Ethical basis for anarchism. [Archive]

apathy maybe

6th July 2007, 11:10

Because ethics are (incredibly) subjective this is a difficult problem.

Just to wander away from that for a few minutes, many anarchists around here don't actually have an ethical reason to be anarchistic (or at least, claim to be motivated purely by self interest or "material conditions" (often some take on Marxian analysis)).

Anyway, personally, I'm motivated to a large degree by self interest (I oppose people ruling over me), but because of an ethic of fairness, I also oppose being over others.

I explicitly reject the idea of "natural rights", I think that the idea is a superstitious one at worst, and useless at best (because it is so subjective).

I also explicitly reject utilitarianism (I think that it is potentially very anti-anarchistic, depending on which version you take up).

I'm not that well versed in egoism, though brief readings of Stirner's work inspired me little.

Nihilism has been influential on my thoughts as well.

I think really, the ethic of fairness is what has made me an anarchist. If you reject that there can be any objective morals and so on, then you are left with two opposite and opposing positions. One is the anarchist position, reject hierarchy and claim/work for the equality of all. The other is trying to get the best for oneself, to be above others.

As well, environmentalism has been very influential on my thoughts.

Nusocialist

6th July 2007, 11:17

Because ethics are (incredibly) subjective this is a difficult problem.

Just to wander away from that for a few minutes, many anarchists around here don't actually have an ethical reason to be anarchistic (or at least, claim to be motivated purely by self interest or "material conditions" (often some take on Marxian analysis)). This is the idea I get, that many anarchist simply haven't worked out a sound basis.

I explicitly reject the idea of "natural rights", I think that the idea is a superstitious one at worst, and useless at best (because it is so subjective).This is my prefered basis. What American style libertarians call self-ownership.

Natural law just means that you get to do exactly what you want as long as you aggress against no one else, it seems to be vaguely at the base of most anarchism.

I also explicitly reject utilitarianism (I think that it is potentially very anti-anarchistic, depending on which version you take up). Me too, I don't know a single anarchist except David Freidman and similar who except utilitarianism.

I'm not that well versed in egoism, though brief readings of Stirner's work inspired me little. Egoism just means you can do what you like without any input but self-interest.

I think really, the ethic of fairness is what has made me an anarchist. If you reject that there can be any objective morals and so on, then you are left with two opposite and opposing positions. One is the anarchist position, reject hierarchy and claim/work for the equality of all. The other is trying to get the best for oneself, to be above others.
To me you sound like a natural rightist like me. You allow people to do what they want as long as it doesn't coerce anyone else.

Not entirely illiterate

6th July 2007, 11:31

Simply put, transcendence.

I believe that humanity is far too advanced concept to be summarised by the flawed and finite existence that is the sum of the bodies of the human species, the society it has created and all that it means. Humanity is essentially an ethereal concept not necessarily connected to the physical appararition of Homo Sapiens Sapiens; unbound by the physical world, free of need and desire. Perfect, one could say, even though I believe a human word such as 'perfect' cannot truly describe the magnitude of it.

Thus, physical existence is a state of periphery between two states of ethereal perfection. Everything here is finite and artificial, and the true goal of self-attainment for any human being should be the elimination of the physical self. Please note that this is not an advocation of suicide, or even death at all. To eliminate the physical entity of the self, various practices of self-annihilation is necessary. Most people today are so attached to their physical form that they cannot let loose the grasp of the desires and needs it has to supplement its functions. To do this, I believe one needs to practice your psyche through meditation, mind-games, and so forth (I assume the use of mind-expanding drugs can have positive effect as well, although I am not personally certain if I should advocate it or not), as a means of extending beyond your common pattern of thought. Physical practices are also important, to achieve self-control of the body is essential to restraint it from falling into the trap of desire. This is probably best done through meditation and martial arts, although I can certainly see other ways how this is done as well.

I do not believe that a controlled society can truly support the foundations for this kind of practice. While highly spiritual societies like Tibet (before Chinese annexation) have come somewhat close, this process is very much too individual to ever be standardised into a common function. Therefore, I believethere is no state can that serve for the individual quest for non-physicality; this can only be truly done when such an entity has been abolished.

Through my non-physical goal, many things that are essential to many societies become meaningless to me. Nation-states, code of laws, ethnic groups, genders, ages, all of these concepts are illusions and have no real value. All that matters is the inbound human potential, that lies within everyone. A state uses these ideas as a glue of society, while I believe are simply a glue to an imperfect semi-reality.

