Jackson LaRose:

Well, they have instead subsumed their self-interest to the idea.  In their eyes, their self interest has become the idea, they are indiscernible.

you must be turning me into the most radical type of subjectivist because I have no idea what you are trying to communicate here

I'm saying that ideologues begin to live for the advancement of their ideals.

that's good propaganda you got there. 

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.

 

FINALLY, man it took forever.  I am so glad the Nazi's and commies are back in another religous debate.  The Nazi's are definatly the opposite of what you believe and very similar to what your opponent favors.

It took forever? I do believe the Nazi's and Commies were 'back in the debate' pages ago when someone other than me brought them in....

Jackson LaRose:

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.

Alright, but if they're indiscernible, how can you blame the collectivist ideology from causing so much harm to others and to himself? If it's part of the individual's choice...

It seems like the case of the killer who pulled the trigger: the gun being the ideology and the killer being the egoist fully conscious of what pulling the trigger meant. You can't blame the gun at all, can you? It may have enabled the killer to kill, but the killer was... the killer, not the gun, or the bullet.

So I think you should put less of an emphasis on other people's adopted ideologies and rather focus on why did they choose to adopt these ideologies in the first place, as a descriptive question of inquiry. (Perhaps you were doing that already but idk)

yuberries:

Alright, but if they're indiscernible, how can you blame the collectivist ideology from causing so much harm to others and to himself?

Because to an ideologue, there are the brothers of the faith, and the infidels, the righteous, and the heathen, the true men, and the un-men. 

yuberries:

It seems like the case of the killer who pulled the trigger: the gun being the ideology and the killer being the egoist fully conscious of what pulling the trigger meant.

That seems like a fair analogy.

yuberries:

You can't blame the gun at all, can you? It may have enabled the killer to kill, but the killer was... the killer, not the gun, or the bullet.

Yes.  It's a tool to make the coercion possible.  Rather than the physical aspect (the gun), the Ideology the justification in the eyes of the ideologue.

yuberries:

So I think you should put less of an emphasis on other people's adopted ideologies and rather focus on why did they choose to adopt these ideologies in the first place, as a descriptive question of inquiry. (Perhaps you were doing that already but idk)

I think it's important for an individual to realize that the fixed idea is just a belief, just conjecture.  An idea without an ought is held by the Individual, not the other way around.  These are much less dangerous, because they don't open to door to righteous action..

 

Jackson LaRose:

These are much less dangerous, because they don't open to door to righteous action..

this is just so much propoganda

nirgrahamUK:

Jackson LaRose:

These are much less dangerous, because they don't open to door to righteous action..

this is just so much propoganda

It isn't even remotely on topic either. I asked him to back up his assertion that libertarianism is a religion, and to attempt to explain why it might be different than all these other ideologies he listed, then he just plays dumb, ignores the question, and keeps ranting.

nirgrahamUK:

Jackson LaRose:

These are much less dangerous, because they don't open to door to righteous action..

this is just so much propoganda

 

1) I think his sig indicates he isn't certain about this.  "I think you should do X deed, though do not think it is something I fully believe in, it is just the conclusion I came up with at the moment" seems to be the gist of it.  If that is propaganda, so be it.

2)He could just be stating preference and his subjective value system.  If I say play Xenosaga because it is an awsome game, I would not consider that propaganda. Actually it is a fact, Xenosaga is an awsome game.

E. R. Olovetto:

this is just so much propoganda

espousing what?  I was merely expressing an opinion.

E. R. Olovetto:

It isn't even remotely on topic either.

The guy asked me a question, I answered it.

E. R. Olovetto:

I asked him to back up his assertion that libertarianism is a religion

You asked me how they were different.  I don't think they are.  I asked you to explain, and you refused.

E. R. Olovetto:

and to attempt to explain why it might be different than all these other ideologies he listed

I don't think it is.

E. R. Olovetto:

then he just plays dumb, ignores the question, and keeps ranting.

I'd say that's exactly what you're doing, not me.

If you want to know what my definition of ideology is, I suggest you read some of my former posts.  That's not what you asked:

E. R. Olovetto:

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?

I don't they think they are distinct, so please - tell me why you do.

Jackson LaRose:

yuberries:

You can't blame the gun at all, can you? It may have enabled the killer to kill, but the killer was... the killer, not the gun, or the bullet.

Yes.  It's a tool to make the coercion possible.  Rather than the physical aspect (the gun), the Ideology the justification in the eyes of the ideologue.

How are you going to blame a gun or bullet for murder? I mean, I agree with most if not all you're saying, just that the emphasis is a little off.

 

And to all the people complaining about LaRose, haters are gonna hate lol

yuberries:

How are you going to blame a gun or bullet for murder? I mean, I agree with most if not all you're saying, just that the emphasis is a little off.

Sorry, that was confusing.  I meant "yes" like "I agree" in that response.

Excellent.

*mr. burns macro image*

Jackson LaRose:

E. R. Olovetto:

It isn't even remotely on topic either.

The guy asked me a question, I answered it.

It doesn't excuse you going off-topic. I mean seriously....

Because to an ideologue, there are the brothers of the faith, and the infidels, the righteous, and the heathen, the true men, and the un-men.

Jackson LaRose:

E. R. Olovetto:

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?

I don't they think they are, so please - tell me.

You said that libertarianism is a religion and a "sect of liberalism". MAYBE the former is relevant, but you did nothing to back up your assertion. Making a disclaimer that "everything is just an opinion", doesn't give you license to spout nonsense.

You still can't name any difference between libertarianism and communism? Big surprise, it was a waste of time to try to talk to someone like you.

To answer captain Picard, my position on true men and un-men is explained in much greater detail in "The Ego and Its Own" by Max Stirner.

E. R. Olovetto:

You said that libertarianism is a religion and a "sect of liberalism". MAYBE the former is relevant, but you did nothing to back up your assertion

I would try pages 4-9 of this thread for an explanation.

E. R. Olovetto:

"everything is just an opinion", doesn't give you license to spout nonsense.

I don't think I really stated it as a disclaimer.  Also, that is a rather crude distillation of what I've been saying.  Where should I apply for a nonsense license?

E. R. Olovetto:

You still can't name any difference between libertarianism and communism?

Sure, there are lots of differences.  Primacy of the individual instead of "the proletariat" as lawgiver, for example.  The commonality that makes them both sect of Liberalism, though, is some form of "Man" as lawgiver, instead of appealing to a transcendental entity (such as God).

Of course, you didn't ask that, and I didn't assert it either.

Jackson LaRose:

You got it.

"Fixed ideas are ideas that have subjected man"

"What is it, then, that is called a 'fixed idea'? An idea that has subjected the man to itself."

Wow, the difference is so obvious! Please. Nothing in Stirner's definition includes people who push ideas because they believe its in their own self-interest. Like liberals and everybody else. Stirner was attacking a straw-man, sorry.

Jackson LaRose:

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...

No he didn't. As it didn't occur to him that people may not accept his all or nothing dogma because they don't think its in their own self-interest, There isn't any distinction, the fact that people can drop an idea entirely implies that they can drop them partially, alter them, fuse them, etc... the idea is always subject to their will.

Jackson LaRose:

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!

As their is no such thing as submitting to "fixed ideas." Everyone acts in their own self-interest (so obviously a half-egoist is nonsense as well).

Jackson LaRose:

So you are determining your belief system utilizing opposite though processes simultaneously.  The halfness, the hypocrisy...

Could you actually explain how instead of copying wikipedia stubs, as there certainly isn't anything inherently contradictory. Example: I describe the fact that freedom makes things cheaper (descriptive) and with said knowledge I tell the king he should lower taxes (normative) as I want cheaper things. Nothing contradictory.

Jackson LaRose:

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.

Please, enough of the lies, there is nothing about the definition of truth which requires it to be absolute.

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. In archaic usage it could be fidelity, constancy or sincerity in action, character, and utterance.^[1] The term has no single definition about which a majority of professional philosophers and scholars agree, and various theories and views of truth continue to be debated. There are differing claims on such questions as what constitutes truth; what things are truthbearers capable of being true or false; how to define and identify truth; the roles that revealed and acquired knowledge play; and whether truth is subjective, relative, objective, or absolute.

More importanly,

The Absolute is the concept of an unconditional reality which transcends limited, conditional, everyday existence.

Its hard to believe that anyone would think that when one spoke his words transcended everyday existence or that the definition of truth required such a thing.

Jackson LaRose:

Again, I'm not arguing that point. 

Wrong. Here's you saying the opposite:

"The thing is to keep them under your will, not to modify your will to suit the idea."

"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"

Jackson LaRose:

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...

And this is exactly what a religious nut would say:

"I think you've just read the bible through the eyes of a heretic (black or white).  Try it again with an open mind."

"Well, you can interpret it any way you want, and I'm sure Jesus would challenge anyone to subject his ideas to the most intense critical analysis they can muster. "

"It's terrible what a great work can be contorted to in the hands of a heretic.  I implore you to read the bible again."

"This is exactly what a heretic would presume.  I'm sorry, I attempt to be as Christ-like as possible, which seems like a concept beyond your scope of comprehension.  The "for us or against us" mentality of zealots..."

Look familiar?

Jackson LaRose:

A fixed idea is the same as a normative idea.  That's all I am saying.

I had to comment about this howler, there is no such thing as a normative idea. You are equivocating hard. Statements are normative, ideologies are normative (this isn't actually true either as ideology can mean a few other things) ideas aren't normative. they are abstract concepts.

Bert:

I've used that time for some personal reflection.  I've been listening to Venom and reading the Satanic Bible.  I hope others were as productive as I.

