Political Theory

Re: The Metaphysical 'Non-Existence' of the Normative 'Laws of Nature'

ladyattis — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 23:39:48 GMT

Nothing personal, AM, but your reasoning is dead wrong and off the mark. First, the laws of logic aren't mere heuristics, they are fundamental attributes of human thinking itself (Maybe due to our evolution, but I'm not a neurologist, so I won't speculate beyond that point.) as to not have these laws, a human mind couldn't identify itself or that which it is not part of itself (existence). Second, just because they don't pre-exist the human condition as some sort of physical law doesn't mean that they are non-existent for if your reasoning was true then sound does not exist as it is merely the vibration of molecules and atoms (or in simpler terms: because the structure does not pre-exist the components, that does not mean the structure is any less real for it.).

Re: The Metaphysical 'Non-Existence' of the Normative 'Laws of Nature'

I. Ryan — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 22:45:31 GMT

Anarcho-Mercantilist,

Is there any specific reason why you failed to respond to my previous posts?

Re: The Metaphysical 'Non-Existence' of the Normative 'Laws of Nature'

twistedbydsign99 — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 21:59:28 GMT

Anarcho-Mercantilist:
The words "fact," "reality," "absolute," "relative," "objective," and "subjective" are multiordinal

I don't know about multiordinal, but biordinal. It depends on if we are talking about a optimization problem or a logic problem. The words "objective" and "fact" in the realm of logic problems is not multiordinal as you stated.

Re: The Metaphysical 'Non-Existence' of the Normative 'Laws of Nature'

Jon Irenicus — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 21:39:17 GMT

. . .

What? It should prove amusing. I shall get a scare quote meter installed to see who tops it.

Re: The Metaphysical 'Non-Existence' of the Normative 'Laws of Nature'

Luming Zhou — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 21:07:43 GMT

Kregus:
we wil reject any moral realism and moral objectivism

I do not "accept" nor "reject" all theories labeled under the terms "moral realism" and "moral objectivism"—same thing with "moral non-cognitivism" and "moral subjectivism." If someone labels their philosophy as "moral realism" or "moral objectivism" but I agree with him, then fine, I agree with his philosophy. I only reject the usage of the labels "moral realism" and "moral objectivism" because they have multiple interpretations and no consensus on an unambiguous definition. Therefore, I disagree with your rejection of "moral realism" and "moral objectivism."

Kregus:
The interests of others should not restrain us

This seems like the Objectivist (Ayn Rand) argument against "altruism," which they define as the forced obligation to help others. Objectivists do not oppose voluntary altruism in the sense of donating to charity.

Kregus:
We should be passionate beings

We should be "passionate" in the sense of voluntary altruism.

Kregus:
Masculinity, strength and passion are the highest qualities in a person

You mean that women should reject their femininity, weakness, sensitivity, passiveness, submissiveness, and cowardice?

Kregus:
Conventional morality is a crutch to man

Perhaps you have defined "conventional morality" as statist morality or "Christian morality" which forces humans to have paternalistic obligations.

Kregus:
I reject Christianity, democracy and socialism

Stirner rejected Christianity because he thought that "god is evil"; not because "god does not exist." You have believed otherwise, as ascribed in the second sentence.

Re: The Metaphysical 'Non-Existence' of the Normative 'Laws of Nature'

Luming Zhou — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 21:07:41 GMT

twistedbydsign99:

Kregus:
We can create moral theories, but they will be subjective, not objective - independent of our mind.

There will always be an element of objectivity, because of a few facts, you are alive and you are arguing.

The words "fact," "reality," "absolute," "relative," "objective," and "subjective" are multiordinal.

Re: The Metaphysical 'Non-Existence' of the Normative 'Laws of Nature'

twistedbydsign99 — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 20:58:04 GMT

Kregus:
We can create moral theories, but they will be subjective, not objective - independent of our mind.

There will always be an element of objectivity, because of a few facts, you are alive and you are arguing.

Re: The Metaphysical 'Non-Existence' of the Normative 'Laws of Nature'

Kregus — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 12:57:41 GMT

Brainpolice:
This is precisely what is wrong with your philosophy. You use the problem of semantics to argue against *conceptual* distinctions, which is misleading.