From all of these ideas, I have concluded that my ideal falls closest with that of anarchism, and therefore, I call myself an anarchist.

Hit The North

6th July 2007, 14:48

A revolutionary and materialist view of ethics would be that anything which contributes to the increase in human powers, both materially and intellectually, is an ultimate good.

If you're a Marxist you can add, anything which helps humanity overcome its alienated state.

............................................

Not entirely illiterate:

Humanity is essentially an ethereal concept not necessarily connected to the physical appararition of Homo Sapiens Sapiens

That's the stupidest comment I've heard in a long while.

Most people today are so attached to their physical form that they cannot let loose the grasp of the desires and needs it has to supplement its functions.

Go figure :lol:

Through my non-physical goal, many things that are essential to many societies become meaningless to me

Then you're not much use to socialized humanity are you?

Listen, this is a forum for revolutionary materialists, not confused mystics. What are you even doing here?

Nusocialist

6th July 2007, 14:53

Originally posted by Citizen [email protected] 06, 2007 01:48 pm

Listen, this is a forum for revolutionary materialists, not confused mystics. What are you even doing here?
I know you are not talking to me but anarchists don't have to be materialists and generally are weary of Marxist style materialism and dialectic materialism.

Are you an anarchist?

A revolutionary and materialist view of ethics would be that anything which contributes to the increase in human powers, both materially and intellectually, is an ultimate good.So you believe in increasing human powers? Is this all humans or an absract humanity? Are you then a kind of utilitarian?

I don't understand what materialist ethics are.

Not entirely illiterate

6th July 2007, 15:14

That's the stupidest comment I've heard in a long while.

How elaborate. Even through a purely materialist perspective, the world can be a confusing place at times. You, however, seem to have everything perfectly clear. Do you know why you dream? What happens when you do? Why do they take certain shapes, and what is their meaning?

There are some things that science cannot explain, yet. And if you discard it as hocus-pocus right away, you're never even going to get to the part where things become explicable.

Then you're not much use to socialized humanity are you?

What are you implying with this? That you put value in people depending on how useful they are to the collective? What I am saying is, I have little respect for a society that builds its foundation upon the application of law, religious doctrine, monetary economy, ethnic homogeneity and so forth. Individual self-mastery comes first to me. For a group of people living in harmony with themselves and their environment, there is no need for laws or national borders.

Listen, this is a forum for revolutionary materialists, not confused mystics. What are you even doing here?

Unless I've completely missed something, this is a forum for revolutionary left-wing politics. I am an anarchist, and a revolutionary. You, on the other hand, what are you? People who value other people on their worth to the collective tend to belong on the other side of the table.

Hit The North

6th July 2007, 15:36

I know you are not talking to me but anarchists don't have to be materialists and generally are weary of Marxist style materialism and dialectic materialism.

Well that's a problem those anarchists must overcome, unless they want to lapse into the kind of idealist claptrap we're hearing from not entirely illiterate.

Are you an anarchist?

How dare you. :P ;)

So you believe in increasing human powers? Is this all humans or an abs[t]ract humanity? Are you then a kind of utilitarian?

Depends what you mean by 'abstract humanity'. If you mean 'society' or 'culture' then, yes. If you're alluding to the absurd ethereal humanity of not entirely illiterate, then no.

No I'm not a "kind of utilitarian" (and I don't remember referring to human happiness), I'm a revolutionary socialist. So, yes, I fight for an increase in the human powers of all humans.

I don't understand what materialist ethics are.

Well obviously ethics cannot be materialist in themselves. I'm referring to ethics which reflect an understanding of humans as material beings who exist in particular and specific relations to nature and to each other.

The basis of a materialist ethics is a recognition of our dependence on each other, the necessity for us to cooperate in producing from nature, and the process by which we become human in this endeavor.

syndicat

6th July 2007, 17:45

There's no one ethical theory that either anarchists or Marxists agree to.

However, i would suggest what is called naturalistic ethics. This means we look at human nature. Humans are a highly social species, language makes us quite interdependent, and increases our potential. We have a variety of biological needs and capacities. And one of these is the capacity and need for self-management, to be self-determining. We can envision things we could make, future courses of action, we can develop tools and techniques to make things, and we can carry out the necessary work, and cooperate with others in doing so. We can't fulfill our potential if others use us as subordinate tools to acquire wealth and power for themselves, deny us the ability to learn and develop our potential for design and control in work and elsewhere in life.

