Political Crossfire Forums

[Robin Hood]

Quote: They are both required - e.g., rational empiricism is responsible for pretty much all of the advances we have made in science over the past few hundred years. You seem to want reason without empiricism.

Empiricism is great, but the problem it's completely deeply flawed when addressing something as complex and subjective as human desire. THis is why reason is important in this case. THe empiricial technique requires certain information, information that can not exist. Like how tuility compares across people.

Quote: Are you trying to be obtuse? By "need", I meant a computing need, not just any old need.

It's not 'need' either but utility.and utility is purely subjective. Thus society is not a unit over which you can measure utility. Utility can only exist on the individual level nor is it comparable across people. This is a fact and is one reason why creating a government that maximizes utility is wrong, only an individual can be in the position to rationally mazimize their own utility. So only self-government is correct.

[RueTheDay]

Reason wrote: Quote: They are both required - e.g., rational empiricism is responsible for pretty much all of the advances we have made in science over the past few hundred years. You seem to want reason without empiricism.

Empiricism is great, but the problem it's completely deeply flawed when addressing something as complex and subjective as human desire. THis is why reason is important in this case. THe empiricial technique requires certain information, information that can not exist. Like how tuility compares across people.

As I stated in an earlier post, pure reason or rationalism is only reliable to the extent that you can precisely control all of your starting premises and all of the variables in each step of your deductive process. Basically, everything you said above is the exact opposite of the truth. Rationalism will NEVER be able to provide an understanding of something as complex as human actions.

Quote:
Quote: Are you trying to be obtuse? By "need", I meant a computing need, not just any old need.

It's not 'need' either but utility.and utility is purely subjective. Thus society is not a unit over which you can measure utility. Utility can only exist on the individual level nor is it comparable across people. This is a fact and is one reason why creating a government that maximizes utility is wrong, only an individual can be in the position to rationally mazimize their own utility. So only self-government is correct.

I see you've retreated to your incoherent dogma about subjective utility. We're not talking about utility maximization or government here. We're talking about the design of a computer, whose success will be judged by how well it has met the objective design goals it was intended to meet.

[Robin Hood]

Quote: We're talking about the design of a computer, whose success will be judged by how well it has met the objective design goals it was intended to meet.

Quote: As I stated in an earlier post, pure reason or rationalism is only reliable to the extent that you can precisely control all of your starting premises and all of the variables in each step of your deductive process. Basically, everything you said above is the exact opposite of the truth. Rationalism will NEVER be able to provide an understanding of something as complex as human actions.

Yet our ability to think, to reason, is the cause of human action. Empiricism is just reason tested - an experiment is a hypothesis tested. Reason may not be able to provide a total understanding of others but that's my point. If we can't have a total understanding of others then why should we interefere in their free choices? Basically because reason is what we use to get what we want, and we can never have a complete understanding of others, shouldn't each unit of reasoning (each individual) live according to the non-aggression principle?

[RueTheDay]

Reason wrote: Quote: We're talking about the design of a computer, whose success will be judged by how well it has met the objective design goals it was intended to meet.

Quote: As I stated in an earlier post, pure reason or rationalism is only reliable to the extent that you can precisely control all of your starting premises and all of the variables in each step of your deductive process. Basically, everything you said above is the exact opposite of the truth. Rationalism will NEVER be able to provide an understanding of something as complex as human actions.

Yet our ability to think, to reason, is the cause of human action.

It's ONE of the causes of human action. Not everything you do is based on reason.

Quote:
Empiricism is just reason tested - an experiment is a hypothesis tested.

False. Empiricism is NOT "reason tested"; empiricism is our sensory perception of the world around us.

Quote:
Reason may not be able to provide a total understanding of others but that's my point.

Right. Reason plus observation provides a much more complete understanding than reason alone (though it can never be totally complete).

Quote:
If we can't have a total understanding of others then why should we interefere in their free choices? Basically because reason is what we use to get what we want, and we can never have a complete understanding of others, shouldn't each unit of reasoning (each individual) live according to the non-aggression principle?

That is just one non sequitur after another.

[Robin Hood]

Quote: False. Empiricism is NOT "reason tested"; empiricism is our sensory perception of the world around us.

If our ability to think is derived from what's external to us then why can animals not reason?

Quote: It's ONE of the causes of human action. Not everything you do is based on reason.


Some are instinctual, but otherwise that is just what it's based on.

