wilderness: By understanding the second paragraph then the first paragraph is "redeem(ed)". The author of that article seemed to be only saying if you don't understand 'relation of ideas' then it would seem Hume was only embarrassing himself. But the author points out that the second paragraph "redeems" the understanding that one might have of the first. There isn't an argument here.
By understanding the second paragraph then the first paragraph is "redeem(ed)". The author of that article seemed to be only saying if you don't understand 'relation of ideas' then it would seem Hume was only embarrassing himself. But the author points out that the second paragraph "redeems" the understanding that one might have of the first.
There isn't an argument here.
Oh, I get it; thank you.
If I wrote it more than a few weeks ago, I probably hate it by now.
Again (1) you don't know what deductions mean (2) don't know what axioms mean
If so, then at least I'm in good company.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
wilderness:It is synonymous for natural law theorists.
I. Ryan:If so, Lilburne, Mises, and I are "natural law theorists". Cool.
No. Lilburne philosophically has attacked nearly every one of my natural right/law positions, and many others in this forum. I even had to pull a quote of Mises out of his book "Liberalism" to Lilburne in another thread to point out to Lilburne that even Mises had said that 'life, liberty, health, and private property are to be protected' (John Locke's natural rights).
My point of this thread was to show how Mises didn't ever address the natural law of the A-T natural law theorists. I've provided countless references in support of this that are tacked throughout this forum in various threads. I have had to do the leg-work and explain to some people that quote Mises that that isn't the natural law of Rothbard, Hoppe, etc.... I've had to interpret the quotes using my knowledge as those posting the quotes didn't have the knowledge. If LIlburne really is, then I'd rather him say it because his posts/actions show otherwise. You don't need to speak for others. I know you are and Mises was in practice and words, but wasn't a full fledged natural law theorist in name. Hence Lilburne and some others continual semantic quibbling.
hayekianxyz: Again (1) you don't know what deductions mean (2) don't know what axioms mean If so, then at least I'm in good company.
If you know what sensory perception is, then you're already part way there in knowing what common sense is (common sense=axiom).
wilderness: Lilburne, No. We haven't even gotten to any deductions yet. Again (1) you don't know what deductions mean (2) don't know what axioms mean (3) are simply avoiding this on purpose. I am using "Intro. to Logic" books. This is all very basic 101 logic. That quote isn't even close to discussing what an 'axiom' is. All Rothbard would be saying in that quote is Hoppe by using axioms then uses a deductive method to come to certain conclusions. But Hoppe's argumentation ethics starts with the axioms that are pre-supposed by each person in the argument before any deduction need be even made. Plenty of literature on this at the Mises Institute.
Lilburne,
No. We haven't even gotten to any deductions yet. Again (1) you don't know what deductions mean (2) don't know what axioms mean (3) are simply avoiding this on purpose. I am using "Intro. to Logic" books. This is all very basic 101 logic. That quote isn't even close to discussing what an 'axiom' is. All Rothbard would be saying in that quote is Hoppe by using axioms then uses a deductive method to come to certain conclusions. But Hoppe's argumentation ethics starts with the axioms that are pre-supposed by each person in the argument before any deduction need be even made. Plenty of literature on this at the Mises Institute.
wilderness: wilderness:It is synonymous for natural law theorists. I. Ryan:If so, Lilburne, Mises, and I are "natural law theorists". Cool. No. Lilburne philosophically has attacked nearly every one of my natural right/law positions, and many others in this forum. I even had to pull a quote of Mises out of his book "Liberalism" to Lilburne in another thread to point out to Lilburne that even Mises had said that 'life, liberty, health, and private property are to be protected' (John Locke's natural rights). My point of this thread was to show how Mises didn't ever address the natural law of the A-T natural law theorists. I've provided countless references in support of this that are tacked throughout this forum in various threads. I have had to do the leg-work and explain to some people that quote Mises that that isn't the natural law of Rothbard, Hoppe, etc.... I've had to interpret the quotes using my knowledge as those posting the quotes didn't have the knowledge. If LIlburne really is, then I'd rather him say it because his posts/actions show otherwise. You don't need to speak for others. I know you are and Mises was in practice and words, but wasn't a full fledged natural law theorist in name. Hence Lilburne and some others continual semantic quibbling.
No. Thomas Aquinas has shown that natural rights are discovered by reason. Locke had known this as well as other natural law theorist. Reason is of nature. Humankind is of nature. Or do you profess that humankind doesn't live in this universe?
I'm not confused, please don't make that unfounded assertion. I'm really tired of your emotional rhetoric that questions my intelligence.
- thank you.