The denial of self-management is what oppression is. Struggles to acquire control over your life, to be self-determining and have the means to do so, are liberation struggles. Injustice occurs when there is oppression. Struggles against oppression are thus struggles for justice.

The inequalities that are grounded on race, gender, and class oppressions are all denials of self-determination, as they create hierarchies that deny self-management to those who are subordinated. they are thus all denials of what humans could be, limits on our developing to our potential.

We could define a right of the oppressed by saying that the oppressed have the right to do any action that doesn't undermine the interests of their oppressed group. You don't have the right to kill others in your community because it is against the interests of your community that people should be doing this. You don't have the right to cross a picket line to get a job because this undermines the interests of the working classs, an oppressed group that workers belong to.

AmbitiousHedonism

6th July 2007, 18:54

I really like Max Stirner's egoism and that informs a large part of my anarchism.

Hit The North

6th July 2007, 23:27

Not really literate:

Do you know why you dream? What happens when you do? Why do they take certain shapes, and what is their meaning?

Do you know how juvenile those questions sound?

There are some things that science cannot explain, yet.

Yet, being the operative word. And those things we don't know, we have a better chance of understanding with science than with your mystical mumbo-jumbo.

What are you implying with this? That you put value in people depending on how useful they are to the collective?

Well, duh, I'm a socialist! But what I'm implying is that you are no use to the working class (or much use to any one else) if you believe that
the true goal of self-attainment for any human being should be the elimination of the physical self. and that
Nation-states, code of laws, ethnic groups, genders, ages, all of these concepts are illusions and have no real value.

Unless I've completely missed something, this is a forum for revolutionary left-wing politics. I am an anarchist, and a revolutionary. You, on the other hand, what are you? People who value other people on their worth to the collective tend to belong on the other side of the table.

Well I hate to break it to you but on this side, we value collectivity. Our goals are collective and our method of attaining them is collective. It is on the other side, where you clearly belong, that the individual is raised above the masses and sanctified and where real living humanity is relegated to second place behind the abstract "ethereal" dead essence of your mystical doctrine,

By the way, you only get to call yourself a revolutionary by completely reinventing the meaning of the word if your message to the world's poor and oppressed is this:

the true goal of self-attainment for any human being should be the elimination of the physical self.

I mean, don't you think we should aim for the elimination of the bourgeoisie and their rotten system before we begin to eliminate our selves? :rolleyes:

Not entirely illiterate

6th July 2007, 23:58

Do you know how juvenile those questions sound?

Yes, juvenile. That terrifying condition where all is possibility. No patronising society has yet managed to destroy your curious and limitless mind with morals and ethics and table manners and whatnot. You laugh at it now, and still, you don't even have an answer to my childish little question. Which is more laughable?

Yet, being the operative word. And those things we don't know, we have a better chance of understanding with science than with your mystical mumbo-jumbo.

If science proves me wrong one day, I'll probably resign from my ideals. Until then, the only thing to do is to rely upon the foreground of science; philosophy. Personally, I think people are quick to discard things that science cannot explain for them because it rattles their cage. It's really the same thing as blind belief in religion, it limits your thoughts. Remember that religion and spirituality are two different things.

Well I hate to break it to you but on this side, we value collectivity. Our goals are collective and our method of attaining them is collective.

Very well, I respect that. I don't want anyone stepping on my beliefs, so I don't step on those of others either.

that the individual is raised above the masses and sanctified and where real living humanity is relegated to second place behind the abstract "ethereal" dead essence of your mystical doctrine,

Somehow, you've managed to interpret it into some kind of elitism. That is a dangerous misconception; there is potential for transcendence within every human being, regardless of nationality, ethnictity and gender (this is why I eschew the idea of these things have any political worth in society, someting you certainly ought to agree with). Transcendence is not for the sake of raising yourself above the common populace, a person having achieved piece of mind and harmony with the surroundings ought to have grown past such egoistic and material goals long ago. While the goal of transcendence is individual, I wish it to be the interest for all people to achieve a higher state of mind. I am no guru, I'm not here to teach anyone.

I mean, don't you think we should aim for the elimination of the bourgeoisie and their rotten system before we begin to eliminate our selves?

To give your obviously sarcastic question a serious answer; yes, we should. My political goal is to eliminate the hierarchical society of today and establish a stateless society where individual potential for self-mastery is optimal. So, while self-elimination (though only in the physical sense) is the final goal, my political agenda is a secondary goal, designed to clear the path for the final goal.

