Dude, this formatting thing is driving me nuts. Going to use italics now.Juan:^^^ that was SARCASM on my part.Indeed, it was. But you tried to ridicule my position indirectly. I don't like my position ridiculed indirectly, see.But you don't believe in objective ethics so your claim "people need to respect individual rights" is nonsense, as per your own relativism/subjectivism. I think a human society that does not respect individual sovereignty and private property is ultimately doomed to failure. That said, there are cases where the propertarian view gets blurry, think of the controversy about whether a person who has homesteaded a square space of land can legally be entrapped by someone who homesteads the land around her.Thus, while I probably am a relativist to some extent, I can still make relative judgements. And relatively speaking, private property and individual sovereignty kick ass compared to any other ethics offered to me until this point. You are wrong that relativism and advocacy of one specific school of thought are mutually exclusive.Your first mistake. Logic is non material, too. It's just ideas. It doesn't need to be 'enforced' though. Transformations of ideas from the realm of ideas to the real world tend to change the predicted outcome of the idea quite a bit. You can advocate individual rights all day long and I'd wholeheartedly agree with you, but you should be aware that good ideas may need real-world defense against bad people.What you're describing on the other hand is usually known as "Macht ist Recht".Ultimately, it boils down to that. Though I wouldn't say that might makes right rather than might creates facts. And these facts need to be challenged if they are perceived as unjust. Ideas alone may not be sufficient for this endeavor.Problem is. effective means of personal offense will be available too. And offense is materially cheaper than defense.I once heard a nice saying. "God created all men, but Sam Colt made them equal". In a state of nature, the strong have an unsurmountable advantage over the weak. You still need to be strong to wield a club. You need bodily strength to some extent to fight with a sword. You must be able to bend down to shoot a crossbow. You need dexterity to fire a musket. You only need a functioning hand to fire a modern handgun. That's a huge equalizer, and an advantage to the defender, not the offender.Additionally, offense is not cheaper than defense, at least on the interpersonal level. As for blowing up a city, it requires more than a handgun to do that, and the cost associated with the operational risk is very high. I don't see where you get that reasoning from.Why is the burden on me ?Because you assumed a transcendental element in a system of chemical and physical processes. Basically the same as the God question. While there might be a God/free will outside the realm of human logic, if we stick to what we are able to grasp with our brains, it doesn't add up.You know, the positivistic we-are-chemical-machines position is self-refuting as well.Oh really? Tell me more about it.As for religion, you really need to learn basic terminology. My 'rants' are directed against revealed religion. You can look *revealed* religion in the dictionary, or better, read "The Age of reason".And how does that disprove my claim?In other words, free will is a philosophical concept, not one based on fraudulent 'revelations'.It's a concept that champions a transcendental element in a physical/chemical framework. Do you disagree with that?We're discussing human rights, not animal rights. That's why I said your objection is irrelevant. You're trying to dodge the point. I asked you why the concept of self-ownership doesn't apply to animals even though animals clearly own themselves as much as humans do.Let me guess. Your favorite color is green.In fact, Mr. Juan, I just want to live in a nice suburb, raise a few kids, have a loyal dog and drive a tough truck. I'm not into Gaia or any other green pet peeve. I just argue a position that I think refutes your claim of objectivity which I have dropped after realizing my inconsistencies.
Nerditarian:That should've been a question. Do you believe that Hoppe's argumentation ethics provide a justification for Natural Rights?It shows why private property rights (or natural rights, whichever term you like) is superior to all other known forms of social structuring. It doesn't prove its objectiveness in and of itself.
Sphairon:In fact, Mr. Juan, I just want to live in a nice suburb, raise a few kids, have a loyal dog and drive a tough truck. I'm not into Gaia or any other green pet peeve. I just argue a position that I think refutes your claim of objectivity which I have dropped after realizing my inconsistencies.
Hear, hear.
I want to live a modest life, in a modest location, consume a modest amount of food/energy/goods and work until I die. As long as no one f***s with me or my small chunk of legitimately acquired property, I really don't have a broader agenda. I'd just like to be left alone.
liberty student:I want to live a modest life, in a modest location, consume a modest amount of food/energy/goods and work until I die. As long as no one f***s with me or my small chunk of legitimately acquired property, I really don't have a broader agenda. I'd just like to be left alone.
conservative !!!
