General

Re: Hans Hermann Hoppe

liberty student — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 05:57:37 GMT

Juan:
Anyway, I give up. This is going nowhere.

That's never stopped you before, pumpkin.

Re: Hans Hermann Hoppe

Nerditarian — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 03:06:54 GMT

Sphairon:
If man's actions are evidence for free will, then most certainly the same must be true for cows, squirrels and raccoons. Do those animals also have free will as shown by their actions?

I don't know. I think the correct answer is that animals actions are psychology not praxeology. They are reflexes nor proper decisions. All humans are rational. You can't rationally argue against that without performatively contradicting yourself. Even those who do rain dances aren't irrational the way Mises meant it, rather they have different views on technology or the means to those ends. Mises wrote about this somewhat extensively in HA.

Re: Hans Hermann Hoppe

Juan — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 23:07:04 GMT

Sphairon:
No, they're not. Either they describe something that you'd like to be transcendental, but that is in fact based on material elements (e.g., will), or they are too vaguely defined and thus prone to attempts of transcendentalists to make use of them (e.g., self)

Maybe you should clarify what you mean by "transcendental".

Anyway, I give up. This is going nowhere.

Re: Hans Hermann Hoppe

Sphairon — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 21:28:58 GMT

Juan:
Those terms are names for non-material phenomena. I'm sorry if you don't like the way language evolved. You might as well complain that apples are called apples.

No, they're not. Either they describe something that you'd like to be transcendental, but that is in fact based on material elements (e.g., will), or they are too vaguely defined and thus prone to attempts of transcendentalists to make use of them (e.g., self).

There's no monopoly on words for you, friend.

Indeed my position is related to agnosticism. Now, this is funny, you were a christian who believed in christian dogma and now you're a dawkins materialist who believe in materialistic dogma...?

I do not try to fall for dogmatics, but I have to admit that I was quite polarizing in my remarks. I'll try to rephrase them:

I don't know how exactly your will works. All I know is that humans are made up of chemical and physical processes and that those who claim we are subject to a third force need to back that up. The burden of proof is on them. Until they have delivered such evidence, I have to assume on a rational level that free will does not exist.

By the way, I'm not sure Dawkins denies free will. Some of his peers sure do, yes, but I'm not exactly a Dawkinist or materialist either and have never claimed to be one. I just make observations.

Your self, which you can't explain using mechanics, is the evidence for the ghost in the machine.

As much as "missing links" in the fossil record are evidence for creationism.

It's obvious that we're dealing with a philosophical problem.

You'd like to make it philosophical to avoid the unpleasant question of biological evidence. That has nothing to do with positivism.

By the same token, I could claim that we have a transcendental gut feeling that helps us do the right things. A moral compass in your stomach, so to speak. If you denied this, I might ask you: where else does our ethical understanding come from? Your fancy biologists can't answer that one, can they? Oh yeah, that one remains to be answered philosophically.

Irrelevant. Both stones and humans are determined by mechanical laws. In the deterministic framework there's no such thing as human action.

Strawman. The fact that humans do not transcendentally control their actions does not rule out the possibility of human action.

Sorry, it's hard for me to understand/follow what he says. The title is weird, though. Is he a philosopher arguing against philosophy ?

He's arguing against the objectivity of any given ethics. He says that instead of forcing our ethical framework on others, we should convince them that supporting the state contradicts their own value framework and is thus a bad idea.

Re: Hans Hermann Hoppe

Juan — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 20:41:12 GMT

Juan:
You can't explain things in materialistic terms and also retain concepts such as will, self, consciousness, self-awareness, and the like.

Sphairon:
I won't concede to you the right to use these terms in a metaphysical, transcendental context only.

Those terms are names for non-material phenomena. I'm sorry if you don't like the way language evolved. You might as well complain that apples are called apples.

Juan:
I expect you to realize that one can't account for consciousness, self, will, and similar concepts in purely materialistic terms ?

Sphairon:
You're trying to dance around the question with this agnostic claptrap.

Indeed my position is related to agnosticism. Now, this is funny, you were a christian who believed in christian dogma and now you're a dawkins materialist who believe in materialistic dogma...?

Sphairon:
Do you have evidence for a transcendental element in a physical/chemical framework, yes or no?

Your self, which you can't explain using mechanics, is the evidence for the ghost in the machine.

Sphairon:
A professional biologist (somebody with much more research experience in the field of biology than myself) might be in a more appropriate position to give you details on what constitutes consciousness, will or our self-perception.

Of course not. It's obvious that we're dealing with a philosophical problem. Biology is just a very limited and specialized branch of knowledge. Besides, If you are a positivist, you should know that there's only one science : mechanics.