Am I making myself clear? If not, please remain polite even though we are obvious at a disagreement, there is little to gain from condescending remarks.

funkmasterswede

8th July 2007, 08:05

Originally posted by Citizen [email protected] 06, 2007 01:48 pm
A revolutionary and materialist view of ethics would be that anything which contributes to the increase in human powers, both materially and intellectually, is an ultimate good.

If you're a Marxist you can add, anything which helps humanity overcome its alienated state.

............................................

Not entirely illiterate:

Humanity is essentially an ethereal concept not necessarily connected to the physical appararition of Homo Sapiens Sapiens

That's the stupidest comment I've heard in a long while.

Most people today are so attached to their physical form that they cannot let loose the grasp of the desires and needs it has to supplement its functions.

Go figure :lol:

Through my non-physical goal, many things that are essential to many societies become meaningless to me

Then you're not much use to socialized humanity are you?

Listen, this is a forum for revolutionary materialists, not confused mystics. What are you even doing here?
Why does a revolutionary leftist have to be a materialist?

Am I one of the only people on here who thinks materialism is a viewpoint that is extremely intellectually dishonest. It is a useful concept of reality, but like that of objectivism, it relies on many assumptions. Let me list a few, humans percieve that reason can show the way things are connected through causality; therefore we can extrapolate with causality a line of almost infinite regression. Human perception does not equal reality and reality is not verifiable beyond perception, so the idea of matter making up everything seems to rely on the rationalist assumption that we can verify with our perceptions what constitutes itself in physical form. The first assumption is faith in one's senses.

The second assumption is the use of a hammer as a screwdriver. In that materialists tend to apply the human understanding of reality, to every facet of existence and questioning of reality. This is a perversion of reason. Reason is by far our most useful tool, but until we can verify that human reason can be used to show the existence or nonexistence of a god, extrapolating about the nature of god through reason seems quite odd.

Rosa Lichtenstein

8th July 2007, 10:00

Funkmaster:

It is a useful concept of reality, but like that of objectivism, it relies on many assumptions. Let me list a few, humans percieve that reason can show the way things are connected through causality; therefore we can extrapolate with causality a line of almost infinite regression. Human perception does not equal reality and reality is not verifiable beyond perception, so the idea of matter making up everything seems to rely on the rationalist assumption that we can verify with our perceptions what constitutes itself in physical form. The first assumption is faith in one's senses.

This is a very odd sort of materialism, and you would be right to be suspicious of it.

But, as far as I can see, no historical materialist (which is what Z meant) holds such whacko ideas -- unless you can quote a few.

I think you have us matertialists confused with naive empiricists on acid.

And you seem to know a lot about 'reality' that the rest us have not yet twigged.

Do you have some means of accessing it (i.e., 'reality') that we do not know about? And that the rest of us have not evolved yet?

And this is even odder:

The second assumption is the use of a hammer as a screwdriver. In that materialists tend to apply the human understanding of reality, to every facet of existence and questioning of reality. This is a perversion of reason. Reason is by far our most useful tool, but until we can verify that human reason can be used to show the existence or nonexistence of a god, extrapolating about the nature of god through reason seems quite odd.

I am not sure what point you are trying to make. Is it: that using human reason underlines its own limitations?

So, what are you using to derive that conclusion, other than human reason? And can we trust this conclusion when it has been obtained by the use of such an untrustworthy mental capacity?

Or are you arguing that until we can prove 'god' does or does not exist we cannot trust reason?

But why is that even a relevant test?

Not entirely illiterate

8th July 2007, 12:39

Why does a revolutionary leftist have to be a materialist?

Anyone telling me, "You have to be a materialist", I tell them, "Bugger off, I don't have to be anything you tell me to be".

Am I one of the only people on here who thinks materialism is a viewpoint that is extremely intellectually dishonest.

In my opinion, materialism serves as a non-biased ground to built political ideology on, in the manner that is does not admit subjective values spawned by human ideas; the world is built up of matter which will remain the way it is despite what humans think about it (unless we fulfil out thought by action, of course). Humans aren't material, humans are far more than just the sum of its biological parts. In fact, these parts are in my opinion the less relevant factors when discussing the human being. Materialism seems to be fairly content that "if you(α) have a high standard of living(β), you'll be happy(γ)", as a mathematical formula (α+β=γ). While it know it isn't entirely this simple, it could be dissected into this simplicity without too much loss of its essence.