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
Liberty Student:I want to live a modest life, in a modest location, consume a modest amount of food/energy/goods and work until I die. As long as no one f***s with me or my small chunk of legitimately acquired property, I really don't have a broader agenda. I'd just like to be left alone.
I'm not sure whether that was sarcasm or not, but in case it was, yeah, I just want to be a regular everyday normal guy. Mind my own business and reach whatever personal goals I can in this life.I am well aware that the current political situation may not allow these plans to be fulfilled. I am also aware that contemporary suburban middle-class life is financed to a great extent by foreign creditors and Anglo-American military supremacy. I don't just want to sit in my home while others are abducted by military police for thought crimes either.Still, at the end of the day, it's a nice thing to have a cushy bed in a quiet neighborhood to sleep in. I don't dream of being a glorious revolutionary anymore, though I did in my leftist days. My part of the "revolution" as I see it will be making money on the white market and supporting the cause.Is that offensive in any way? I don't know. I'm just a singer of simple songs, as Alan Jackson tends to say.
We'll never get anywhere if everyone involved is "ok" with their current place in life - which we all know is governmentally subsidized to keep us swaddled.
Nerditarian:Doesn't mean there's any reason to work against cultural conservatives sin qua non.
You need to prove that it is a pack of lies.
To do that you'd have to see the afterlife and know-not think, not feel, not strongly and passionately believe- but know that Christianity or Buddhism or Judaism or what have you is false.
Not all people who believe prostitutes will burn in hell are for the prohibition of prostitution.
They might believe that in a "Free Market in Societies". so to speak, conservative ones would "out compete" liberal ones. Nothing unlibertarian about that.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Sphairon:I'm not sure whether that was sarcasm or not, but in case it was, yeah, I just want to be a regular everyday normal guy. Mind my own business and reach whatever personal goals I can in this life.
It was not sarcasm. All I want is to be left alone. The broader social agenda of libertarianism, saving the children, protecting the lesbians, employing the unemployable, I'll try to help, but it's really not a big deal to me.
AndrewKemendo: We'll never get anywhere if everyone involved is "ok" with their current place in life - which we all know is governmentally subsidized to keep us swaddled.
Ok, you've pointed out the elephant in the room.
So what do we do about it? My take is that guilting people into rejecting the state won't work. You have to offer them something better, and more moral, doesn't necessarily appeal to people with high time preference.
AndrewKemendo:We'll never get anywhere if everyone involved is "ok" with their current place in life - which we all know is governmentally subsidized to keep us swaddled.
It was precisely the "leave me alone" "conservative" "right-/center-libertarian" part of these forums that discussed issues like microsecession or the infamous Liberty Colony. It's "impure" minarchists like Ron Paul or Peter Schiff who are on TV and out in the world spreading the message. "Paleolibertarians" like Lew Rockwell are creating media outlets that reach out for Joe Sixpack instead of engaging in intellectual masturbation by creating as many "isms" as possible.Still, these people just want the state off their back. They don't engage in "ism"-laden debates about discrimination of left-handed homosexual painters in a Rothbardian-Konkinian-Proudhonian city upon a hill. And while some of them wrote a couple of stupid comments in these newsletters of ill fame a while back, they don't circle above libertarian blogs and forums like a vulture awaiting some "offensive conservative remark" to pick on and snicker about in their own little clubs.Thus, it's safe to say that "mind your own business" libertarians are not at all inert or at peace with the establishment.
Liberty Student:It was not sarcasm. All I want is to be left alone. The broader social agenda of libertarianism, saving the children, protecting the lesbians, employing the unemployable, I'll try to help, but it's really not a big deal to me.
You're so paleo. Aren't you ashame to water down the soon-to-come revolution with such thoughts?
Sphairon:Thus, it's safe to say that "mind your own business" libertarians are not at all inert or at peace with the establishment.
This is just my observation, but the "complain about other libertarians" libertarians and the we can work with the state libertarians (LP) are largely ineffective.
Sphairon:You're so paleo. Aren't you ashame to water down the soon-to-come revolution with such thoughts?
Revolution is more than a romantic attachment to an anachronism.
Marko: AndrewKemendo: We'll never get anywhere if everyone involved is "ok" with their current place in life - which we all know is governmentally subsidized to keep us swaddled. Huh? What do you mean? Doesn`t the government take far more than it gives back?
