Philosophy Now Forum

Yes, Henry I understand and thanks for your explanation and re-statement of your political stance. However what I said is true; that the USA for all its democratic shortcomings is a more free republic than any communist or theocratic republic.

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 5:35 pm Yes, Henry I understand and thanks for your explanation and re-statement of your political stance. However what I said is true; that the USA for all its democratic shortcomings is a more free republic than any communist or theocratic republic.

That's not what you said.

You said...

America's constitution is democratic as compared with communist or theocratic republics.

...which is not the same thing at all.

Henry, I stand by each of my statements. Let's not quarrel about my lack of precision.

Don't you agree the USA is a more free republic than Iran, or Congo? This is because the USA is a constitutional democracy or representational republic.

Henry, I stand by each of my statements. Let's not quarrel about my lack of precision.

I expect you agree the USA is a more free republic than Iran, or Congo, or The Peoples' Republic of China? This is because the USA is a constitutional democracy or representational republic.

"Don't you agree the USA is a more free republic than Iran, or Congo, or The Peoples' Republic of China?"

Yes.

"This is because the USA is a constitutional democracy or representational republic."

No.

uwot wrote: ↑Sat Dec 21, 2019 10:09 am

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Dec 20, 2019 4:15 pm

uwot wrote: ↑Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:06 pmWell, I like stuff: motorbikes, beer, hospitals, holidays and whatnot, and I don't mind paying the people who design and make all that happen.

I see that as a very libertarian position.

Maybe. I'm never really sure what people mean by libertarian. It clearly means different things on opposite sides of the pond, but from what you say below, and the times you have described yourself as a minarchist, I take it you pull up short of the full blown anarcho-free-trade-capitalism.

The trick here is to realise that nobody, Henry included, actually has a principle from which they derive most of their beliefs. What they have is a set of stuff they believe and then they reverse the principled position that best fits with those beliefs in as a justification. Henry may like certain expressions of minimalism, but he also likes instinct and he likes to keep things simple. When those latter things conflict with the former thing, the simplicity and instinct are trusted ahead of it.

He's hardly alone in this matter. It's pretty much what Hume was on about when he described reason as the slave of the passions. Have a look around this place at all those charitable, honest and loving Christians we have here. They are mostly a bunch of extremely judgmental conservatives who just use scripture to justify opinions that they definitely didn't get via Jesus, although they sure got a lot of them via the church.

It takes a lot to have a pre-existing belief and to even realise it is in tension with some principle you also believe you have, but then to actually change that belief on the basis of that principle is practically superhuman. Most people would prefer to convince themselves that some special factor applies and they don't have to live by that principle just at this moment.

nobody, Henry included, actually has a principle from which they derive most of their beliefs.

Sure. This is not a remarkable observation; I said much the same a long time ago, in-forum. Most, or all, folks find rationales and placeholders to fit their natures. Almost no one, when exposed to X, adopts X unless they're inclined toward what X describes in the place.

-----

Henry may like certain expressions of minimalism, but he also likes instinct and he likes to keep things simple. When those latter things conflict with the former thing, the simplicity and instinct are trusted ahead of it.

Can you cite an example of such conflict?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Jan 05, 2020 1:44 am

Henry may like certain expressions of minimalism, but he also likes instinct and he likes to keep things simple. When those latter things conflict with the former thing, the simplicity and instinct are trusted ahead of it.

Can you cite an example of such conflict?

Are you still in favour additional taxes to be levied on American consumers who choose to spend the money they earn through their own honest labours on products made in China?

Don't get me wrong, I think you score very highly at this marriage of theory and practise thing compared to most people.

"Are you still in favour additional taxes to be levied on American consumers who choose to spend the money they earn through their own honest labours on products made in China?"

You have a poor, and mebbe selective, memory on this. I admitted I was wrong on that and credited you for revealin' my hypocrisy to me.

So: when you say to actually change that belief on the basis of that principle is practically superhuman you were talkin' about me.

I am the utterly self-consistent Superman.

Fear me, bitches.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Jan 04, 2020 11:20 pmThe trick here is to realise that nobody, Henry included, actually has a principle from which they derive most of their beliefs. What they have is a set of stuff they believe and then they reverse the principled position that best fits with those beliefs in as a justification. Henry may like certain expressions of minimalism, but he also likes instinct and he likes to keep things simple. When those latter things conflict with the former thing, the simplicity and instinct are trusted ahead of it.

I've written a couple of articles for the magazine which in essence, or in part at least, show how those facts impacted on 20th century history and philosophy of science as it happens.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Jan 04, 2020 11:20 pmHe's hardly alone in this matter. It's pretty much what Hume was on about when he described reason as the slave of the passions.

Ah yes, I'd forgotten about that. Thanks for reminding me.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Jan 04, 2020 11:20 pmHave a look around this place at all those charitable, honest and loving Christians we have here. They are mostly a bunch of extremely judgmental conservatives who just use scripture to justify opinions that they definitely didn't get via Jesus, although they sure got a lot of them via the church.