Dude!

I know I'm late to this again - some of us have to work for a living. I used to be into Death Metal, but, I'm sorry to have to tell you, firstly, Venom suck (that's a bad word!) Secondly, most of their stuff is a parody of death metal, not the real thing. I still love Frost's 'To MegaTherion', and some of what's on 'Into the Pandemonium' is good, but the new, revamped version of Frost, with that 'MonoTheist' disk, is just pathetic. But Tom Fischer just couldn't leave well-enuf alone...he had to destroy his legacy...very sad.

As for my personal reflection, I've been listening to Hildegard, and reading my Good News Bible...yeah, I know it's a kid's Bible, but I love it. Is there such a thing as the Satanic Bible? And if so, what does it say? Even if no-one else is interested, I am! I'm just interested to find out if it says anything worthwhile, or is it just mindless drivel. Remember, as any good Death Metal afficianado would remember, Tom Araya sang, "There is no heaven without a hell!" ('South of Heaven', 1988)....turn that on its head: there is no hell, no Satan, without the God that made him and uses Satan to do His bidding. (Now I'd like to see Tom Araya sing that. That is genuinely heavy - Satan is but a tool in the hands of The Lord, and can do nothing but God's unrevealed will...As Van Til said, 'Satan is entirely self-frustrative'.)

Anyway, this list has degenerated into a 'Bash Jackson' fest, so I'm out. From what started as some individual complaining about religion, and its incompatability to Libertarian economic theory, we find that the true Libertarian, Jackson, the total egoist, winds up, you guessed it! On his lonesome. And here I was, thinking that the individual was primary on this site. Once again, we see that, when an idea, even an idea like the primacy of the individual, gains currency, it becomes the paradigm, and no challenge to it can be let co-exist as a part of the wider Libertarian community - "think as we do, or you're out". I can understand the prevailing paradigm here being against my philosophy of orthodox, historical Christianity, but Jackson LaRose shares your same basic presuppositions - he's just more consistent to his.

In closing, to use the example from Sartre, a guy that should be widely distributed on this website but isn't for some reason, between a Prime Minister and an alcoholic, a thorough-going wino, who is the most consistent existentialist/Libertarian? Why, the wino! Why? Becoz he acts without reference to anybody or anything outside himself, while a Prime Minister, no matter how existential his philosophy, is still thinking, even if out of pure self-interest, of the welfare of Society. What Mises did, really, in spite of his brilliant contribution to Biblical Economics, was to posit that, in his universe of chance, there was a law of Economics. The wino doesn't believe in laws of any kind. He is the more consistent Libertarian.

oh, btw, just to put me in perspective for you, I'm a paid-up member of the Mises Institute. How many other people that decry orthodox Religion here are?

Angurse:

Wow, the difference is so obvious!

If I agreed with him, why would our definitions be different?

Angurse:

Nothing in Stirner's definition includes people who push ideas because they believe its in their own self-interest.

If you are pushing a belief just to further your self interest, rather than you believing it yourself and trying to convert another, that you are actively lying to, or deceiving, someone.  That would make you an egoist.  If you are attempting conversion, than you yourself are a subject to that supposed truth.  That would make you an ideologue.  I don't see what Stirner (or I) am leaving out, or how it is a straw man.

For example.  I don't like to work for a paycheck just to pay my taxes.  I'd rather be a subsistence farmer.  So I'd like it for the government to go away.  So I support Libertarian candidates, watch the progress of nullification/secessionist movements, etc. hoping that they will succeed.  Am I a Libertarian?  Do I think that the government is evil so making me a slave?  Not really.  I don't like working just to pay tax.  I'm not submitting to a ideal, such as "taxation is wrong"  or "the government is evil"  if the government told me tomorrow that I didn't have to pay taxes anymore, ever, than I would be fine with its existence.

Angurse:

No he didn't. As it didn't occur to him that people may not accept his all or nothing dogma because they don't think its in their own self-interest,

Sure it did, that's why he called them hypocrites, because they want to decide actions for themselves, but still must provide justifications.  He isn't saying they shouldn't be hypocrites, he's merely pointing out the seeming contradiction in their position.

Angurse:

There isn't any distinction, the fact that people can drop an idea entirely implies that they can drop them partially, alter them, fuse them, etc... the idea is always subject to their will.

But why should they keep a fixed idea at all, since they've realized that their will is more powerful?  Why change puppeteers?  Just break the strings.

Angurse:

As their is no such thing as submitting to "fixed ideas."

OK, tell that to a fundamentalist Christian, or a hardcore Maoist, or Hans Herman Hoppe.

Angurse:

Everyone acts in their own self-interest

If they believe that the advancement of their particular ideology is their self interest, than they are voluntarily submitting their will to the idea.  Their will is guided/restrained by some arbitrary principles.  I'm not judging them for it, I'm just pointing it out.

Angurse:

I describe the fact that freedom makes things cheaper (descriptive)

That is a statement in absolute terms.  If it was descriptive, wouldn't it be something like "Freedom seems to make things cheaper"

Angurse:

and with said knowledge I tell the king he should lower taxes (normative) as I want cheaper things

Why include the normative?  Couldn't you just say "King, I want lower taxes, because I think that this will make things cheaper, and I want that, too".  The normative implies that you are more important, more of a "true man" than the king.  I don't understand why anybody should do anything, just because you want them to.  This is an example of man as lawgiver, i.e. you.

Angurse:

Please, enough of the lies

I just found this ironic.

OK, let's play along.  There is no definition of truth.  Truth is whatever you want it to be at that particular moment.  Who decides what is considered true, and what is false?  You?  Me?  The electorate?  Does everyone have different truths?  It is unclear how anyone could derive normative statements at all.

Angurse:

Its hard to believe that anyone would think that when one spoke his words transcended everyday existence or that the definition of truth required such a thing.

It seems that you are right, I wasn't using the word absolute correctly.  I should've been saying "truth is normative".  Please mentally substitute this in to our past correspondence.

Angurse:

And this is exactly what a religious nut would say:

"I think you've just read the bible through the eyes of a heretic (black or white).  Try it again with an open mind."

"Well, you can interpret it any way you want, and I'm sure Jesus would challenge anyone to subject his ideas to the most intense critical analysis they can muster. "

"It's terrible what a great work can be contorted to in the hands of a heretic.  I implore you to read the bible again."

"This is exactly what a heretic would presume.  I'm sorry, I attempt to be as Christ-like as possible, which seems like a concept beyond your scope of comprehension.  The "for us or against us" mentality of zealots..."

Look familiar?

LOL, that's pretty good.  Again, I'm not holding a moral judgment against ideologues, I'm just pointing it out.  Hold your beliefs as truths, I'm not trying to win converts here.  Actually, since you are so convinced I'm a religious nut, do you mind describing my ideological statement which I profess to?  We know the Liberal one, "Men should be free".  What would you say the egoist's normative would be?

 

 

Jackson LaRose:

If I agreed with him, why would our definitions be different?

Because the definition was my own, not yours.

Jackson LaRose:

If you are pushing a belief just to further your self interest, rather than you believing it yourself and trying to convert another, that you are actively lying to, or deceiving, someone.  That would make you an egoist.  If you are attempting conversion, than you yourself are a subject to that supposed truth.  That would make you an ideologue.  I don't see what Stirner (or I) am leaving out, or how it is a straw man.

For example.  I don't like to work for a paycheck just to pay my taxes.  I'd rather be a subsistence farmer.  So I'd like it for the government to go away.  So I support Libertarian candidates, watch the progress of nullification/secessionist movements, etc. hoping that they will succeed.  Am I a Libertarian?  Do I think that the government is evil so making me a slave?  Not really.  I don't like working just to pay tax.  I'm not submitting to a ideal, such as "taxation is wrong"  or "the government is evil"  if the government told me tomorrow that I didn't have to pay taxes anymore, ever, than I would be fine with its existence.

Same pattern as before.

1. If you attempt conversion

2. ...

3. Therefore, you are subject to that supposed truth.

You are setting up a false dichotomy, as one could actually believe it to be true and self-beneficial. He's no more a subject to a supposed truth than someone who is lying to benefit himself. As someone who purposefully lies, in fact, knows what he's saying isn't true, meaning he accepts a truth (albeit a different one than that of his "push.") Stirner failed to realise that people do act purely in their self-interest, hence his "half-egoist" nonsense.

Jackson LaRose:

Sure it did, that's why he called them hypocrites, because they want to decide actions for themselves, but still must provide justifications.  He isn't saying they shouldn't be hypocrites, he's merely pointing out the seeming contradiction in their position.

We've been over this already, a justification is always provided. People don't "want to" decide actions for themselves, they just act, and by your description above them providing a justification beyond "because I wanted to" could still be egoist as they could be lying in their self-interest.

Jackson LaRose:

But why should they keep a fixed idea at all, since they've realized that their will is more powerful?  Why change puppeteers?  Just break the strings.

Thats exactly what they do! The idea is dropped (clearly not fixed) altered (clearly not fixed) or fused with another (clearly not fixed) their will is always in control. They never submit to it or any other.

Jackson LaRose:

OK, tell that to a fundamentalist Christian, or a hardcore Maoist, or Hans Herman Hoppe

OK? Why? They aren't the ones spewing such nonsense (just different nonsense).

Jackson LaRose:

If they believe that the advancement of their particular ideology is their self interest, than they are voluntarily submitting their will to the idea.  Their will is guided/restrained by some arbitrary principles.

