or so'. I think LaRose was trying to convolute every type of ideology, be it descriptive or prescriptive, as if it were the same thing, and they certainly are in a way, in that they are manifestations of the mind, but I don't think the descriptive ones are as intrusive to human thought as he makes it to be. I do agree with LaRose when he speaks 'evil' about moral (prescriptive) ideologies however.
The question begging here is, "is the idea that fixed ideas are bad/incomplete/untestable/detrimental, a fixed idea itself? And if so, why is that not a contradiction?", isn't it.
Angurse:"What is it, then, that is called a 'fixed idea'? An idea that has subjected the man to itself. When you recognize, with regard to such a fixed idea, that it is a folly, you shut its slave up in an asylum."
You got it.
Angurse:Stirner didn't realise that people do act selfishly, hence the silly ness of "half-egoist."
I think he realized that each action ultimately reduces to self interest. Although, the distinction lies in whether the person believes that the idea determines their best interest, or if the idea is subject to the individual's will, or his own:
"The web of the hypocrisy of today hangs on the frontiers of two domains, between which our time swings back and forth, attaching its fine threads of deception and self-deception. No longer vigorous enough to serve morality without doubt or weakening, not yet reckless enough to live wholly to egoism, it trembles now toward the one and now toward the other in the spider-web of hypocrisy, and, crippled by the curse of halfness, catches only miserable, stupid flies. If one has once dared to make a "free" motion, immediately one waters it again with assurances of love, and -- shams resignation; if, on the other side, they have had the face to reject the free motion with moral appeals to confidence, immediately the moral courage also sinks, and they assure one how they hear the free words with special pleasure, etc.;" - Max Stirner, The Ego and It's Own
This actually seems like a pretty good explanation of the "half-egoists", like the relativist liberals (no offense). Why submit to fixed ideas to justify action?
Angurse:Yet, that is false. Belief systems aren't based on ideas derived from a normative thought process, the ideas are derived from a descriptive thought process then applied normatively.
Wow, I think you just did a great job of describing yourself as a half-egoist. It's kind of understandable that you see the label as silly, because you apparently fail to see the contradiction in you own statement of principle!
"In the humanities and social sciences, the term positive (occasionally positivist) is used in a number of ways.
One usage refers to analysis or theories which only attempt to describe how things are, as opposed to how they should be. In this sense, the opposite of positive is normative. An example would be positive, as opposed to normative, economic analysis. Positive statements are also often referred to as descriptive statements."
"In philosophy, normative statements affirm how things should or ought to be, how to value them, which things are good or bad, which actions are right or wrong. Normative is usually contrasted with positive (i.e. descriptive, explanatory, or constative) when describing types of theories, beliefs, or propositions. Positive statements are factual statements that attempt to describe reality."
So you are determining your belief system utilizing opposite though processes simultaneously. The halfness, the hypocrisy...
Angurse: Those aren't necessarily concepts in the absolute though, more question begging - read the last three pages or so.
I've read your entries, they are not convincing. Any normative statement requires an assertion of truth. Which by definition, is absolute! Please, if you are going to keep arguing this point, I would ask a concise explanation of your position. Remember, this is me you're talking to, so try to make it as simple and understandable as possible.
Angurse:You control what ideas you accept,.
Again, I'm not arguing that point. To reinterpret your statement, you appears to be your position:
"You control what ideas you allow to control your actions."
Which is why you insist on hitching normative value statements on your ideas.
Angurse:not the other way around
No one in this conversation is arguing the opposite of your statement, which would be:
"Ideas control what people they accept"
This probably explains why you are consistenly misinterpreting what I am trying to convey.
Angurse:LOL at the last half, more cult-like by the day. Give me 10 "Hail Max" to reaffirm your faith.
This is exactly what an ideologue would presume. I'm sorry, I attempt to be as post-ideological as possible, which seems like a concept beyond your scope of comprehension. The "for us or against us" mentality of zealots...
yuberries: think LaRose was trying to convolute every type of ideology, be it descriptive or prescriptive, as if it were the same thing
What I'm saying is an observation is only descriptive, than by definition it is no longer an ideology. As Angurse himself states:
Angurse:Belief systems aren't based on ideas derived from a normative thought process, the ideas are derived from a descriptive thought process then applied normatively.