If Brainpolice don't see how to counter our arguments against "natural law" crap, he just keep saying that we are using only semantic tricks. No, we are pointing contradictions in his own philosophy. For example, I was talking about real problems, like archism in the concept of atteritorial DRO's, communitarian ostracism in law enforcement and so on. There is no anarchist model of law enforcement by Brainpolice definition of authoritarianism and I perfectly agree with this. Why deny such an obvious thing, Brainpolice? Are you totally lost your mind trying to avoid moral neo-nihilism? Remeber, if we take Stirners position on secular humanism to it's logical conclusion - we wil reject any moral realism and moral objectivism. Our ethical express propositions are not made true by objective features of the world, independent of subjective opinion. Subjective, o r individual morality is our reality and you must realize it. I advocate moral skepticism and, moral relativism: the view that moral knowledge is impossible and that there are no moral truths. We can create moral theories, but they will be subjective, not objective - independent of our mind. I strongly believe in niezschean morality:

We have free will

There is no God

Social conformity should not hold us back

The interests of others should not restrain us

We should be passionate beings

Masculinity, strength and passion are the highest qualities in a person

Conventional morality is a crutch to man

I reject Christianity, democracy and socialism

Re: The Metaphysical 'Non-Existence' of the Normative 'Laws of Nature'

I. Ryan — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 17:28:11 GMT

. . .

Re: The Metaphysical 'Non-Existence' of the Normative 'Laws of Nature'

Luming Zhou — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 00:15:08 GMT

Brainpolice:

Although we should 'reject' the "realist/idealist" dichotomy, the "reflectionist/impositionist" dichotomy, the "physicalist/phenomenalist" dichotomy, the "objectivist/subjectivist" dichotomy, the "essentialist/nominalist" dichotomy, the "cognitivist/non-cognitivist" dichotomy, the "rationalist/empiricist" dichotomy, and the "a priori/a posteriori" dichotomy out of the mere ambiguity of the labels;

This is precisely what is wrong with your philosophy. You use the problem of semantics to argue against *conceptual* distinctions, which is misleading. These things cannot completely be reduced to an issue of linguistics because there are actual distinctions between concepts and viewpoints. The ambiguity of labels does not render conceptual distinction null. In a nutshell, in your own way you're essentially just spitting up the broken pieces of Wittgenstein's later philosophy, in which "language games" determine everything and philosophy as a whole is more or less subservient to linguistics.

You would probably get along well with some of the post-modernist youtubers like Azrienoch in this respect, since such a Wittgensteinian linguistic anti-realism has been post-modernized by such people, despite the fact that Wittgenstein is associated with analytic philosophy and his earlier philosophy inspired logical positivism (which is problematic for similar reasons in its attempt to murder metaphysics and morality with sophistic arguments).

I do not 'reject' them in the sense that I do not find any 'conceptual' distinctions. I only 'reject' the usage of those labels. For an example of how those labels can cause problems, go to YouTube and find the 2007 debate on "subjective vs. objective morality." I learned it the hard way that the main controversy within the debate revolves around the confusing definitions of "subjective" and "objective." Yes, I do not deny that there exists some conceptual distinctions. However, the debate will be much less controversial and smaller if the terminology is clarified.

After that, I looked into more 'controversies' and discovered that the dichotomy between 'physicalism' and 'phenominalism' has too much semantic confusion. In late 2008, I had labeled myself as a 'physicalist', 'phenomenalist', and a 'Berkeleyan idealist'—all at the same time—which many think they are incompatible.

Soon, I realized that most 'controversies' in philosophies will be resolved much faster if we clarified the terminology. I have not even heard of Wittgenstein or read general semantics before 2009.

I realized that additionally, the term 'realism' is ambiguous. It could mean a shorthand for 'naive realism', 'physicalism', or it could mean 'mereological essentialism'—which, in turn, are also ambiguous. Brainpolice, I heard that you had labeled yourself as a 'realist' in the sense of an 'anti-solipsist' and an anti-'naive realist'. The term 'anti-realist', for example, can mean an 'ontological solipsist', 'Berkeleyan idealist', etc. In fact, just like the 2007 YouTube 'subjectivist/objectivist' controversy, different definitions of 'realism' and 'idealism' are shared by many different people. I have not yet seen a consensus of the interpretation of the terms 'realism' or 'idealism'.

However, I agree, that this does not mean that there exists some conceptual differences between some 'idealists' and 'realists'. I meant that we should reject the usage of those labels (not the concepts) because many people interpret those terms in many different ways.