No, it isn't. You are repeating the same nonsense as above. It is their will, and only their will, that controls the idea. If they change their mind, then they abandon/alter/fuse it to serve their will, there is never any restraint to the idea.

Jackson LaRose:

That is a statement in absolute terms.  If it was descriptive, wouldn't it be something like "Freedom seems to make things cheaper"

No, it wouldn't. The statement assumes that the listener has common sense. Whenever you speak you are expressing your opinion, saying "I think" or something similar is just redundancy.

Jackson LaRose:

Why include the normative?  Couldn't you just say "King, I want lower taxes, because I think that this will make things cheaper, and I want that, too".  The normative implies that you are more important, more of a "true man" than the king.  I don't understand why anybody should do anything, just because you want them to.  This is an example of man as lawgiver, i.e. you.

Because there's fundamentally no difference between the two phrases. Both still include your value judgment, saying "I want lower taxes" is expressing your desire (value) of low taxes and/or cheaper things. The normative doesn't imply anything close to your being "more important" (where are you getting this from?), given that normative values are held conditionally, depending on facts currently known, its just absurd to contend such a thing. Absurd.

Jackson LaRose:

I just found this ironic.

OK, let's play along.  There is no definition of truth.  Truth is whatever you want it to be at that particular moment.  Who decides what is considered true, and what is false?  You?  Me?  The electorate?  Does everyone have different truths?  It is unclear how anyone could derive normative statements at all.

There is no one definition of truth. Truth can be determined conditionally, as in a formal system, but not in the absolute (that the job of metaphysics!) If your bizarre understanding of normative statements wasn't so... bizarre it would be clearer. Perhaps you should actually research the subject more, you seem to be completely blind to the subject, which explains why you keep getting everything so wrong.

Jackson LaRose:

It seems that you are right, I wasn't using the word absolute correctly.  I should've been saying "truth is normative".  Please mentally substitute this in to our past correspondence.

LOL.

Jackson LaRose:

LOL, that's pretty good.  Again, I'm not holding a moral judgment against ideologues, I'm just pointing it out.  Hold your beliefs as truths, I'm not trying to win converts here.  Actually, since you are so convinced I'm a religious nut, do you mind describing my ideological statement which I profess to?  We know the Liberal one, "Men should be free".  What would you say the egoist's normative would be?

You're not pointing anything out, you are just making stuff up and spouting nonsense, like "hold your beliefs as truths" all beliefs are held to be as true! And honestly, I don't really think your an egoist at all.

Angurse:

As their is no such thing as submitting to "fixed ideas." Everyone acts in their own self-interest (so obviously a half-egoist is nonsense as well).

I think you are being disingenuous here. You are equivocating psychological egoism with egoism. While it is true that a person, at any given time, is acting in their self-interest given their current state of knowledge, this does not imply that they do not have ideas that are 'fixed', or beliefs or principles that shape or modify behavior in ways that are sub-optimal under conditions of perfect information.

As an example, I was a Protestant until my late teens, and my beliefs certainly shaped my actions in ways that, given better information concerning the validity of my beliefs, I would not have acted. I attended bible studies twice a week. I did not enjoy bible study, but attending was in my self interest given my belief. I held such a belief because of my epistemological framework and imperfect information. I now regret submitting myself to the traditions and behaviors of what I consider to be a false belief, one that restricted me physically and intellectually.

zefreak,

By such a view, all ideas are "fixed" ideas. Your attending bible study being regretted now doesn't really mean that you submitted yourself anymore than you, say 10, years from now regretting posting on the LvMI forum about Eliminativist Materialism. And then in, say, 20 years you've returned to your Protestent beliefs and are now happy that you spent that time in bible study after all. Perfect information isn't known, so saying you were acting sub-optimally is just a guess. You've just moved according to your beliefs, there is no optimal in my opinion.

Angurse:

Because the definition was my own, not yours.

Well, then I guess we can agree on that definition, then.

Angurse:

You are setting up a false dichotomy, as one could actually believe it to be true and self-beneficial.

Of course, otherwise Ideologues wouldn't exist.

Angurse:

He's no more a subject to a supposed truth than someone who is lying to benefit himself.

How do you figure?  The liar does not believe in the truth of the statement, he knows it's just a method to deceive others for his benefit.  I think that's a marked difference.

Angurse:

As someone who purposefully lies, in fact, knows what he's saying isn't true, meaning he accepts a truth (albeit a different one than that of his "push.")

Just because the liar doesn't believe in the principles he is using, doesn't automatically assume he thinks it is false.  He could be agnostic on the issue.  The lie is not the Ideology itself, it the professed belief in the Ideology.

Angurse:

Stirner failed to realise that people do act purely in their self-interest, hence his "half-egoist" nonsense.

I take it a different way.  For example:

Say there are three people, a pious, and an unpious Christian, and a guy who goes through the motions to appear "christian" so he doesn't get strung up by the village, but thinks it's all just superstition.  All three are married, but lust after other (non-spousal) lovers.  Now, the pious christian denies his urges, because it is sin.  The unpious one decides to give in to temptation, and later feels terrible about his sin, and the faux-christian goes for it, no prob.  All three are acting in their self-interest, two believe in the Ideology of Christianity, the third just wants to stay alive, so he pretends to. They all ended up acting differently. 

The pious christian is the Ideologue.  He has suppressed his desires to conform to his fixed idea.  His ideology fully determines his action.

The unpious christian is the half-egoist.  He gave in to his desire, but is still psychically at odds with himself for doing so.  His idea and his will are in conflict.

The false christian is the egoist.  He did what he wanted to do, and feels no inner conflict for doing so.

All three acted in what they believed was their self interest, but I think there are important distinctions as to why they acted the way they did.

Angurse:

The statement assumes that the listener has common sense

By that do you mean "has come to the same conclusions as I have"?  How do you know your sense is so common?  A few centuries ago, it was "common sense" that God created the Universe in 7 days.  I am not impressed.

Angurse:

Whenever you speak you are expressing your opinion,

And if you are speaking in normative terms, I assume you are expressing your opinions as fact.  Again, not impressed.

Angurse:

Because there's fundamentally no difference between the two phrases.

Well, the normative statement is one.

Angurse:

Both still include your value judgment,

I understand that.

Angurse:

saying "I want lower taxes" is expressing your desire (value) of low taxes and/or cheaper things.

Yep.

Angurse:

The normative doesn't imply anything close to your being "more important" (where are you getting this from?)

Because you are telling another individual how they should act based on your personal desire.  This (to me anyways) implies that you think what you want determines how they should act.  You are holding the belief that they should be subservient to your will.  I'm not arguing they should/shouldn't, I'm just stating that's how I interpret the normative in your statement.

Angurse:

given that normative values are held conditionally, depending on facts currently known, its just absurd to contend such a thing. Absurd.

So why hold them at all?

Angurse:

If your bizarre understanding of normative statements wasn't so... bizarre it would be clearer.

Heh, thanks.  Well, clear it up for me.

Angurse:

Truth can be determined conditionally

How?  If I want to cross the street, I take things into consideration.  Look both ways for cars, wait for the "walk" signal,  OK, now a guy like you might say:

If X (I take all of these precautions)then Y (it is true I will be able to cross the street safely).  So I begin to cross, and a meteor crushes me midway.  I failed to take everything into consideration.  I don't really see how it is possible to take absolutely every variable of reality into consideration (barring omniscience) when making a judgment on truth.  It is a question of probability, not truth.  This is why you are still an ideologue, you believe in your ability to determine any truth at all.

Angurse:

all beliefs are held to be as true

I can see why an ideologue would say that.  It seems pretty natural to assume that everyone's brain and thoughts work like yours.

Angurse:

And honestly, I don't really think your an egoist at all.

What do you think I am?

Angurse:

zefreak,

By such a view, all ideas are "fixed" ideas. Your attending bible study being regretted now doesn't really mean that you submitted yourself anymore than you, say 10, years from now regretting posting on the LvMI forum about Eliminativist Materialism. And then in, say, 20 years you've returned to your Protestent beliefs and are now happy that you spent that time in bible study after all. Perfect information isn't known, so saying you were acting sub-optimally is just a guess. You've just moved according to your beliefs, there is no optimal in my opinion.

All ideas are 'fixed' to a degree, in that there is an inertia in changing opinions and beliefs.

Perfect information isn't necessary to understand that certain beliefs affect our actions more than others, all of which are sub-optimal to the extent that the modified behavior diverges from ones 'actual' value scale. The fact that there is a knowledge problem, that it is impossible to know one's actual value scale and whether at any given moment there is such a divergence, doesn't mean that the phenomenon doesn't occur.

edit: perhaps I should clarify. When I use the term 'fixed idea', I am basically talking about a belief that, for whatever reason, has a very high resistance to change. I don't see why the concept is controversial, although to be honest I haven't been following the conversation very closely in this thread. If it has developed additional meaning, I apologize.

Jackson LaRose:

How do you figure?  The liar does not believe in the truth of the statement, he knows it's just a method to deceive others for his benefit.  I think that's a marked difference.

By definition, when one lies they are propose something they know to be false, so the liar implicitly does accept a truth.

Jackson LaRose:

Just because the liar doesn't believe in the principles he is using, doesn't automatically assume he thinks it is false.  He could be agnostic on the issue.  The lie is not the Ideology itself, it the professed belief in the Ideology.

No, no, the liar does believe the principles he is using as he wouldn't attempt to persuade by deception if he didn't believe it would work. The liar is fundamentally no different than the ideologue who tells the truth, they just differ in methods of persuasion and implementation. They both have a goal, they both utilise methods of persuasion.