Lilburne:Hoppe attempts to deduce that private property ethics can't be argued against from the definition of argumentation. Argumentation ethics is indeed deductive.
wrong
Please read up on it, as this has been addressed enough already.
Here's a good start.
- thank you
wilderness: Lilburne, No. Thomas Aquinas has shown that natural rights are discovered by reason. Locke had known this as well as other natural law theorist. Reason is of nature. Humankind is of nature. Or do you profess that humankind doesn't live in this universe? I'm not confused, please don't make that unfounded assertion. I'm really tired of your emotional rhetoric that questions my intelligence. - thank you. Of course natural rights theorists claim to be able to derive law from nature with reason. Derivation necessarily implies reason. Although they fail to do so, because the notion makes no sense.
Lilburne:Of course natural rights theorists claim to be able to derive law from nature with reason. Derivation necessarily implies reason. Although they fail to do so, because the notion makes no sense.
It makes no sense to you, let's clarify who wrote the above.
Again, I had asked but once again you don't answer and only make ad hoc responses. I had asked a question and normally that would entail a response by the person who the question was directed towards. Why is this so difficult?
wilderness: Lilburne:Argumentation ethics is indeed deductive. wrong Please read up on it, as this has been addressed enough already. Here's a good start. - thank you
Lilburne:Argumentation ethics is indeed deductive.
From the article you linked to (emphasis added):
"Hoppe then shows that the libertarian conception of rights can be deduced from these presupposed norms and facts."
Ok. Now ask yourself what are these "presupposed norms and facts"?
Until you figure this out you'll not get to the "rights" part yet. We are not talking about "rights" yet. Well, I'm not, but you keep bringing that part up.
wilderness:do you profess that humankind doesn't live in this universe?
wilderness: I had asked a question and normally that would entail a response by the person who the question was directed towards. Why is this so difficult?
No, I do not profess that humankind doesn't live in this universe.
Lilburne:No, I do not profess that humankind doesn't live in this universe.
So human's actively reason in this universe/nature?
wilderness:Ok. Now ask yourself what are these "presupposed norms and facts"?
The premises outlined in ERO's quote above. Premises from which Hoppe, as the very article you linked to says, tries to deduce libertarian ethics, which directly refutes your claim that Hoppe's ArgEthics position is not deductive. Did you not realize the link you provided in support of your claim is in direct opposition to it?
I know you didn't read the article or you wouldn't be saying the things you are.
I had asked you a question, once again, and you once again don't answer it. It is usually normal in a discussion that in the pursuit of philosophy that when a question is asked that the person in reception of the question answer the question.
the quote you pasted:"Hoppe then shows that the libertarian conception of rights can be deduced from these presupposed norms and facts."
We are not talking about the rights that are deduced. This conversation can't even get that far as long as you keep stalling. Now what are these "presupposed norms and facts"?
wilderness: Lilburne:No, I do not profess that humankind doesn't live in this universe. So human's actively reason in this universe/nature?
wilderness:We are not talking about the rights that are deduced.
We have been debating the question of whether Hoppe's Argumentation Ethics are deductive. I say they are. You said they are not. The article you linked to says that Hoppe deduces ethical rights. So according to the article you linked to, Hoppe's Argumentation Ethics are deductive.
Get to point instead of "penchant for identifying any notion with any other notion".
Nature is this universe. Reason is of this universe/nature. Being is active and potential. Change and rest. I have already linked to you in the past that nature is synomous with reason in the Aristotelian tradition according to Rommen. Can we move on?
Lilburne:We have been debating the question of whether Hoppe's Argumentation Ethics are deductive. I say they are. You said they are not. The article you linked to says that Hoppe deduces ethical rights. So according to the article you linked to, Hoppe's Argumentation Ethics are deductive.
The "rights" are deducted, but that is NOT argumentation ethics. The argumentation ethics deals with what is 'presupposed from the norms and facts'. Again, what are these 'presupposed norms and facts'? Answer would be nice. Read the full article and then get back to me if you are unsure.
wilderness:Get to point instead of "penchant for identifying any notion with any other notion".
That is getting to a point, which I think would be good for you to understand. You'll never find the truth you profess to be seeking until you drop your fuzzy synonyms.
wilderness:Nature is this universe. Reason is of this universe/nature. Being is active and potential. Change and rest. I have already linked to you in the past that nature is synomous with reason in the Aristotelian tradition according to Rommen. Can we move on?
Being implies change and rest. That does not mean it is a principle of change and rest. More fuzziness on your part.
wilderness:The "rights" are deducted, but that is NOT argumentation ethics.
Yes it is.
Wikipedia: "Discourse ethics, sometimes called argumentation ethics, refers to a type of argument that attempts to establish normative or ethical truths by examining the presuppositions of discourse."