In addition, I heard that you had labeled yourself both as a 'moral fictionalist' and a 'moral realist'. This seems contradictory, but your 'nominalist' views had influenced you to be a 'fictionalist' since 'morality' do not exist 'tangibly'. However, you also had identified yourself as a 'moral realist' because you believe that you can use the word 'truth' methodologically.

We should explain our philosophies unambiguously instead of fighting the label war.

(I have no influence from any of the developers of "logical positivism." I have only read Wittgenstein's later work Philosophical Investigations. However, I learned nothing from that work.)

Re: The Metaphysical 'Non-Existence' of the Normative 'Laws of Nature'

Luming Zhou — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 00:15:06 GMT

scineram:

Anarcho-Mercantilist:

'Reason' does not presuppose the law of identity.

'Reason' does not presuppose the law of the excluded middle.

'Reason' does not presuppose the law of non-contradiction.

We should reject these. And yet we should not.

Objectivists (Ayn Rand) staunchly believe in the classical laws of logic that they will attribute anyone who sees any problem with some of the laws as a 'logical positivist'. Therefore, the Objectivists label me as a 'logical positivist' because I see potential problems with the law of non-contradiction. However, I do not 'reject' the law in the sense that I regard contradictions as consistent.

Re: The Metaphysical 'Non-Existence' of the Normative 'Laws of Nature'

Luming Zhou — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 00:15:03 GMT

twistedbydsign99:

Anarcho-Mercantilist:
who claim that "intrinsic properties exist independently of our thinking," and who claim that "essences exist independently of our senses,"

If nothing objective exists then you should stop speaking, because no one cares what your or anyone elses opinion on their personal reality is.

That depends on the definition of 'objective'. As you previously stated in the animal rights thread:

twistedbydsign99:
are you saying its objectively true that there is no objective morality, or are you saying its just your opinion? If its true then prove it.

twistedbydsign99:
What is subjective is goal choice, and what is objective is the way one should go about obtaining them. There are certain universal goals/wants and therefore objective morality. All men prefer life for example. All men prefer to act in the best of their capacities is another. From those two universal goals you can prescribe ways in which all men should act.

I am not using your definition of 'objective'. Therefore, I made the mistake for not being clear enough.

Re: The Metaphysical 'Non-Existence' of the Normative 'Laws of Nature'

Brainpolice — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 11:55:30 GMT

Although we should 'reject' the "realist/idealist" dichotomy, the "reflectionist/impositionist" dichotomy, the "physicalist/phenomenalist" dichotomy, the "objectivist/subjectivist" dichotomy, the "essentialist/nominalist" dichotomy, the "cognitivist/non-cognitivist" dichotomy, the "rationalist/empiricist" dichotomy, and the "a priori/a posteriori" dichotomy out of the mere ambiguity of the labels;

This is precisely what is wrong with your philosophy. You use the problem of semantics to argue against *conceptual* distinctions, which is misleading. These things cannot completely be reduced to an issue of linguistics because there are actual distinctions between concepts and viewpoints. The ambiguity of labels does not render conceptual distinction null. In a nutshell, in your own way you're essentially just spitting up the broken pieces of Wittgenstein's later philosophy, in which "language games" determine everything and philosophy as a whole is more or less subservient to linguistics.

You would probably get along well with some of the post-modernist youtubers like Azrienoch in this respect, since such a Wittgensteinian linguistic anti-realism has been post-modernized by such people, despite the fact that Wittgenstein is associated with analytic philosophy and his earlier philosophy inspired logical positivism (which is problematic for similar reasons in its attempt to murder metaphysics and morality with sophistic arguments).

Re: The Metaphysical 'Non-Existence' of the Normative 'Laws of Nature'

Physiocrat — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 08:36:09 GMT

twistedbydsign99:

Anarcho-Mercantilist:
who claim that "intrinsic properties exist independently of our thinking," and who claim that "essences exist independently of our senses,"

If nothing objective exists then you should stop speaking, because no one cares what your or anyone elses opinion on their personal reality is.

Indeed, po mo self refuting claptrap.

Re: The Metaphysical 'Non-Existence' of the Normative 'Laws of Nature'

twistedbydsign99 — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 17:54:17 GMT

Anarcho-Mercantilist:
who claim that "intrinsic properties exist independently of our thinking," and who claim that "essences exist independently of our senses,"

If nothing objective exists then you should stop speaking, because no one cares what your or anyone elses opinion on their personal reality is.