Jackson LaRose:

I take it a different way.  For example:

...

All three acted in what they believed was their self interest, but I think there are important distinctions as to why they acted the way they did.

They all in the same way, they just differ when it comes to time horizons. The first Christian didn't suppress his desires, he acted according to his desire to be pious. His will overcomes his ideas of lust and carnality. The second Christian is merely wondering if he did what was best for his self-interest, similar to zefreak regretting going to Bible study, an emotional reaction nothing more, is the third Christian simply believed in carnality over piety. The three are no different accept in action. The Pious Christian is almost exactly the same as the false Christian, neither want to be doomed.

An analogy:

A very thirsty fellow stumbles upon a pool of liquid, that looks, smells, tastes, and feels like water. Hes craving water, but he sees a sign saying "Poison - Do Not Ingest" is the man an egoist for drinking the liquid and not having an emotional reactions, half an egoist for drinking the liquid but feeling remorse, or at ends because of the possible consequences of his actions or an ideologue because of his "submission" to his belief and didn't drink the liquid?

Jackson LaRose:

By that do you mean "has come to the same conclusions as I have"?  How do you know your sense is so common?  A few centuries ago, it was "common sense" that God created the Universe in 7 days.  I am not impressed.

You're confusing common knowledge with sense. Common sense, as in a common understanding.

Jackson LaRose:

And if you are speaking in normative terms, I assume you are expressing your opinions as fact.  Again, not impressed.

Not my problem, that you (now, admittedly) assuming, assuming even beyond the definition. I don't drive to the New York and speak my native French then accuse them of not living up to my lingual standards, I don't even go to Sherbrooke and accuse them of that. You are the one deviating, you should make your argument as to why we should re-define "normative," "truth," "faith," etc..

Jackson LaRose:

I understand that.

Jackson LaRose:

Because you are telling another individual how they should act based on your personal desire.  This (to me anyways) implies that you think what you want determines how they should act.  You are holding the belief that they should be subservient to your will.  I'm not arguing they should/shouldn't, I'm just stating that's how I interpret the normative in your statement.

How they should act if they want to reach a specific goal. Its no different than a scientist telling the engineer how to shap the wing if he wants to fly. You're interpretation of normative is just wrong. You said you understood, yet here you are, there is fundamentally no difference between your statement to the king and my own, both express value judgements, how one creates some idea of superiority and the other doesn't is some cognitive problem you seem to be experiencing.

Jackson LaRose:

So why hold them at all?

To act.

Jackson LaRose:

How?  If I want to cross the street, I take things into consideration.  Look both ways for cars, wait for the "walk" signal,  OK, now a guy like you might say:

If X (I take all of these precautions)then Y (it is true I will be able to cross the street safely).  So I begin to cross, and a meteor crushes me midway.  I failed to take everything into consideration.  I don't really see how it is possible to take absolutely every variable of reality into consideration (barring omniscience) when making a judgment on truth.  It is a question of probability, not truth.  This is why you are still an ideologue, you believe in your ability to determine any truth at all.

Exactly!!!!! It isn't possible to take into account "absolutely every variable" faced with this impossibility people (common sense) understand that you haven't taken into account "absolutely every variable." The last two sentences just ooze your poor memory or lack or reading skills in general:

Jackson LaRose:

It is a question of probability, not truth.  This is why you are still an ideologue, you believe in your ability to determine any truth at all.

"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."

"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."

"It isn't an example of an absolute judgment, its ones opinion guiding them"

"Read the whole [ideology], it doesn't proclaim ideologues as pushers of absolute truth at all. In fact, an ideologue could push something that they believe is false."

(LOL, I guess I foreshadowed the liar part)

"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."

"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."

Also, "Bayes wins!" (from another thread)

Jackson LaRose:

I can see why an ideologue would say that.  It seems pretty natural to assume that everyone's brain and thoughts work like yours.

Maybe, or I just used the definition:

Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true.

Our brains may not be exactly the same but they are common enough.

Jackson LaRose:

What do you think I am?

A liberal who wishes he could be an egoist but doesn't quite understand or believe it fully.

zefreak:

All ideas are 'fixed' to a degree, in that there is an inertia in changing opinions and beliefs.

Thank you.

zefreak:

Perfect information isn't necessary to understand that certain beliefs affect our actions more than others, all of which are sub-optimal to the extent that the modified behavior diverges from ones 'actual' value scale. The fact that there is a knowledge problem, that it is impossible to know one's actual value scale and whether at any given moment there is such a divergence, doesn't mean that the phenomenon doesn't occur.

I don't really accept that you modify your behaviour apart from your 'actual' value scale in accordance with your free will.

Angurse:

By definition, when one lies they are propose something they know to be false, so the liar implicitly does accept a truth.

OK, change "liar", to "deceiver"

Angurse:

No, no, the liar does believe the principles he is using as he wouldn't attempt to persuade by deception if he didn't believe it would work. The liar is fundamentally no different than the ideologue who tells the truth, they just differ in methods of persuasion and implementation. They both have a goal, they both utilise methods of persuasion.

I don't really understand what you are getting at here.  Every action requires an ideology?

Angurse:

They all in the same way, they just differ when it comes to time horizons.

I'd like it if you expanded on this thought.

Angurse:

he first Christian didn't suppress his desires, he acted according to his desire to be pious.

Yes, but his action was predetermined by his ideology.  The fixed idea set the boundaries of perceived acceptable behavior for him.

Angurse:

His will overcomes his ideas of lust and carnality

Based upon absolute normative guidelines of conduct.

Angurse:

The second Christian is merely wondering if he did what was best for his self-interest, similar to zefreak regretting going to Bible study, an emotional reaction nothing more

It's more than that.  If he didn't believe he was violating absolute truth, he wouldn't regret his action.

Angurse:

is the third Christian simply believed in carnality over piety

Or, he doesn't base his action upon set rules of conduct.

As an aside, I was thinking about it, and I don't see how truth can't be considered a statement in the absolute, even for that instant.  It makes no sense to me how "true=probable".

Angurse:

The Pious Christian is almost exactly the same as the false Christian, neither want to be doomed.

Why would a non-believer think he would be doomed?

Angurse:

A very thirsty fellow stumbles upon a pool of liquid, that looks, smells, tastes, and feels like water. Hes craving water, but he sees a sign saying "Poison - Do Not Ingest" is the man an egoist for drinking the liquid and not having an emotional reactions, half an egoist for drinking the liquid but feeling remorse, or at ends because of the possible consequences of his actions or an ideologue because of his "submission" to his belief and didn't drink the liquid?

I would say that analogy is completely different, for one simple reason.  The sciences are "truths", in the sense that the rules humans have come up with so far can be denied, "gravity is BS, god does it" but not defied, "jumped off of a building naked, didn't get pulled towards the center of the Earth".  Laws of action can be both denied and defied.  It's comparing apples to oranges.

As Stirner says, just because one desired to fly like a bird, or live underwater, does not mean one has the power to.

Angurse:

Common sense, as in a common understanding.

I still don't know what you are trying to convey here.  What makes understanding common to you?  One persons perspective, two people's agreed upon perspective, 51% of humans?  Sound like a construct to me, a spook.

Angurse:

You are the one deviating, you should make your argument as to why we should re-define "normative," "truth," "faith," etc..

Then what good is a normative statement?  What purpose does it serve, other than to express your opinion as fact?

Angurse:

I don't drive to the New York and speak my native French then accuse them of not living up to my lingual standards

Probably because you don't believe that "Men should speak French"  I gues you aren't a believer in Francoism.

Angurse:

How they should act if they want to reach a specific goal.

Why are you assuming that the King shares your goal?  And even then, you can't be sure that your deduction is correct all of the time.

Angurse:

Exactly!!!!! It isn't possible to take into account "absolutely every variable" faced with this impossibility people (common sense) understand that you haven't taken into account "absolutely every variable." The last two sentences just ooze your poor memory or lack or reading skills in general:

Again, I think you presume too much about how common sense can include the caveat "probably", or "as far as I can tell" in truths, facts, and normative statements.  Ask Nirgraham, or Pat Robertson what the truth is, and they will tell you it is absolute.  Just because you decided that "most people should realize these statements are not absolutes", doesn't make it so.  Again, the definition of Liberalism: "men should be free".  Do you not regard this, your own faith, as absolute?  If not, then tell me how you manage to profess it?  Perhaps you are an Egoist.

Angurse:

An ideology is a group of ideas that one used to guide their actions and expectations,

Ding! Ding!  You got it.  Your actions are determined by a fixed idea.  You do not simply "consider" the idea whilst acting, it guides your actions, it leads you by the hand, like a child.

Angurse:

people who share similar ideas can be placed into categories for convenience.

Sure they can.  I could be considered a "liberal person", because I desire freedom.  I could be considered an American, because I live there.  But I try not to let the constructs control who I am.  I am not a Liberal (one who believes I have a right to freedom), or a "my country, right or wrong" American nationalist.

Angurse:

It isn't an example of an absolute judgment, its ones opinion guiding them

One's opinion in what the truth is.  Why bother to conceptualize the supposed truth at all?  What purpose does it serve?  If it was just your opinion, why should anyone else listen?  The expectations is the weasel word in your definition of Ideology, it seems to imply you expect something, due to your beliefs.  Why?

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."

I'm not saying they do.  I believe people have free will, otherwise, how could they voluntarily submit themselves to a faith?  They can keep learning and change their minds, and it may cause them to abandon their faith, perhaps adopt a new one.  Some people decide the truth they have stuck with is more important to them than what they learn.  Some decide to abandon the notion of having faith provide truths at al

Angurse:

"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."

l.