Quote: Right. Reason plus observation provides a much more complete understanding than reason alone (though it can never be totally complete).

But both are so far off that the relative difference is unimportant.

[RueTheDay]

Reason wrote: Quote: False. Empiricism is NOT "reason tested"; empiricism is our sensory perception of the world around us.

If our ability to think is derived from what's external to us then why can animals not reason?

I never said that our ability to think is "derived from what's external to us". I said that knowledge is gained by a COMBINATION of our sensory perception of the outside world (empiricism) and our internal capability to logically reason (rationalism).

Quote:
Quote: It's ONE of the causes of human action. Not everything you do is based on reason.


Some are instinctual, but otherwise that is just what it's based on.

Huh? Instinct is certainly a part of it. So is emotion. So are other factors. A fortiori, your original comment that reason alone is the cause of human action is false.

Quote:
Quote: Right. Reason plus observation provides a much more complete understanding than reason alone (though it can never be totally complete).

But both are so far off that the relative difference is unimportant.

If you believe that, then you are not a rationalist, but rather, a radical skeptic.

[Alula]

I don't really think you need to be liberatarian just constitutional.

[liford]

How intuitive Alula.

[Robin Hood]

Quote: I never said that our ability to think is "derived from what's external to us". I said that knowledge is gained by a COMBINATION of our sensory perception of the outside world (empiricism) and our internal capability to logically reason (rationalism).

So you agree that our ability to think is self-derived?

Quote:
Huh? Instinct is certainly a part of it. So is emotion. So are other factors. A fortiori, your original comment that reason alone is the cause of human action is false.

I would seperate decisions into two entirely diffferent types. Those undertaken rationally - the long term, and those enacted on whims. The latter atre pretty unimportant, and one can can stop acting like that. (please don't attack me for using AR's terminology, it's childish.)

Quote: If you believe that, then you are not a rationalist, but rather, a radical skeptic.

I am specifically talking about other people.

[Kindred]

Quote: It certainly makes one of us wrong, which person I think that is is obvious. Reaosn itself is not reliant on culture though a culture may push a person into making a mistake or being correct despite applying the wrong reasoning.

Perhaps you’re an example of such a person?

Quote: How so? Which Libertarians are you referring to, the American statist's pretending to be libertarians? Badnarik libertarians? The same ones who gravitate toward the onerous USC, claim it as sacred and unique? I don't know any real classical liberals who will say: an Empire can coexist in a purely libertarian country. You can't have an Empire without imperialism, and I see no authentic classical liberals anywhere looking to (aggressively war torn) colonize. Do you? I certainly don't know any who'd put the words "libertarian" and "authoritarian" together in the same sentence, and think that's remotely libertarian. It sounds absolutely absurd to me, because it is.

It does sound strange, but that’s only because certain parties seek to juxtapose the two terms for ideological reasons. I mean, I do believe it is a contradiction if you take the true meaning of libertarian i.e. the meaning of the word as it was originally used referring to entirely non-hierarchal societies as utopian as they may be (i.e. social anarchistic or libertarian socialist societies), but as for libertarian wherein it applies to the modern or ‘new’ right, it can be both ‘libertarian’ (i.e. capitalist) and authoritarian. Indeed, I think a society governed by a ruling class of plutocrats, which is what I believe libertarianism would most likely result in, is extremely authoritarian, though of a different kind than we are used to (perhaps not so much ‘used to’ as acquainted with in political discourse); the tyranny of the private sector.


Quote: Side note: That Hayek book I posted in the RHQ, will give you more than enough reading recommendations to last a lifetime. At the bottom of every page is a synopsis of sorts (footnotes). A list of the material discussed, and the names of every book/source. I couldn't read it all if in this lifetime. Hayek certainly did split from Mises.

Yes, I’ve read Hayek and Mises and recognise there differences and similarities.

[Robin Hood]

Quote: Perhaps you’re an example of such a person?

Perhaps, but I assure you that I'd be the first to admit if I thought it true.
Quote:

It does sound strange, but that’s only because certain parties seek to juxtapose the two terms for ideological reasons. I mean, I do believe it is a contradiction if you take the true meaning of libertarian i.e. the meaning of the word as it was originally used referring to entirely non-hierarchal societies as utopian as they may be (i.e. social anarchistic or libertarian socialist societies), but as for libertarian wherein it applies to the modern or ‘new’ right, it can be both ‘libertarian’ (i.e. capitalist) and authoritarian. Indeed, I think a society governed by a ruling class of plutocrats, which is what I believe libertarianism would most likely result in, is extremely authoritarian, though of a different kind than we are used to (perhaps not so much ‘used to’ as acquainted with in political discourse); the tyranny of the private sector.