Humans are irrational and impulsive, and this is a beautiful thing, it isn't something to be fought in order to mold the human being into a "being of reason" like western philosophy has enforced upon us for far too long (this is the viewpoint held by libertarians, and their view upon the world is so distorted they could be seen as a cult. Worship the invisible hand, yadda yadda). Human irrationality is, in my opinion, a sign that emotional richness and "welfare" is more important than economical.

Reason is indeed a good thing, but to rely exclusively upon it has a serious flaw; it isn't looking at the whole picture. It underestimates the human being, turning us into biological machines.

Dimentio

8th July 2007, 13:08

That is actually a point worth discussing (in another thread perhaps). I mean, people in developed countries, no matter socialist or capitalist, do not generally feel happier than the peoples of the third world.

Hit The North

8th July 2007, 14:27

NEI:

In my opinion, materialism serves as a non-biased ground to built political ideology on, in the manner that is does not admit subjective values spawned by human ideas; the world is built up of matter which will remain the way it is despite what humans think about it (unless we fulfil out thought by action, of course).

So far so good (except, of course, that ideas are important as they influence action!)... But then this:

Humans aren't material, humans are far more than just the sum of its biological parts.

Of course humans are material beings! They are biologically dependent, they need to consume from the material around them and they develop consciousness of themselves as they do this. It may be true (particularly if, like you, one wants to entertain spiritual issues) that we are more than "the sum of our biological parts", but that does not negate the essential material nature of our being.

Materialism seems to be fairly content that "if you(α) have a high standard of living(β), you'll be happy(γ)", as a mathematical formula (α+β=γ).

I think you're confusing it with consumerism, which indeed argues that, but that is a capitalist ideology and has nothing to do with historical materialism.

Reason is indeed a good thing, but to rely exclusively upon it has a serious flaw; it isn't looking at the whole picture. It underestimates the human being, turning us into biological machines.

No, reason is one of the most important features of being human. Machines cannot engage rationally with the world like humans do.

Serpent:

That is actually a point worth discussing (in another thread perhaps). I mean, people in developed countries, no matter socialist or capitalist, do not generally feel happier than the peoples of the third world.

Isn't happiness a subjective state best left to the individual to manage? I can't see how our policy as revolutionaries can properly be informed by an appeal to increasing happiness as an ethical goal.

Rosa Lichtenstein

8th July 2007, 14:33

Just to add to Z's excellent response:

Humans aren't material, humans are far more than just the sum of its biological parts.

Human beings are also social animals, and it's the relations we form among ourselves (social, economic, personal. etc.) that also define us -- but all this has been factored into Historical Materialism.

syndicat

8th July 2007, 17:14

there are a variety of problems with historical materialism. why aren't the means of destruction -- armed bodies of the state and their armaments -- a part of the "base"? why isn't the caring work that women traditionally have done in the home as unpaid labor part of the system of production? it's just as essential to human survival as work in the social economy. what is the reason for alleged primacy of the tendency for productive power to grow?

in reality technology is shaped by the social relations of production because who controls the resources and who appropriates wealth and who controls production are things that will shape technical decision-making, in cases where alternative technical methods are available. why then is development of the forces primary? the fact is, sometimes capitalists choose a less efficient technical method because it facilitates greater control over workers.

if oppression motivates people to fight agqainst it and thus generates agents of history, why can't people be agents of history in fighting against gender oppression or racial/national oppression? the economic structure may be very important but why reduce the struggle to class? and didn't doing that historically tend to lead to socialists telling women that liberation would occur after the revolution, and that autonomous women's movement was divisive?

and it's not clear how an ethics would be derived from historical materialism.

Rosa Lichtenstein

8th July 2007, 19:24

I refer the honourable stalker to my previous reply to him.

funkmasterswede

8th July 2007, 19:37

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 08, 2007 09:00 am
Funkmaster:

It is a useful concept of reality, but like that of objectivism, it relies on many assumptions. Let me list a few, humans percieve that reason can show the way things are connected through causality; therefore we can extrapolate with causality a line of almost infinite regression. Human perception does not equal reality and reality is not verifiable beyond perception, so the idea of matter making up everything seems to rely on the rationalist assumption that we can verify with our perceptions what constitutes itself in physical form. The first assumption is faith in one's senses.

This is a very odd sort of materialism, and you would be right to be suspicious of it.

But, as far as I can see, no historical materialist (which is what Z meant) holds such whacko ideas -- unless you can quote a few.

I think you have us matertialists confused with naive empiricists on acid.