An ideology (or belief system) are ultimately prescriptive, regardless of how heavily they rely on descriptive observations to arrive at that conclusion.
yuberries:I do agree with LaRose when he speaks 'evil' about moral (prescriptive) ideologies however.
Al I am saying is that Ideologies are no different that what we would classify as religion. They are normative beliefs, which can be dangerous.
yuberries:"is the idea that fixed ideas are bad/incomplete/untestable/detrimental, a fixed idea itself? And if so, why is that not a contradiction?",
A fixed idea is the same as a normative idea. That's all I am saying. A normative decision on the rightness or wrongness of maintaining them is not my concern, I am just saying that once the concept of Ideology as truth is present in one's mind, it leaves open the possibility of "righteous action", the same kind that starved millions of Ukrainians, Slaughtered millions of Jews, tortured millions of heretics, and wiped the aboriginal American race/culture off the face of the planet.
Your evocations of tragedy are completely irrelevant since the 'possibility' of abusing others is not 'closed off' for 'egoists' 'of no fixed ideology'
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
nirgrahamUK:Your evocations of tragedy are completely irrelevant since the 'possibility' of abusing others is not 'closed off' for 'egoists' 'of no fixed ideology'
That's true, it isn't. But it seems hard to coordinate the number of individuals required to implement such sytematic destruction if there is no banner to rally under.
Mises was quite clear that the Nazi's and Communists and all others who sweep up the masses into a frenzy of self-destruction do so by claiming that the masses will be prosperous as a result of the momentous changes. That seems to me to be an entirely egoistic enticement.
nirgrahamUK:Mises was quite clear that the Nazi's and Communists and all others who sweep up the masses into a frenzy of self-destruction do so by claiming that the masses will be prosperous as a result of the momentous changes. That seems to me to be an entirely egoistic enticement.
I would totally agree. They used people's self-interest to fool them into prescribing to their Ideology, or allowing them to carry it out. The germ of the bloodshed was still a fixed idea, a sense of "manifest destiny", or righteousness in their actions.
Jackson LaRose: yuberries: think LaRose was trying to convolute every type of ideology, be it descriptive or prescriptive, as if it were the same thing What I'm saying is an observation is only descriptive, than by definition it is no longer an ideology. As Angurse himself states:
Oh ok, I didn't know that. And I don't think Angurse knew you were referring to ideologies this way either!
Jackson LaRose: nirgrahamUK:Mises was quite clear that the Nazi's and Communists and all others who sweep up the masses into a frenzy of self-destruction do so by claiming that the masses will be prosperous as a result of the momentous changes. That seems to me to be an entirely egoistic enticement. I would totally agree. They used people's self-interest to fool them into prescribing to their Ideology, or allowing them to carry it out. The germ of the bloodshed was still a fixed idea, a sense of "manifest destiny", or righteousness in their actions.
But then, how do you discern when people are being egoists and when they're acting on behalf of a fraudulent collective, if everyone's an egoist deep inside?
Well, let me try to answer my own question, lol. It seems there's levels of egoism, and those who are fooled into believing in a false collective are less egoistic, and thus, with greater layers of collectivism, they're able to do themselves (and also to others by disregarding retaliation) a greater harm.
yuberries:But then, how do you discern when people are being egoists and when they're acting on behalf of a fraudulent collective, if everyone's an egoist deep inside?
Well, usually, it's that statement of shoulds, oughts, x is right, x is wrong, appeals to reason, morality, justice, etc. These normative qualifiers hitched to statements are dead giveaways to an ideologue spouting some faith based conclusion they accept as truth. Watch for these weasel words when listening to politicians. If one was an egoist, instead of acting egoistically (there is a difference), these words would probably not be part of the message.
yuberries:nd those who are fooled into believing in a false collective are less egoistic
Well, they have instead subsumed their self-interest to the idea. In their eyes, their self interest has become the idea, they are indiscernible.