Yet socialism can exist within (what you think is capitalist libertarianism) it's jsut that each member of the commune, subscription society etc. must consent as an individual to joining them. A true libertarian communist would join the LP, and then live on a commune after it's goals had been achieved.

[RueTheDay]

Reason wrote: Quote: I never said that our ability to think is "derived from what's external to us". I said that knowledge is gained by a COMBINATION of our sensory perception of the outside world (empiricism) and our internal capability to logically reason (rationalism).

So you agree that our ability to think is self-derived?

Define "self-derived"? It's certainly innate, if that's what you mean.

Quote:
Quote:
Huh? Instinct is certainly a part of it. So is emotion. So are other factors. A fortiori, your original comment that reason alone is the cause of human action is false.

I would seperate decisions into two entirely diffferent types. Those undertaken rationally - the long term, and those enacted on whims. The latter atre pretty unimportant, and one can can stop acting like that. (please don't attack me for using AR's terminology, it's childish.)

Unimportant why? They're part of human nature; they're one of the things that defines us.

[EugenicHegemony]

A.D wrote:

It does sound strange, but that’s only because certain parties seek to juxtapose the two terms for ideological reasons. I mean, I do believe it is a contradiction if you take the true meaning of libertarian i.e. the meaning of the word as it was originally used referring to entirely non-hierarchal societies as utopian as they may be (i.e. social anarchistic or libertarian socialist societies), but as for libertarian wherein it applies to the modern or ‘new’ right, it can be both ‘libertarian’ (i.e. capitalist) and authoritarian. Indeed, I think a society governed by a ruling class of plutocrats, which is what I believe libertarianism would most likely result in, is extremely authoritarian, though of a different kind than we are used to (perhaps not so much ‘used to’ as acquainted with in political discourse); the tyranny of the private sector.


Quote: Side note: That Hayek book I posted in the RHQ, will give you more than enough reading recommendations to last a lifetime. At the bottom of every page is a synopsis of sorts (footnotes). A list of the material discussed, and the names of every book/source. I couldn't read it all if in this lifetime. Hayek certainly did split from Mises.

Yes, I’ve read Hayek and Mises and recognise there differences and similarities. Whose do you like better, if at all? http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/dgwhayek.html

I'm not even speaking in anarchic terms, and I see what you mean. Do you really think it "ideological" to want to live in a country where rulers don't live (like a bloody vampire) off the sweat, blood, tears, and life of citizenry?

I think a society governed by a ruling class of plutocrats, which is what I believe libertarianism would most likely result in, is extremely authoritarian, though of a different kind than we are used to (perhaps not so much ‘used to’ as acquainted with in political discourse); the tyranny of the private sector.

Yes that does sound pretty "authoritarian". How exactly does"tyranny of the private sector" work without the state orchestrating monopolies, and don't we already have a plutocracy with the government that's in place now in the U.S.?

I make polls such as this to get people thinking, and this "plutocracy" you speak of is here and now.

[Robin Hood]

Quote: Unimportant why? They're part of human nature; they're one of the things that defines us.

Would you follow your feelings when constructing the workings of a computer? Would it end up working? So why would you do it in the workings of society? On the superficial parts like the flag (outer case) and so on you'd follow your feelings but no in the technical stuff.

[RueTheDay]

Reason wrote: Quote: Unimportant why? They're part of human nature; they're one of the things that defines us.

Would you follow your feelings when constructing the workings of a computer? Would it end up working? So why would you do it in the workings of society? On the superficial parts like the flag (outer case) and so on you'd follow your feelings but no in the technical stuff.

Steve Jobs followed his feelings when designing the new Macs and iPods and is kicking ass in the market because of it. Your continued attempts to reduce everything humans do to pure reason will continue to fail.

[Robin Hood]

Quote: Steve Jobs followed his feelings when designing the new Macs and iPods and is kicking ass in the market because of it. Your continued attempts to reduce everything humans do to pure reason will continue to fail.

I am not trying that at all. I am simply stating reason is vital to a political system, which is analogous to the technical (not aesthetic) virtues of Ipods etc.