Hoppe's argumentation ethics argument CONSISTS of trying to establish ethical truths. What ethical truths is Hoppe trying to establish? Rights. And what method of inference is he using to establish them? Deduction. QED.
Grayson Lilburne:Hoppe attempts to deduce that private property ethics can't be argued against from the definition of argumentation. Argumentation ethics is indeed deductive.
This sounds good, but I don't think it is actually correct. Argumentation ethics is a negative proof. I'm sure you are familiar with performative contradiction. It is the same thing as Mises saying that nobody can deny that humans act, because that denial is itself an action.
While we would probably still call this conversation an argument, it isn't the same as an argument in a court drawn to rectify private property disputes. I think this latter form of arguing would be a distinct category of action, or in Reinach's terminology a different type of "social act".
In both cases, the person arguing against libertarian grundnorms is caught in logical contradiction, but only the latter form of argument is our concern, as the goal of any legal theory is to justify punishment. Whether it is deductive or not really isn't important though. I think Kinsella's estoppel reformulation is much more convincing as to the validity of argumentation ethics.
Mises (and I) say that the protection of life, liberty, and private property are the most appropriate means to everybody's ends (save ascetics and sadists). But we do NOT derive the notion that those things should be protected from nature.
Am I a "natural law theorist" by defending Hoppe? I really don't see the point in using the term "natural law" at all looking forward. We're concerned with human actions, so that those are natural (or not) seems kind of irrelevant.
Anyhow, I didn't quite get why you went after me in another thread for quoting this paper by Block, where he said:
In [Mises'] view, it was reasonable to deduce what the law ought to be from purely economic considerations, provided only that we take as a given the utility of the normal or average man, who is in this case the typical advocate of government intervention, as the lodestar of our analysis.
I thought maybe Mises somewhere else said some things about justice, but this seems to be exactly what you are saying now. Isn't the problem then though that we aren't talking about the suitability of the sadist or the average man in achieving their own preferred ends. We're asking whether the sadist's ("criminal's" sounds better to me) actions are in line with those we say are vital to human society and the process of civilization, and this is where AE comes in.
Last, I have been making an effort to be civil to people here and just ignore those that repeatedly employ fallacies or are just off in left field. What still irks me most is when I spend my time writing out a response (like this one) and the person it was addressed to (in this case you) says something like this:
ERO, Your analogy would only work if your lazy, "But what about Argumentation Ethics?" could even be considered a "swing". It can't. Again, if you want something from me, give me something concrete to respond to that you think undermines my position, even if it's only a single paragraph, and I'll respond. But I don't write monographs on cue.
ERO,
Your analogy would only work if your lazy, "But what about Argumentation Ethics?" could even be considered a "swing". It can't.
Again, if you want something from me, give me something concrete to respond to that you think undermines my position, even if it's only a single paragraph, and I'll respond.
But I don't write monographs on cue.
How was there nothing concrete to respond to? I just basically repeated the same thing here and I will probably have to again and again in new threads on this perennial topic. I only skimmed this one, but I might not still understand your position. If you really think your case against argumentation ethics is that solid, please stop arguing against wilderness and spend your time making a Mises Daily on it or something. I also would appreciate if the original AE thread here was stickied. Ones like the nuclear disarmament thread could at least go in a master sticky of topics that have threads. I spent a good bit of time on writing the last response there, let alone thinking about it, and it seems all for naught. My time is scarce too, but I spend a great deal of it reading about law and hoping to contribute to libertarian theory. When what I say is baselessly rejected out of hand it's pretty off-putting if I think about contributing more.
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.
Lilburne:Being implies change and rest. That does not mean it is a principle of change and rest. More fuzziness on your part.
I never said being was a principle. I'm not being fuzzy. You're again assuming things so that's about as "fuzzy" as it gets. Where in my post do you see the word "principle"?
Reason is part of nature. You have already agreed to that. So what are you stuck on now?
Lilburne:Yes it is. Wikipedia: "Discourse ethics, sometimes called argumentation ethics, refers to a type of argument that attempts to establish normative or ethical truths by examining the presuppositions of discourse." Hoppe's argumentation ethics argument CONSISTS of trying to establish ethical truths. What ethical truths is Hoppe trying to establish? Rights. And what method of inference is he using to establish them? Deduction. QED.
Wrong. You're conflating axioms with logical deductions. I highly recommend Morris Cohen's "Intro. to Logic" book that Mises had recommended. Also Aristotle's "APrior" gets into this a bit too. Aquinas' "Human Nature". And there's some others.