Sphairon:
Humans act on behalf of their will. Their drive to act is endogenous. Stones are subject to the forces of nature; that which drives them is exogenous. That's the difference between man and stone.

Irrelevant. Both stones and humans are determined by mechanical laws. In the deterministic framework there's no such thing as human action.

Sphairon:
By the way, this video explains my approach to anarchy quite nicely.

Sorry, it's hard for me to understand/follow what he says. The title is weird, though. Is he a philosopher arguing against philosophy ?

Re: Hans Hermann Hoppe

nirgrahamUK — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 18:26:26 GMT

'free will' is a conceptual device. i know i consider myself to be the source of the decision i make. (note that decisions are a conceptual construct also). this is all i need to say i have free will.

i think animals would need to be able to think conceptually, and be able to rationally accept responsibility/sovereignty for their decisions. only if they could do this could they have freewill.

we have a language barrier with animals that makes it hard to determine the presence or absence of their internal worlds.

im always suprised that philosophers havenet engaged in dialogue with those trained chimps that have been taught to press buttons to communicate and thus construct sentances.

Re: Hans Hermann Hoppe

Sphairon — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 18:05:58 GMT

Juan:
If man's purposes are the result of physical processes then man is a machine

If it doesn't matter to you that machines are usually built by living beings whereas living beings are created by biological processes, then yes, men are just another kind of machine. Machines, per definition, are devices that use energy to perfom an activity. That's us, basically.

You can't explain things in materialistic terms and also retain concepts such as will, self, consciousness, self-awareness, and the like.

I won't concede to you the right to use these terms in a metaphysical, transcendental context only.

I expect you to realize that one can't account for consciousness, self, will, and similar concepts in purely materialistic terms ?

You're trying to dance around the question with this agnostic claptrap.

Do you have evidence for a transcendental element in a physical/chemical framework, yes or no?

To suggest that a 'professional biologist' (what ? state approved ?) can answer such questions is...naive. Or positivistic. Or both.

A professional biologist (somebody with much more research experience in the field of biology than myself) might be in a more appropriate position to give you details on what constitutes consciousness, will or our self-perception.

I just know that no free will apologist has yet been able to deliver evidence for their transcendental concepts. All I hear is "Haha, those biologists don't know either! Them dumb determinists!" That's like creationism, literally.

I'm not sure I follow. A will determined by chemical processes is not a will. Unless you're willing to accept that, say, falling stones have a will, except not a free one ?

Humans act on behalf of their will. Their drive to act is endogenous. Stones are subject to the forces of nature; that which drives them is exogenous. That's the difference between man and stone.

For some reason you invoked materialism in order to criticize natural rights and objective ethics.

No, I invoked the inconsistency in common perceptions of self-ownership to criticize "objective natural rights ethics". Free will was just a sideshow that we somehow got into.

By the way, this video explains my approach to anarchy quite nicely.

Nerditarian:
If man acts doesn't he have to have free will? Can you deny the premise? Can you deny that the second follows logically from the premise?

If man's actions are evidence for free will, then most certainly the same must be true for cows, squirrels and raccoons. Do those animals also have free will as shown by their actions?

Re: Hans Hermann Hoppe

Nerditarian — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 01:04:16 GMT

Sphairon:
Now you're strawmanning me hard again.

Dead matter doesn't have a will. We do have a will, albeit not a transcendental "free will". Our will is comparable to that of other mammals, but due to our much more sophisticated brains, we're able to delve much deeper and think much more long-term than most of them. Objects are being shaped, we are shapers of objects, the question was whether we are always in full control of how, when and why we are shaping objects, and the answer is no, ultimately "you" (which we still need to define - and if your definition doesn't include any transcendental assumptions, then "you" is just chemical and physical processes in your brain) are subject to what "your will" is commanding.

If we equate "you" and "your will", then you're in charge indeed, but it doesn't help because you are your will which is not a free state of mind.

However, not being transcendentally free doesn't mean being dead. Dead things do not have a will, living things do.

What's the point again, actually?

If man acts doesn't he have to have free will? Can you deny the premise? Can you deny that the second follows logically from the premise?

Re: Hans Hermann Hoppe

nirgrahamUK — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 00:07:31 GMT

i suppose its safe to say that Juan is not a compatabilist, and that he does not agree that 'freedom evolves'?

Re: Hans Hermann Hoppe

Juan — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 23:28:24 GMT

Rothbard:
It is true that all mindless matter is determined and purposeless. But it is highly inappropriate, and moreover question-begging, simply and uncritically to apply the model of physics to man.