Undoubtedly - but most people dont realize it, and many of the ones that do, are in actuality comfortable with their current state. As long as they have their 6 pack of bud and NASCAR is playing then they dont really give a shit about liberty or freedom. These are words I have heard spoken.
Let's be real here. Even with the limits on our freedoms through all the many forms of government, for probably everyone on these forums and most libertarians for that matter, we have a better standard of living than 99% of the rest of the world.
It is kind of hard to get people moving towards liberty if they don't recognize how theirs is being limited. If you are offering them pure freedom which may incur a loss of the things that make them feel all warm and cuddly inside because they dont know any better (like police, national defense, laws against social crap etc...) then they are going to be very hard to move.
This is why my impetus is to try and solve the problems related to the transition between a state and no state. If joe bag of donuts is pacified (because honestly I dont see many of these people getting the point) then everything else can fall into place around him such that his life does not change much and therefore we encounter very little resistance to the changes.
This is why, when I talk to people I focus on them understanding that the federal government does little to nothing that relates to their day to day lives thath they see as positive and each municipality really has the most impact on them on a hour by hour basis. That way they stop thinking about the nation as a whole and start realizing that services can be provided locally. If from there we can begin to make the case that their municipality is simply a monopoly on the things they like and have them understand why such an organization is unjust then we can grow as a movement.
Sphairon: Juan: You know, the positivistic we-are-chemical-machines position is self-refuting as well. Oh really? Tell me more about it.
Juan: You know, the positivistic we-are-chemical-machines position is self-refuting as well.
AndrewKemendo:This is why my impetus is to try and solve the problems related to the transition between a state and no state.
I think you should start off with a more modest goal first. Maybe just predict the Superbowl winner in 2015.
The notion that you can "solve problems" by addressing every hypothetical, theoretical and experimental idea is probably false.
Not to mention, that is not what is holding people back. I really advise you to read De La Boetie and Hoppe.
Juan:Maybe I should have said " the positivistic we-are-just-chemical-machines position is self-refuting as well ". Here are some notes : http://mises.org/rothbard/mantle.as.
Let's see what we got there: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.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.But while most things have no consciousness and therefore pursue no goals, it is an essential attribute of man's nature that he has consciousness, and therefore that his actions are self-determined by the choices his mind makes.Do animals also have a consciousness? What about severely mentally disabled people? Is the existence of an incredibly well-wired set of nerve pathways that enables humans to process information more comprehensively than any other known animal proof for the existence of a transcendental element within their brains?After several centuries of arrogant proclamations, no determinist has come up with anything like a theory determining all of men's actions.That's not necessary, and it doesn't shift the burden of proof which Rothbard tries to do thereafter. The fact that science has not yet advanced to a level that enables us to predict all human action beforehand doesn't make the idea of a transcendental element in a physical/chemical framework more probable.Surely we can, at the very least, tell the determinists to keep quiet until they can offer their determinations—including, of course, their advance determinations of each of our reactions to their determining theory.If evolutionists are so smart, why can't they predict which animal will spawn next?This sentence shows a misunderstanding of the complexity of the chemical/physical framework that is our brain. Humans are incredibly smart creatures and their brains are made up of constantly reevaluated memory and sensorial information. As I said, demanding future predictions concerning the outcomes of such a difficult environment is like claiming that evolutionists must predict new species if they are to be trusted.Since man's mind is, according to determinism, not free to think and come to conclusions about reality, it is absurd for X to try to convince Y or anyone else of the truth of determinism.Not at all. The fact that our predispositions and experiences let us reach different conclusions (in other words, our brains are shaped differently and value information in distinct manners) regarding certain circumstances doesn't mean our transcendental "free will" was employed in reaching them. It doesn't rule out the possibility of communication either.In the same way, the various brands of determinists—behaviorists, positivists, Marxists, and so on—implicitly claim special exemption for themselves from their own determined systems.No? At least I don't. I'm caged in this framework as are all of you, I'm bound to base my judgements on genetic predisposition, experiences made and sensorical information collected. I may come to different conclusions than you, but not one of us needed transcendental abilities to get there.How then can they aspire to know all, if the extent of their own knowledge is itself determined, and therefore arbitrarily delimited?What? Knowledge is not determined. Man comes across all sorts of new knowledge all the time. Nobody ever doubted man's ability to put 2 and 2 together. Absence of free will does not mean absence of neurological (?) skills.In fact, if our ideas are determined, then we have no way of freely revising our judgments and of learning truth—whether the truth of determinism or of anything else.Our judgments change as we are confronted with new information from different sources. Sometimes, a rearrangement of memories is sufficient to come to new conclusions. Still, these rearrangements are often triggered by outside influences as well. If not, it's probably an extraordinary strain on certain nerve fibers that sets free new information to calculate.A can adopt it as valid while B will not. Each man, therefore, has the free choice of adopting or not adopting an idea or value.Non sequitur. If A's predispositions are fundamentally different from B's, it is to be expected that they will reach different conclusions.the idea was not taken from others, but was arrived at by some mind independently and creativelyDoesn't prove free will, only proves that human brains are powerful organs."Social institutions determine ideas"One giant strawman. Society is not required for a man to form ideas, only his potent memory, sensorial and networking skills.I agree with Rothbard on a lot, but he's on the wrong track here if you ask me. Libertarianism doesn't need free will to justify its position, and we shouldn't rely on unproven assertions to make our case. It'll undermine our own efforts.