"...attempts to establish normative or ethical truths by examining the presuppositions of discourse."
Lilburne do you know what the word "presupposition" means? You have yet to answer that as it was also within that previous quote. So what are these presuppositions that are norms and facts? You are stalling.
Logical deductions are NOT argumentation ethics because you're not answering the full quote. Don't "confuse" (a favorite word of yours) the apple on the apple tree for the whole apple tree. You would first need to figure out the other part of quote (presuppositions of norms and facts) before you are able to make a complete definition of argumentation ethics. Part of something is NOT the whole thing.
Maybe someone should just ask Hoppe if he meant for argumentation ethics to be deductive.
I admit that I haven't read Hoppe on this subject, but from what I know of his methodology, and from what I know of argumentation ethics, I don't see how it possibly could be inductive.
I Samuel 8
Read the article. The quote Lilburne even pasted says the 'rights' are deducted from the "presuppositions of norms and facts." The meat of argumentation ethics is the 'presuppositions'. The deductive aspect is minor and secondary.
Hoppe commits basic logical fallacies in his claims. Read my buddy Danny Shahar's post on the subject.
Murphy and Callahan have their own critique here.
Knott has a summary of his critique of argumentation ethics here. You can also email him for a pdf of the full version of his critique of Hoppe's argumentation ethics.
“Socialism is a fraud, a comedy, a phantom, a blackmail.” - Benito Mussolini"Toute nation a le gouvernemente qu'il mérite." - Joseph de Maistre
The article I linked is Kinsella rebutting Murphy and Callahan. Murphy and Callahan didn't understand Hoppe. Kinsella convinced me. And Knott is all over the place on some basics so he's definitely not a credible source to even take on some posts in this forum. Knott very frequently conflates psychology with logic.
I don't know the first one. I'll check it out.
The presence of presuppositions doesn’t make an argument non-deductive.
Read the article. You're way off on interpreting this.
What makes you think you know what Hoppe says when you never read what Hoppe says? Think about that for a moment.
I can't even begin to answer your post as it doesn't address the subject at hand.
The basic problem with Hoppe's Argumentation Ethics, as with most ethical theories, is that it presupposes what it needs to prove: that there is in fact logical content to normative claims, and that 'justification' (in the normative sense) is either necessary or possible. If one rejects (according to thoroughgoing value subjectivism) the notion that normative 'justifications' make any sense, and that there is any such thing as an 'imperative' outside of a particular individuals value judgements and theories of means, the whole enterprise collapses before it has begun. Aside from the logical conflations Hoppe engages in (and I don't even want to talk about Kinsella), he starts his arguments supposing that people are trying to justify their use of resources. But this in itself makes no sense!
Liberte,
it is presupposed that during an argument there is a person engaged in the argument. Do you deny this?
I deny that there is cognitive content to normative claims. An argument is "a series of connected statements intended to establish a proposition" (according to Monty Python). An 'argument' devoid of logical content is therefor not an 'argument', it is a verbal spat which is no more capable of coming to a 'conclusion' than a fist-fight is, which is to say one or another person may eventually give up or be unable to continue.
So there is a person in the argument? You are a person? You post. Thanks for proving Argumentation Ethics. Humans Act.
Good Night.
An argument is "a series of connected statements intended to establish a proposition" (according to Monty Python)
You came to the wrong forum, this is abuse
Here.
Practically coercion!
HUMANS ACT, D00D
Liberté: Practically coercion! HUMANS ACT, D00D
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
Liberté:Hoppe commits basic logical fallacies in his claims. Read my buddy Danny Shahar's post on the subject.
[Edit]I realized the whole distinction between normative and factual statements doesn't work, becuase you can still argue over factual statements. Let me instead say that an argument occurs whenever people are trying to come to an agreement using language.
Arguing with someone presupposes that you want them to consent to your views. So you can't argue to John's face that John should be enslaved, because even if he agreed to it, it would be voluntary slavery which is impossible by definition. [End Edit] On the other hand, you can tell John that you plan to enslave him. He can piss and moan about it. but making a statement to someone doesn't presuppose anything, other than maybe they can hear and understand you. You can also argue with John whether or not Peter should be enslaved, because we're not presupposing that we are trying to get Peter to consent. I don't know if you should call this argumentation "ethics". All this bs is coming out of habermas/kant, so if you realize that ethics just means rational action I think it comes together a lot better. There's still performative contradiction, but rests on the arguer presupposing that his goal is to get the audience to consent to whatever propositions. AE still gets to say that statism is bunk, because arguing vis-a-vis for slavery is impossible.
Again, would appreciate feedback. There was always something Hairy about AE, but maybe this ultra slimmed down version can be something useful.