Sphairon:
Strawman. Man is not purposeless, the question is whether his purposes are freely chosen by a transcendental entity within his brain or the result of chemical and physical processes.

If man's purposes are the result of physical processes then man is a machine. You can't eat your cake and have it too. You can't explain things in materialistic terms and also retain concepts such as will, self, consciousness, self-awareness, and the like. So, this is not a strawman but rather a hint that you don't fully grasp what materialism entails.

Juan:
Does the self really exist ?

Sphairon:
You're too far already. The question is, what is the self?

Juan:
Fine. Answer that one =]...In materialistic terms...

Sphairon:
What do you expect from me? I'm not a professional biologist.

I expect you to realize that one can't account for consciousness, self, will, and similar concepts in purely materialistic terms ? This has nothing to do with biology. To suggest that a 'professional biologist' (what ? state approved ?) can answer such questions is...naive. Or positivistic. Or both.

Dead matter doesn't have a will. We do have a will, albeit not a transcendental "free will".

I'm not sure I follow. A will determined by chemical processes is not a will. Unless you're willing to accept that, say, falling stones have a will, except not a free one ?

What's the point again, actually?

I'm not sure =] For some reason you invoked materialism in order to criticize natural rights and objective ethics.

Re: Hans Hermann Hoppe

Sphairon — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 22:25:44 GMT

Juan:
Fine. Answer that one =]...In materialistic terms...

What do you expect from me? I'm not a professional biologist. All I know is that I still lack proof of a transcendental entity in a physical/chemical framework.

We are chemical machines. In fact we are just dead matter that moves. I'm afraid your distinction between living beings and other objects is arbitrary and unscientific. Remember, as far as materialism is concerned existence is just movement of particles in space.

Now you're strawmanning me hard again.

Dead matter doesn't have a will. We do have a will, albeit not a transcendental "free will". Our will is comparable to that of other mammals, but due to our much more sophisticated brains, we're able to delve much deeper and think much more long-term than most of them. Objects are being shaped, we are shapers of objects, the question was whether we are always in full control of how, when and why we are shaping objects, and the answer is no, ultimately "you" (which we still need to define - and if your definition doesn't include any transcendental assumptions, then "you" is just chemical and physical processes in your brain) are subject to what "your will" is commanding.

If we equate "you" and "your will", then you're in charge indeed, but it doesn't help because you are your will which is not a free state of mind.

However, not being transcendentally free doesn't mean being dead. Dead things do not have a will, living things do.

What's the point again, actually?

Re: Hans Hermann Hoppe

sirmonty — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 18:50:36 GMT

GilesStratton:

sirmonty:

So where does the idea that Hoppe "associates with racists and neo-nazis" come from exactly? Is this just people being retarded and knee-jerk reacting against his anti-egalitarianism or something, or does he actually "associate" with these types of people?

The Neo Nazi part is that fool Tom Palmer as for as I know. Hoppe did an interview with a German magazine, which I forget the name of, which has been accused of Neo Nazi sentiments. Anyway, I believe that Hoppe was merely discussing his theories of monarchy and democracy. Keep in mind Palmer is the same "libertarian" who has supported wars and supported the government banning individuals saying certain things.

Yeah I know Tom Palmer is a moron.

Re: Hans Hermann Hoppe

hayekianxyz — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 18:39:32 GMT

sirmonty:

So where does the idea that Hoppe "associates with racists and neo-nazis" come from exactly? Is this just people being retarded and knee-jerk reacting against his anti-egalitarianism or something, or does he actually "associate" with these types of people?

The Neo Nazi part is that fool Tom Palmer as for as I know. Hoppe did an interview with a German magazine, which I forget the name of, which has been accused of Neo Nazi sentiments. Anyway, I believe that Hoppe was merely discussing his theories of monarchy and democracy. Keep in mind Palmer is the same "libertarian" who has supported wars and supported the government banning individuals saying certain things.

Re: Hans Hermann Hoppe

hayekianxyz — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 18:36:11 GMT

Juan:
Sounds as if Hoppe believes in the existence of genetically superior natural oligarchy...

As a result of being selective when choosing partners, yes. What is the issue here?

Re: Hans Hermann Hoppe

Juan — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 18:33:57 GMT

Sphairon:

Juan:
Does the self really exist ?
You're too far already. The question is, what is the self?

Fine. Answer that one =]...In materialistic terms...

First of all, we're not machines, we're living beings.

We are chemical machines. In fact we are just dead matter that moves. I'm afraid your distinction between living beings and other objects is arbitrary and unscientific. Remember, as far as materialism is concerned existence is just movement of particles in space.