So why are they considered Liberals at all?  They know that proclaiming truth is seemingly impossible, so why stick to deduced truths?  Because they think they have a right to be free?  Because they think others should be free too?

Angurse:

it doesn't proclaim ideologues as pushers of absolute truth at all. In fact, an ideologue could push something that they believe is false."

That's still pushing their normative deductions.

Angurse:

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."

How is that not faith in your ability to distill a truth from your observations?

Angurse:

Also, "Bayes wins!"

Again, I'm not claiming that all outcomes are equally probable, but that doesn't mean I have carte blanche to start spouting "truths" despite my massive amount of ignorance.

Angurse:

Our brains may not be exactly the same but they are common enough.

Well, ours might be, but not every human could share that sentiment.

Angurse:

A liberal who wishes he could be an egoist but doesn't quite understand or believe it fully.

What is the ideological statement of Egoism?  If you can judge whether or not I understand it fully, it seems you would be able to tell me what it is.

 

Jackson LaRose:

OK, change "liar", to "deceiver"

Make no difference.

Jackson LaRose:

I don't really understand what you are getting at here.  Every action requires an ideology?

Every action requires a belief. Read Human Action.

Jackson LaRose:

Yes, but his action was predetermined by his ideology.  The fixed idea set the boundaries of perceived acceptable behavior for him.

Only his beliefs in the necessity of piety. No different than the man who believes its necessary look like a Christian, or the man who believes it is necessary to eat, drink, and sleep.

They could all be wrong.

Jackson LaRose:

Based upon absolute normative guidelines of conduct.

sigh - Question begging. Based on his will.

Jackson LaRose:

It's more than that.  If he didn't believe he was violating absolute truth, he wouldn't regret his action.

sigh - Assertion, question begging.

Jackson LaRose:

Or, he doesn't base his action upon set rules of conduct.

He clearly does though, as he still attends Church.

Jackson LaRose:

As an aside, I was thinking about it, and I don't see how truth can't be considered a statement in the absolute, even for that instant.  It makes no sense to me how "true=probable".

Good, I'm getting through to you after all. It isn't a statement in the absolute, unless said otherwise.

Jackson LaRose:

Why would a non-believer think he would be doomed?

"so he doesn't get strung up by the village"

Jackson LaRose:

I would say that analogy is completely different, for one simple reason.  The sciences are "truths", in the sense that the rules humans have come up with so far can be denied, "gravity is BS, god does it" but not defied, "jumped off of a building naked, didn't get pulled towards the center of the Earth".  Laws of action can be both denied and defied.  It's comparing apples to oranges.

For the Christian they are all the same, you will go to hell for violating the 10 Commandments, you will die if you don't drink water, it isn't a law of action anymore than "Thou Shalt Drink Water: is, they are all beliefs that people follow because they think it is in their best interest.

Jackson LaRose:

As Stirner says, just because one desired to fly like a bird, or live underwater, does not mean one has the power to.

Yes, Stirner was a huge hypocrite. Those are all fixed beliefs, in fact, you could even cook up an ideology to suit them.

Jackson LaRose:

I still don't know what you are trying to convey here.  What makes understanding common to you?  One persons perspective, two people's agreed upon perspective, 51% of humans?  Sound like a construct to me, a spook.

Sure. Does language exist?

Jackson LaRose:

Then what good is a normative statement?  What purpose does it serve, other than to express your opinion as fact?

They are a short hand way of communicating.

Jackson LaRose:

Probably because you don't believe that "Men should speak French"  I gues you aren't a believer in Francoism.

Umm. Francoism is a a statist political ideology - that of Franco, I am howver a huge Francophile, I think every language other than French is verbal bile and everyone should speak it.

Jackson LaRose:

Why are you assuming that the King shares your goal?  And even then, you can't be sure that your deduction is correct all of the time.

Nope, just making a suggestion based on the information I know. No reason not to pass it along.

Jackson LaRose:

Again, I think you presume too much about how common sense can include the caveat "probably", or "as far as I can tell" in truths, facts, and normative statements.  Ask Nirgraham, or Pat Robertson what the truth is, and they will tell you it is absolute.  Just because you decided that "most people should realize these statements are not absolutes", doesn't make it so.

I've decided? Its even in the definition. How did you think that two people represent the "common?" Thats just ridiculous. There is a reason why the term Absolute Truth exists after all. So, que people ask them how many believe in absolute truth, I've got the dictionary on my side at least.

Jackson LaRose:

Again, the definition of Liberalism: "men should be free".  Do you not regard this, your own faith, as absolute?  If not, then tell me how you manage to profess it?  Perhaps you are an Egoist.

Not the definition, not a faith, not regarded as absolute.

Jackson LaRose:

Ding! Ding!  You got it.  Your actions are determined by a fixed idea.  You do not simply "consider" the idea whilst acting, it guides your actions, it leads you by the hand, like a child.

Yes, Stirner didn't try and fly because the fixed idea of gravity lead him like a child. Right.

Question begging

Jackson LaRose:

Sure they can.  I could be considered a "liberal person", because I desire freedom.  I could be considered an American, because I live there.  But I try not to let the constructs control who I am.  I am not a Liberal (one who believes I have a right to freedom), or a "my country, right or wrong" American nationalist.

The constructs never do control you though. If you didn't believe them you wouldn't follow them. So your fighting a "spook."

Jackson LaRose:

One's opinion in what the truth is.  Why bother to conceptualize the supposed truth at all?  What purpose does it serve?  If it was just your opinion, why should anyone else listen?  The expectations is the weasel word in your definition of Ideology, it seems to imply you expect something, due to your beliefs.  Why?

They may trust my opinion, if they are well-reasoned and employed well I expect them to catch on, just as science is spread.

Jackson LaRose:

I'm not saying they do.  I believe people have free will, otherwise, how could they voluntarily submit themselves to a faith?  They can keep learning and change their minds, and it may cause them to abandon their faith, perhaps adopt a new one.  Some people decide the truth they have stuck with is more important to them than what they learn.  Some decide to abandon the notion of having faith provide truths at al

Yes. There are no "fixed ideas" in this sense, people's will guide them all the time. Not the other way around.

Jackson LaRose:

So why are they considered Liberals at all?  They know that proclaiming truth is seemingly impossible, so why stick to deduced truths?  Because they think they have a right to be free?  Because they think others should be free too?

Because they share similar beliefs. You need to "soften" your understanding of truth, because holding to only mean absolute just retards your ability to understand.

Jackson LaRose:

That's still pushing their normative deductions.

There isn't such a thing as a normative deduction.

Jackson LaRose:

How is that not faith in your ability to distill a truth from your observations?

The same way its not faith for Stirner to say men cannot fly.

Jackson LaRose:

Again, I'm not claiming that all outcomes are equally probable, but that doesn't mean I have carte blanche to start spouting "truths" despite my massive amount of ignorance.

Good thing you aren't. Most people don't think you are god, all knowing, omniscient, or perfect, so we don't think your truths are absolute. You just seem to be offended by people using the term, even though its fully acceptable with the definition.

Jackson LaRose:

Well, ours might be, but not every human could share that sentiment.

Sure, but who cares about every human? Or everything, we've already established that we aren't dealing with absolutes.

Jackson LaRose:

What is the ideological statement of Egoism?  If you can judge whether or not I understand it fully, it seems you would be able to tell me what it is.

Its a religion not an ideology.

Angurse:

Every action requires a belief. Read Human Action.

Obviously, unless psychic, or omniscient.  Working on it, ship time from amazon is like three weeks!

Angurse:

Only his beliefs in the necessity of piety. No different than the man who believes its necessary look like a Christian, or the man who believes it is necessary to eat, drink, and sleep.

They could all be wrong.

Yes, they could be.  I don't really see how that follows though.  If your beliefs are fluid and constantly adjusting to suit situations as they arise, and  you have no constant dogma of action, then you don't profess an ideology.

Angurse:

sigh - Question begging. Based on his will.

His will to subject himself to those objective normative guidelines.  How is that question begging?

Angurse:

sigh - Assertion, question begging.

More like question dodging.  Why would he be torn, if he did not suppose his faith as fact?

Angurse:

He clearly does though, as he still attends Church.

But not due to faith in it's tenets, due to fear of coercive retribution.  If the situation changes, his action follows suit.

Angurse:

Jackson LaRose:

As an aside, I was thinking about it, and I don't see how truth can't be considered a statement in the absolute, even for that instant.  It makes no sense to me how "true=probable".

Good, I'm getting through to you after all. It isn't a statement in the absolute, unless said otherwise.

Uh, you might want to take another look at my statement...

Angurse:

For the Christian they are all the same, you will go to hell for violating the 10 Commandments,

Because they have faith that notion is true.

Angurse:

they are all beliefs that people follow because they think it is in their best interest.

Again, I'm not arguing that.

Angurse:

Yes, Stirner was a huge hypocrite

I don't entirely understand how that makes him a hypocrite.  You can only do what you have the power to do.  I would like to not pay taxes, yet live in my current home and not be sent to jail.  As it stands now, ain't gonna happen.

Angurse:

Those are all fixed beliefs, in fact, you could even cook up an ideology to suit them

By your definition of ideology, perhaps, but without the normative, I wouldn't consider them ideologies.

Angurse:

Sure. Does language exist?

You would have to be pretty clueless to compare the two.  Language is already defined, the conclusion is already there.  Who defines sense?  Where is the common sense dictionary?  If we could do that, than why need Austrian economics at all?  Why not central planning?