Amen.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Jan 04, 2020 11:20 pmIt takes a lot to have a pre-existing belief and to even realise it is in tension with some principle you also believe you have, but then to actually change that belief on the basis of that principle is practically superhuman. Most people would prefer to convince themselves that some special factor applies and they don't have to live by that principle just at this moment.

Yup. Sample quote from one of my pieces:
Ludwik Fleck, a biologist, introduced the idea of a ‘thought collective’ – a group of scientists who share some common theory and working practices, their scientific method, and who collaborate to develop that research structure to its fullest potential. Michael Polanyi, a professor of chemistry, made a similar point. Science, in his experience, was not a single objective method that could simply be prescribed and followed; rather scientists put into practice the philosophy and methods they have been taught by other scientists. Essentially, once they have been initiated into a thought collective, they contribute to that collective. The physicist Max Planck, like Einstein, never fully accepted the interpretations of quantum mechanics given by younger scientists; but he observed that “a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.” So a prominent biologist, chemist, and physicist were all saying that in their professional experience, science did not work as philosophers such as Popper thought it should, and there isn’t one scientific method, there are many. And in 1962 Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996) published The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, which made everyone pay attention to the growing conviction that science is not the pristine singular enterprise philosophers had been trying to describe. https://philosophynow.org/issues/133/Ph ... _Millennia

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Jan 04, 2020 11:20 pm

uwot wrote: ↑Sat Dec 21, 2019 10:09 am

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Dec 20, 2019 4:15 pm I see that as a very libertarian position.

Maybe. I'm never really sure what people mean by libertarian. It clearly means different things on opposite sides of the pond, but from what you say below, and the times you have described yourself as a minarchist, I take it you pull up short of the full blown anarcho-free-trade-capitalism.

The trick here is to realise that nobody, Henry included, actually has a principle from which they derive most of their beliefs. What they have is a set of stuff they believe and then they reverse the principled position that best fits with those beliefs in as a justification. Henry may like certain expressions of minimalism, but he also likes instinct and he likes to keep things simple. When those latter things conflict with the former thing, the simplicity and instinct are trusted ahead of it.

He's hardly alone in this matter. It's pretty much what Hume was on about when he described reason as the slave of the passions. Have a look around this place at all those charitable, honest and loving Christians we have here. They are mostly a bunch of extremely judgmental conservatives who just use scripture to justify opinions that they definitely didn't get via Jesus, although they sure got a lot of them via the church.

It takes a lot to have a pre-existing belief and to even realise it is in tension with some principle you also believe you have, but then to actually change that belief on the basis of that principle is practically superhuman. Most people would prefer to convince themselves that some special factor applies and they don't have to live by that principle just at this moment.

I entirely agree with Flash Dangerpants, and Hume. Reason is the slave of the passions. Democracy is disadvantaged by its giving political power to stupid people, but it is the only known means to get life and happiness for all instead of just a lucky few.

Libertarianism is good for small societies where there is some likelihood of governance by consensus. However that sort of society is increasingly rare. If Henry takes an honest look at how he lives he will see how he depends upon other people for all his necessities and luxuries. Increasingly complexity of supply and demand means increasing central control.

"Libertarianism is good for small societies where there is some likelihood of governance by consensus."

You're talkin' about ancap, yeah? You must be cuz you certainly ain't talkin' about minarchy.

#

"If Henry takes an honest look at how he lives he will see how he depends upon other people for all his necessities and luxuries."

Not all. Doesn't matter, though: Where you got the cockamamie idea that my libertarianism is about bein' a hermit, I don't know. Go back to the beginning of this thread, read what I wrote.

#

"Increasingly complexity of supply and demand means increasing central control."

First, what increased complexity? Second, why is central control the solution?

"Democracy is disadvantaged by its giving political power to stupid people, but it is the only known means to get life and happiness for all instead of just a lucky few."

Democracy is mob rule in a dress.

No, life and happiness come from being free, from havin' individual freedom bein' the baseline. Again, read what I wrote at the beginning of the thread.

The individual owns himself.

The individual has a right to his life, liberty, and property.

The individual's life liberty, or property is only forfeit (in part or in whole) when he willingly, knowingly, deprives (in part or in whole) another of his life, liberty, or property without just cause.

*

Some individuals can't self-defend or can't self-defend across all circumstances, so instruments are used to offer defense and compensation:

A sensible, minimal court of last resort.

A sensible, minimal constabulary.

A sensible, minimal, border-stationed military.

A militia to rule the other three (the first three are employees; when they look to dis-embed themselves from that subordinate position, the militia - every other armed person in the minarchy - is empowered to put them down).

*

The above works for grown ups.

Children (and the deficient) need and want central control.

Henry Quirk wrote:

No, life and happiness come from being free, from havin' individual freedom bein' the baseline. Again, read what I wrote at the beginning of the thread.

We all love freedom.

Resources are limited and freedom includes equal distribution of resources. At least can we agree that each individual should at least begin their lives benefiting from equality of opportunity for all?