liberty student: AndrewKemendo:This is why my impetus is to try and solve the problems related to the transition between a state and no state. I think you should start off with a more modest goal first. Maybe just predict the Superbowl winner in 2015. The notion that you can "solve problems" by addressing every hypothetical, theoretical and experimental idea is probably false. Not to mention, that is not what is holding people back. I really advise you to read De La Boetie and Hoppe.
I've read both. Go talk to regular blue collar people not scholars, not anyone with education or knowledge of economics or politics - the things that they are involved in day to day are what hold them back.
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?
AndrewKemendo:Go talk to regular blue collar people not scholars
Why presume I don't? I am blue collar, always have been. Live in one of the most blue collar cities in my country.
sirmonty:So where does the idea that Hoppe "associates with racists and neo-nazis" come from exactly?
Douchebags. Like the couple of clowns who accused me of being a monarchist before I had even heard of Hoppe.
liberty student: sirmonty:So where does the idea that Hoppe "associates with racists and neo-nazis" come from exactly? Douchebags. Like the couple of clowns who accused me of being a monarchist before I had even heard of Hoppe.
This is what I figured.
Juan: What do you think consciousness is ?
A very well interconnected interface of all our senses that enables us to view the world in high-definition, dolby digital, smells-like-real mode.Ever heard of the stoned ape hypothesis? Interesting stuff.
Does the self really exist ?
You're too far already. The question is, what is the self?
Given that we're just machines, what's the point of a self which seems to be choosing and directing how we act ?
First of all, we're not machines, we're living beings.Well, obviously, there's some evolutionary aspect to the behavior of living beings, the drive to reproduce. But since we're able to shape the world around us to some extent, other goals may arise that compete with "reproduce as often as possible" and might win in the end.That said, there doesn't have to be a "point" to it all. Maybe mankind was under intense evolutionary pressure at some point in time and developed this great, fast calculator we find in our brains today. What's the use? Find one.It just humbles me to realize sometimes that I'm the product of millions and millions of years of evolutionary progress. Not only that, but the fact that I've been born in this dinky time strip before the dawn of the 21st century puts me in the lucky position of benefiting from all the capital accumulation and deferred consumption of earlier generations. I'm just a very unlikely outcome, if you will, of a very long process. A happy matter-man in this giant universe. There doesn't have to be a point to it, it is a point in and of itself.
and your point is?
Sphairon: Juan: Does the self really exist ? You're too far already. The question is, what is the self?
Juan: Does the self really exist ?
First of all, we're not machines, we're living beings.
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?
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
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.
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.
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?
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.
Juan:Does the self really exist ?
Sphairon:You're too far already. The question is, what is the self?
Sphairon:What do you expect from me? I'm not a professional biologist.
Dead matter doesn't have a will. We do have a will, albeit not a transcendental "free will".
What's the point again, actually?
i suppose its safe to say that Juan is not a compatabilist, and that he does not agree that 'freedom evolves'?
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?
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?
'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.
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.
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.
Sphairon:Do you have evidence for a transcendental element in a physical/chemical framework, yes or no?
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.
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.
Sphairon:By the way, this video explains my approach to anarchy quite nicely.
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.
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)
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.
Juan:Anyway, I give up. This is going nowhere.
That's never stopped you before, pumpkin.