Angurse:

They are a short hand way of communicating.

Hey!  Now we are getting somewhere.  You know what I think?  I think we agree almost completely.  You just want to be called a liberal, and I want to be called an egoist.  Isn't that silly?

Angurse:

I think every language other than French is verbal bile and everyone should speak it.

LOL! I don't think I've ever heard of an absolutist Francophile before!

Angurse:

Not the definition, not a faith, not regarded as absolute.

It's the one we agreed upon as a working statement of principle. How is it not a faith? Not absolute, either?  So, you are OK with murderers being in jail, or rapists?  How about drug offenders, or prostitutes?  Why the distinction?  Are they un-men, while we free are the true men?

Angurse:

Yes, Stirner didn't try and fly because the fixed idea of gravity lead him like a child. Right.

Question begging

I like that.  The next time I don't have a decent answer for one of your challenges, I'm just going to type "question begging" and leave it at that.  Oh, and gravity is deniable, not defiable (as far as I can tell).  Apples and oranges.

Angurse:

The constructs never do control you though. If you didn't believe them you wouldn't follow them. So your fighting a "spook."

Right, because I have "got back of" them.  I realize that they cannot be demonstrated truths. Truth is unknowable.  You can still follow something, and not believe it.  Take the end of the third Indiana Jones movie, for example, with the invisible bridge.  I'm not fighting spooks, I am letting them know who is boss in the relationship.

Angurse:

There are no "fixed ideas" in this sense

Unless you affix them.

Angurse:

Because they share similar beliefs. You need to "soften" your understanding of truth, because holding to only mean absolute just retards your ability to understand.

Understand what?

Angurse:

There isn't such a thing as a normative deduction.

You told me you use descriptive means to deduce a normative statement.  I really don't feel like scanning for it, but you know what I'm talking about.

Angurse:

The same way its not faith for Stirner to say men cannot fly.

Sure it is.

Angurse:

You just seem to be offended by people using the term, even though its fully acceptable with the definition.

Because it's never been described to me as "probability for the sake of brevity".  That definition is completely unknown to me.  It seems like truth is an absolute statement, and I'm still unconvinced it isn't.

Angurse:

Sure, but who cares about every human?

I don't.  apparently you don't either... I always knew you were an egoist.

Angurse:

Its a religion not an ideology.

What's the difference?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jackson LaRose:

Obviously, unless psychic, or omniscient.  Working on it, ship time from amazon is like three weeks!

Wonderful.

Jackson LaRose:

Yes, they could be.  I don't really see how that follows though.  If your beliefs are fluid and constantly adjusting to suit situations as they arise, and  you have no constant dogma of action, then you don't profess an ideology.

No, as I said before, "An ideology is a group of ideas that one used to guide their actions and expectations," really anyone's current set of beliefs and ideas could be called an "ideology" you believe, its just the more commonly held, or more well known ones get names. Its not like all your beliefs all change simultaneously in response to every event in life, events affect particular beliefs more than others.

Jackson LaRose:

His will to subject himself to those objective normative guidelines.  How is that question begging?

Thats the position you are trying to prove, is it not? His will is the only thing holding said guidelines, its in his best interest.

Jackson LaRose:

More like question dodging.  Why would he be torn, if he did not suppose his faith as fact?

LOL. If he supposed his faith as fact he wouldn't have cheated. If the third Christian didn't believe he'd be hanged he wouldn't continue to pretend.

Jackson LaRose:

But not due to faith in it's tenets, due to fear of coercive retribution.  If the situation changes, his action follows suit.

If god told him he would follow suit as well. They are still acting the same way, for themselves.

Jackson LaRose:

Uh, you might want to take another look at my statement...

Yeah, you're getting over that absolute nonsense, I'm getting through. How truth can't equal probable is only a problem for you. Just think of "truth" as being a short hand way of "from the information I've gathered, it seems, I think, that its probable." or something.

Jackson LaRose:

LOL! I don't think I've ever heard of an absolutist Francophile beforeSmile!

Definitely! Its impossible to prove me wrong too.

Jackson LaRose:

It's the one we agreed upon as a working statement of principle. How is it not a faith? Not absolute, either?  So, you are OK with murderers being in jail, or rapists?  How about drug offenders, or prostitutes?  Why the distinction?  Are they un-men, while we free are the true men?

When never agreed that it was a faith, in fact I've said it definitely wasn't:
"no faith means belief in the supernatural, otherwise it applies to everyone. Making it meaningless as a tool of demarcation."
"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."
I'm not sure how you jumped to my being OK with such people, from not accepting faith or absolutes I've explained why neither is necessary to hold a belief multiple times now.

Jackson LaRose:

I like that.  The next time I don't have a decent answer for one of your challenges, I'm just going to type "question begging" and leave it at that.  Oh, and gravity is deniable, not defiable (as far as I can tell).  Apples and oranges.

There wasn't a challenge. Your making my whole point "Oh, and Eternal Damnation is deniable, not defiable (as far as I can tell)!" You have "submitted" to the fixed idea of gravity just as the Christian has "submitted" to the fixed idea of Hell. One and the same.

Jackson LaRose:

Right, because I have "got back of" them.  I realize that they cannot be demonstrated truths. Truth is unknowable.  You can still follow something, and not believe it.  Take the end of the third Indiana Jones movie, for example, with the invisible bridge.  I'm not fighting spooks, I am letting them know who is boss in the relationship.

What are you talking about?

Angurse:

Every action requires a belief.

Jackson LaRose:

Obviously, unless psychic, or omniscient.

You cannot follow (act) without believing. Your very action proves your belief.

Jackson LaRose:

Unless you affix them.

If only it were possible.

Jackson LaRose:

Understand what?

Truth. You seem to have conflicting ideas about it.

Jackson LaRose:

You told me you use descriptive means to deduce a normative statement.  I really don't feel like scanning for it, but you know what I'm talking about.

That would be normative induction.

Jackson LaRose:

Because it's never been described to me as "probability for the sake of brevity".  That definition is completely unknown to me.  It seems like truth is an absolute statement, and I'm still unconvinced it isn't.

Look, you've already stated omniscience is required for "truth" do you really think people view one another as being omniscient?

Jackson LaRose:

I don't.  apparently you don't either... I always knew you were an egoist.

Well, as we all know Stirner did lay much groundwork for liberalism, not that it matters, liberals, libertarians, conservatives, ... don't really care about all people either.

Jackson LaRose:

What's the difference?

One is a belief in the divine the other a set of beliefs and goals, an ideologue could include his religious beliefs within his ideology.

Well, I guess all this argument was based on semantics.  I still don't see a very big differentiation between religion and ideology, and I find the "shorthand probability" definition of truth a hard pill to swallow, I'll have to do some thinking about that.

Take all the time you need, there's no rush.

Here's some Stirner on Rationality and Truth.  I'd be interested to hear your take on this passage:

Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

 "The "question of our time" does not become soluble even when one puts it thus: Is anything general authorized, or only the individual? Is the generality (e. g. State, law, custom, morality, etc.) authorized, or individuality? It becomes soluble for the first time when one no longer asks after an "authorization" at all, and does not carry on a mere fight against "privileges." -- A "rational" freedom of teaching, which recognizes only the conscience of reason," does not bring us to the goal; we require an egoistic freedom of teaching rather, a freedom of teaching for all ownness, wherein I become audible and can announce myself unchecked. That I make myself "audible", this alone is "reason," be I ever so irrational; in my making myself heard, and so hearing myself, others as well as I myself enjoy me, and at the same time consume me.
     What would be gained if, as formerly the orthodox I, the loyal I, the moral I, etc., was free, now the rational I should become free? Would this be the freedom of me?
     If I am free as "rational I," then the rational in me, or reason, is free; and this freedom of reason, or freedom of the thought, was the ideal of the Christian world from of old. They wanted to make thinking -- and, as aforesaid, faith is also thinking, as thinking is faith -- free; the thinkers, i.e. the believers as well as the rational, were to be free; for the rest freedom was impossible. But the freedom of thinkers is the "freedom of the children of God," and at the same time the most merciless --hierarchy or dominion of the thought; for I succumb to the thought. If thoughts are free, I am their slave; I have no power over them, and am dominated by them. But I want to have the thought, want to be full of thoughts, but at the same time I want to be thoughtless, and, instead of freedom of thought, I preserve for myself thoughtlessness.
     If the point is to have myself understood and to make communications, then assuredly I can make use only of human means, which are at my command because I am at the same time man. And really I have thoughts only as man; as I, I am at the same time thoughtless. He who cannot get rid of a thought is so far only man, is a thrall of language, this human institution, this treasury of human thoughts. Language or "the word" tyrannizes hardest over us, because it brings up against us a whole army of fixed ideas. Just observe yourself in the act of reflection, right now, and you will find how you make progress only by becoming thoughtless and speechless every moment. You are not thoughtless and speechless merely in (say) sleep, but even in the deepest reflection; yes, precisely then most so. And only by this thoughtlessness, this unrecognized "freedom of thought" or freedom from the thought, are you your own. Only from it do you arrive at putting language to use as your property.
     If thinking is not my thinking, it is merely a spun-out thought; it is slave work, or the work of a "servant obeying at the word." For not a thought, but I, am the beginning for my thinking, and therefore I am its goal too, even as its whole course is only a course of my self-enjoyment; for absolute or free thinking, on the other hand, thinking itself is the beginning, and it plagues itself with propounding this beginning as the extremest "abstraction" (e. g. as being). This very abstraction, or this thought, is then spun out further.
     Absolute thinking is the affair of the human spirit, and this is a holy spirit. Hence this thinking is an affair of the parsons, who have "a sense for it," a sense for the "highest interests of mankind," for "the spirit."
     To the believer, truths are a settled thing, a fact; to the freethinker, a thing that is still to be settled. Be absolute thinking ever so unbelieving, its incredulity has its limits, and there does remain a belief in the truth, in the spirit, in the idea and its final victory: this thinking does not sin against the holy spirit. But all thinking that does not sin against the holy spirit is belief in spirits or ghosts.
     I can as little renounce thinking as feeling, the spirit's activity as little as the activity of the senses. As feeling is our sense for things, so thinking is our sense for essences (thoughts). Essences have their existence in everything sensuous, especially in the word. The power of words follows that of things: first one is coerced by the rod, afterward by conviction. The might of things overcomes our courage, our spirit; against the power of a conviction, and so of the word, even the rack and the sword lose their overpoweringness and force. The men of conviction are the priestly men, who resist every enticement of Satan.
     Christianity took away from the things of this world only their irresistibleness, made us independent of them. In like manner I raise myself above truths and their power: as I am supersensual, so I am supertrue. Before me truths are as common and as indifferent as things; they do not carry me away, and do not inspire me with enthusiasm. There exists not even one truth, not right, not freedom, humanity, etc., that has stability before me, and to which I subject myself. They are words, nothing but words, as to the Christian nothing but "vain things." In words and truths (every word is a truth, as Hegel asserts that one cannot tell a lie) there is no salvation for me, as little as there is for the Christian in things and vanities. As the riches of this world do not make me happy, so neither do its truths. It is now no longer Satan, but the spirit, that plays the story of the temptation; and he does not seduce by the things of this world, but by its thoughts, by the "glitter of the idea."
     Along with worldly goods, all sacred goods too must be put away as no longer valuable.
     Truths are phrases, ways of speaking, words (lógos); brought into connection, or into an articulate series, they form logic, science, philosophy.
     For thinking and speaking I need truths and words, as I do foods for eating; without them I cannot think nor speak. Truths are men's thoughts, set down in words and therefore just as extant as other things, although extant only for the mind or for thinking. They are human institutions and human creatures, and, even if they are given out for divine revelations, there still remains in them the quality of alienness for me; yes, as my own creatures they are already alienated from me after the act of creation.
     The Christian man is the man with faith in thinking, who believes in the supreme dominion of thoughts and wants to bring thoughts, so-called "principles," to dominion. Many a one does indeed test the thoughts, and chooses none of them for his master without criticism, but in this he is like the dog who sniffs at people to smell out "his master"; he is always aiming at the ruling thought. The Christian may reform and revolt an infinite deal, may demolish the ruling concepts of centuries; he will always aspire to a new "principle" or new master again, always set up a higher or "deeper" truth again, always call forth a cult again, always proclaim a spirit called to dominion, lay down a law for all.
     If there is even one truth only to which man has to devote his life and his powers because he is man, then he is subjected to a rule, dominion, law; he is a servingman. It is supposed that, e. g. man, humanity, liberty, etc., are such truths.
     On the other hand, one can say thus: Whether you will further occupy yourself with thinking depends on you; only know that, if in your thinking you would like to make out anything worthy of notice, many hard problems are to be solved, without vanquishing which you cannot get far. There exists, therefore, no duty and no calling for you to meddle with thoughts (ideas, truths); but, if you will do so, you will do well to utilize what the forces of others have already achieved toward clearing up these difficult subjects.
     Thus, therefore, he who will think does assuredly have a task, which he consciously or unconsciously sets for himself in willing that; but no one has the task of thinking or of believing. In the former case it may be said, "You do not go far enough, you have a narrow and biased interest, you do not go to the bottom of the thing; in short, you do not completely subdue it. But, on the other hand, however far you may come at any time, you are still always at the end, you have no call to step farther, and you can have it as you will or as you are able. It stands with this as with any other piece of work, which you can give up when the humor for it wears off. Just so, if you can no longer believe a thing, you do not have to force yourself into faith or to busy yourself lastingly as if with a sacred truth of the faith, as theologians or philosophers do, but you can tranquilly draw back your interest from it and let it run. Priestly spirits will indeed expound this your lack of interest as "laziness, thoughtlessness, obduracy, self-deception," etc. But do you just let the trumpery lie, notwithstanding. No thing,* no so-called "highest interest of mankind," no "sacred cause,"** is worth your serving it, and occupying yourself with it for its sake; you may seek its worth in this alone, whether it is worth anything to you for your sake. Become like children, the biblical saying admonishes us. But children have no sacred interest and know nothing of a "good cause." They know all the more accurately what they have a fancy for; and they think over, to the best of their powers, how they are to arrive at it.
     Thinking will as little cease as feeling. But the power of thoughts and ideas, the dominion of theories and principles, the sovereignty of the spirit, in short the -- hierarchy, lasts as long as the parsons, i.e., theologians, philosophers, statesmen, philistines, liberals, schoolmasters, servants, parents, children, married couples, Proudhon, George Sand, Bluntschli, etc., etc., have the floor; the hierarchy will endure as long as people believe in, think of, or even criticize, principles; for even the most inexorable criticism, which undermines all current principles, still does finally believe in the principle.
     Every one criticises, but the criterion is different. People run after the "right" criterion. The right criterion is the first presupposition. The critic starts from a proposition, a truth, a belief. This is not a creation of the critic, but of the dogmatist; nay, commonly it is actually taken up out of the culture of the time without further ceremony, like e. g. "liberty," "humanity," etc. The critic has not "discovered man," but this truth has been established as "man" by the dogmatist, and the critic (who, besides, may be the same person with him) believes in this truth, this article of faith. In this faith, and possessed by this faith, he criticises.
     The secret of criticism is some "truth" or other: this remains its energizing mystery.
     But I distinguish between servile and own criticism. If I criticize under the presupposition of a supreme being, my criticism serves the being and is carried on for its sake: if e. g. I am possessed by the belief in a "free State," then everything that has a bearing on it I criticize from the standpoint of whether it is suitable to this State, for I love this State; if I criticize as a pious man, then for me everything falls into the classes of divine and diabolical, and before my criticism nature consists of traces of God or traces of the devil (hence names like Godsgift, Godmount, the Devil's Pulpit), men of believers and unbelievers; if I criticize while believing in man as the "true essence," then for me everything falls primarily into the classes of man and the un-man, etc.
     Criticism has to this day remained a work of love: for at all times we exercised it for the love of some being. All servile criticism is a product of love, a possessedness, and proceeds according to that New Testament precept, "Test everything and hold fast the good."* "The good" is the touchstone, the criterion. The good, returning under a thousand names and forms, remained always the presupposition, remained the dogmatic fixed point for this criticism, remained the -- fixed idea.
     The critic, in setting to work, impartially presupposes the "truth," and seeks for the truth in the belief that it is to be found. He wants to ascertain the true, and has in it that very "good."
     Presuppose means nothing else than put a thought in front, or think something before everything else and think the rest from the starting-point of this that has been thought, i.e. measure and criticize it by this. In other words, this is as much as to say that thinking is to begin with something already thought. If thinking began at all, instead of being begun, if thinking were a subject, an acting personality of its own, as even the plant is such, then indeed there would be no abandoning the principle that thinking must begin with itself. But it is just the personification of thinking that brings to pass those innumerable errors. In the Hegelian system they always talk as if thinking or "the thinking spirit" (i.e. personified thinking, thinking as a ghost) thought and acted; in critical liberalism it is always said that "criticism" does this and that, or else that "self- consciousness" finds this and that. But, if thinking ranks as the personal actor, thinking itself must be presupposed; if criticism ranks as such, a thought must likewise stand in front. Thinking and criticism could be active only starting from themselves, would have to be themselves the presupposition of their activity, as without being they could not be active. But thinking, as a thing presupposed, is a fixed thought, a dogma; thinking and criticism, therefore, can start only from a dogma, i. e. from a thought, a fixed idea, a presupposition.
     With this we come back again to what was enunciated above, that Christianity consists in the development of a world of thoughts, or that it is the proper "freedom of thought," the "free thought," the "free spirit." The "true" criticism, which I called "servile," is therefore just as much "free" criticism, for it is not my own.
     The case stands otherwise when what is yours is not made into something that is of itself, not personified, not made independent as a "spirit" to itself. Your thinking has for a presupposition not "thinking," but you. But thus you do presuppose yourself after all? Yes, but not for myself, but for my thinking. Before my thinking, there is -- I. From this it follows that my thinking is not preceded by a thought, or that my thinking is without a "presupposition." For the presupposition which I am for my thinking is not one made by thinking, not one thought of, but it is posited thinking itself, it is the owner of the thought, and proves only that thinking is nothing more than -- prop- erty, i. e. that an "independent" thinking, a "thinking spirit," does not exist at all.
     This reversal of the usual way of regarding things might so resemble an empty playing with abstractions that even those against whom it is directed would acquiesce in the harmless aspect I give it, if practical consequences were not connected with it.
     To bring these into a concise expression, the assertion now made is that man is not the measure of all things, but I am this measure. The servile critic has before his eyes another being, an idea, which he means to serve; therefore he only slays the false idols for his God. What is done for the love of this being, what else should it be but a -- work of love? But I, when I criticize, do not even have myself before my eyes, but am only doing myself a pleasure, amusing myself according to my taste; according to my several needs I chew the thing up or only inhale its odor.
     The distinction between the two attitudes will come out still more strikingly if one reflects that the servile critic, because love guides him, supposes he is serving the thing (cause) itself.
     The truth, or "truth in general," people are bound not to give up, but to seek for. What else is it but the Être suprême, the highest essence? Even "true criticism" would have to despair if it lost faith in the truth. And yet the truth is only a -- thought; but it is not merely "a" thought, but the thought that is above all thoughts, the irrefragable thought; it is the thought itself, which gives the first hallowing to all others; it is the consecration of thoughts, the "absolute," the "sacred" thought. The truth wears longer than all the gods; for it is only in the truth's service, and for love of it, that people have overthrown the gods and at last God himself. "The truth" outlasts the downfall of the world of gods, for it is the immortal soul of this transitory world of gods, it is Deity itself.
     I will answer Pilate's question, What is truth? Truth is the free thought, the free idea, the free spirit; truth is what is free from you, what is not your own, what is not in your power. But truth is also the completely unindependent, impersonal, unreal, and incorporeal; truth cannot step forward as you do, cannot move, change, develop; truth awaits and receives everything from you, and itself is only through you; for it exists only -- in your head. You concede that the truth is a thought, but say that not every thought is a true one, or, as you are also likely to express it, not every thought is truly and really a thought. And by what do you measure and recognize the thought? By your impotence, to wit, by your being no longer able to make any successful assault on it! When it overpowers you, inspires you, and carries you away, then you hold it to be the true one. Its dominion over you certifies to you its truth; and, when it possesses you, and you are possessed by it, then you feel well with it, for then you have found your -- lord and master. When you were seeking the truth, what did your heart then long for? For your master! You did not aspire to your might, but to a Mighty One, and wanted to exalt a Mighty One ("Exalt ye the Lord our God!"). The truth, my dear Pilate, is -- the Lord, and all who seek the truth are seeking and praising the Lord. Where does the Lord exist? Where else but in your head? He is only spirit, and, wherever you believe you really see him, there he is a -- ghost; for the Lord is merely something that is thought of, and it was only the Christian pains and agony to make the invisible visible, the spiritual corporeal, that generated the ghost and was the frightful misery of the belief in ghosts.
     As long as you believe in the truth, you do not believe in yourself, and you are a -- servant, a -- religious man. You alone are the truth, or rather, you are more than the truth, which is nothing at all before you. You too do assuredly ask about the truth, you too do assuredly "criticize," but you do not ask about a "higher truth" -- to wit, one that should be higher than you -- nor criticize according to the criterion of such a truth. You address yourself to thoughts and notions, as you do to the appearances of things, only for the purpose of making them palatable to you, enjoyable to you, and your own: you want only to subdue them and become their owner, you want to orient yourself and feel at home in them, and you find them true, or see them in their true light, when they can no longer slip away from you, no longer have any unseized or uncomprehended place, or when they are right for you, when they are your property. If afterward they become heavier again, if they wriggle themselves out of your power again, then that is just their untruth -- to wit, your impotence. Your impotence is their power, your humility their exaltation. Their truth, therefore, is you, or is the nothing which you are for them and in which they dissolve: their truth is their nothingness.
     Only as the property of me do the spirits, the truths, get to rest; and they then for the first time really are, when they have been deprived of their sorry existence and made a property of mine, when it is no longer said "the truth develops itself, rules, asserts itself; history (also a concept) wins the victory," etc. The truth never has won a victory, but was always my means to the victory, like the sword ("the sword of truth"). The truth is dead, a letter, a word, a material that I can use up. All truth by itself is dead, a corpse; it is alive only in the same way as my lungs are alive -- to wit, in the measure of my own vitality. Truths are material, like vegetables and weeds; as to whether vegetable or weed, the decision lies in me.
     Objects are to me only material that I use up. Wherever I put my hand I grasp a truth, which I trim for myself. The truth is certain to me, and I do not need to long after it. To do the truth a service is in no case my intent; it is to me only a nourishment for my thinking head, as potatoes are for my digesting stomach, or as a friend is for my social heart. As long as I have the humor and force for thinking, every truth serves me only for me to work it up according to my powers. As reality or worldliness is "vain and a thing of naught" for Christians, so is the truth for me. It exists, exactly as much as the things of this world go on existing although the Christian has proved their nothingness; but it is vain, because it has its value not in itself but in me. Of itself it is valueless. The truth is a -- creature.
     As you produce innumerable things by your activity, yes, shape the earth's surface anew and set up works of men everywhere, so too you may still ascertain numberless truths by your thinking, and we will gladly take delight in them. Nevertheless, as I do not please to hand myself over to serve your newly discovered machines mechanically, but only help to set them running for my benefit, so too I will only use your truths, without letting myself be used for their demands.
     All truths beneath me are to my liking; a truth above me, a truth that I should have to direct myself by, I am not acquainted with. For me there is no truth, for nothing is more than I! Not even my essence, not even the essence of man, is more than I! than I, this "drop in the bucket," this "insignificant man"!
     You believe that you have done the utmost when you boldly assert that, because every time has its own truth, there is no "absolute truth." Why, with this you nevertheless still leave to each time its truth, and thus you quite genuinely create an "absolute truth," a truth that no time lacks, because every time, however its truth may be, still has a "truth."
     Is it meant only that people have been thinking in every time, and so have had thoughts or truths, and that in the subsequent time these were other than they were in the earlier? No, the word is to be that every time had its "truth of faith"; and in fact none has yet appeared in which a "higher truth" has not been recognized, a truth that people believed they must subject themselves to as "highness and majesty."

Every truth of a time is its fixed idea, and, if people later found another truth, this always happened only because they sought for another; they only reformed the folly and put a modern dress on it. For they did want -- who would dare doubt their justification for this? -- they wanted to be "inspired by an idea." They wanted to be dominated -- possessed, by a thought! The most modern ruler of this kind is "our essence," or "man."
     For all free criticism a thought was the criterion; for own criticism I am, I the unspeakable, and so not the merely thought-of; for what is merely thought of is always speakable, because word and thought coincide. That is true which is mine, untrue that whose own I am; true, e. g. the union; untrue, the State and society. "Free and true" criticism takes care for the consistent dominion of a thought, an idea, a spirit; "own" criticism, for nothing but my self-enjoyment. But in this the latter is in fact -- and we will not spare it this "ignominy"! -- like the bestial criticism of instinct. I, like the criticizing beast, am concerned only for myself, not "for the cause." I am the criterion of truth, but I am not an idea, but more than idea, e. g., unutterable. My criticism is not a "free" criticism, not free from me, and not "servile," not in the service of an idea, but an own criticism.
     True or human criticism makes out only whether something is suitable to man, to the true man; but by own criticism you ascertain whether it is suitable to you.
     Free criticism busies itself with ideas, and therefore is always theoretical. However it may rage against ideas, it still does not get clear of them. It pitches into the ghosts, but it can do this only as it holds them to be ghosts. The ideas it has to do with do not fully disappear; the morning breeze of a new day does not scare them away.
     The critic may indeed come to ataraxia before ideas, but he never gets rid of them; i.e. he will never comprehend that above the bodily man there does not exist something higher -- to wit, liberty, his humanity, etc. He always has a "calling" of man still left, "humanity." And this idea of humanity remains unrealized, just because it is an "idea" and is to remain such.
     If, on the other hand, I grasp the idea as my idea, then it is already realized, because I am its reality; its reality consists in the fact that I, the bodily, have it.
     They say, the idea of liberty realizes itself in the history of the world. The reverse is the case; this idea is real as a man thinks it, and it is real in the measure in which it is idea, i. e. in which I think it or have it. It is not the idea of liberty that develops itself, but men develop themselves, and, of course, in this self-development develop their thinking too.
     In short, the critic is not yet owner, because he still fights with ideas as with powerful aliens -- as the Christian is not owner of his "bad desires" so long as he has to combat them; for him who contends against vice, vice exists.
     Criticism remains stuck fast in the "freedom of knowing," the freedom of the spirit, and the spirit gains its proper freedom when it fills itself with the pure, true idea; this is the freedom of thinking, which cannot be without thoughts.
     Criticism smites one idea only by another, e. g. that of privilege by that of manhood, or that of egoism by that of unselfishness.
     In general, the beginning of Christianity comes on the stage again in its critical end, egoism being combated here as there. I am not to make myself (the individual) count, but the idea, the general.
     Why, warfare of the priesthood with egoism, of the spiritually minded with the worldly-minded, constitutes the substance of all Christian history. In the newest criticism this war only becomes all-embracing, fanaticism complete. Indeed, neither can it pass away till it passes thus, after it has had its life and its rage out."

 

 

 

 

Bert:

The entire thing is irrelevant.  Religion shouldn't equate with political theory.  It's more of a personal and cultural persuasian.  Saying that religion is "mumbo-jumbo" like Keynesian economics is extremely arrogant, and are nowhere near the same thing.  I don't even see how this is a serious topic.

Agreed.  This is not a serious topic.

Anyone that is searching for a rational explanation for how this whole universe/life works, read this:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_incompleteness_theorems

And stop what you are doing, because there is no rational explanation.  The question of whether or not the universe has a rational explanation or description is not even an open question.

I don't think you really understand Godel's Incompleteness theorem. It has nothing to do with the universe and whether or not it can be 'explained'.

Wolf:

Anyone that is searching for a rational explanation for how this whole universe/life works, read this:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_incompleteness_theorems

And stop what you are doing, because there is no rational explanation.  The question of whether or not the universe has a rational explanation or description is not even an open question.

I'm on crank alert now.

It worked for Hayek(agnostic), Block(atheist), Mises(agnostic), and Rothbard(atheist).

Most useless topic ever?