And you seem to know a lot about 'reality' that the rest us have not yet twigged.

Do you have some means of accessing it (i.e., 'reality') that we do not know about? And that the rest of us have not evolved yet?

And this is even odder:

The second assumption is the use of a hammer as a screwdriver. In that materialists tend to apply the human understanding of reality, to every facet of existence and questioning of reality. This is a perversion of reason. Reason is by far our most useful tool, but until we can verify that human reason can be used to show the existence or nonexistence of a god, extrapolating about the nature of god through reason seems quite odd.

I am not sure what point you are trying to make. Is it: that using human reason underlines its own limitations?

So, what are you using to derive that conclusion, other than human reason? And can we trust this conclusion when it has been obtained by the use of such an untrustworthy mental capacity?

Or are you arguing that until we can prove 'god' does or does not exist we cannot trust reason?

But why is that even a relevant test?
The entire concept of the dialectic is based on perceptions of reality and therefore a human concept. Historical materialists feel that capitalism will destroy itself because of their understanding of the past and how socioeconomic conditions in a society create the future. Thus, if we consider the nature of the past and the oppression inherent in it, it will create a synthesis. This is an extrapolation based on the dialectic and views that through understanding history and the changes from one society to the next we can somehow predict the future. Surely, understanding history is necessary to understand what our system is currently is. However, this extrapolation of the way that the future will be is pure arrogance; there are uncountable factors that cause the transformation of socioeconomic factors.

Our knowledge is fragmented, and I am quite skeptical as to whether or not we can predict the future as to the transformation of history and society. Looking back on history it is easy to explain the connection and explain why societies changed in the way they did. However, this explanation is subject to the knowledge problems I have spoken of, for when given a cause and effect, a person can easily abstract a connection, even if that connection is not completely correct.

So if you have not noticed yet, I take a much more post-structuralist approach.

The second point I was trying to make is a Nietzchean one. Reason is a human faculty and we use it to understand history among other things. However, can be reason simply be applied to everything in order to accurately predict the future and explain all of the reasons for historical transformations? We can analyze with reason to quite a degree, but will this bring us closer to the truth.

I will try to make this more clear with an example. My existence is self evident. So to reduce my existence to a human understanding of what exists ie for every event there is a cause, is to pervert reason and use it in an instant where it may not be acceptable. We exist before we think about existence. It goes along with the existentialist notion of existence before essence.

So yes, what I was getting at was human reason having limits and not being a sort of universally applicable tool.

Rosa Lichtenstein

8th July 2007, 19:54

Funkmaster:

The entire concept of the dialectic is based on perceptions of reality and therefore a human concept.

Even if this were so, what has it got to do with what you said earlier?

The same, it seems, can be said of the rest of what you posted. Interesting though it is, none of it, as far as I could see, adressed my objections/request for clarification.

How can you use reason to demonstrate it cannot be used, or cannot be used reliably?

So yes, what I was getting at was human reason having limits and not being a sort of universally applicable tool.

Then that comment applies to itself, and we can ignore it as untrustworthy.

My existence is self evident

I doubt that.

funkmasterswede

8th July 2007, 20:46

Even if this were so, what has it got to do with what you said earlier?

It is more or less a toned down version of what I was getting at earlier in that I was originally addressing the issue that causality necessitates faith in one's senses. I realized I had a made a mistake and read a little bit more, specifically about historical materialism. So while I will say that I originally misinterpreted your viewpoint, however I still feel that a similar line of thought can be used to address what I see as your actual belief.

How can you use reason to demonstrate it cannot be used, or cannot be used reliably?

It is a paradoxical contradiction. So I am not going to fall into the trap of answering that in a way that I feel intuitively you are getting at.

All that we can show with reason is that we should not be overly dogmatic. This is contradictory in the sense that I have used reason to derive this statement. But, really what I am getting at, is that when a dogma say Historical Materialism is shown to be). likely false ( in that capitalism has yet to fall and become quite reformist in the west. At that point we cannot hang on to reason and the dogma attached to that as if it were a rational end in itself. The way the current world is and the way that the world changes in a non-predictable way shows that our reason is simply a tool of understanding what is, not what can be. Reason may be our only tool available, but it appears to me that it is a fallible one.

This lies under the same line of thought as truth being subjective in that all people interpret the world and events slightly differently. We generally except that people see things differently, yet to make a statement about it requires a contradiction for asserting subjectivity as truth.

Then that comment applies to itself, and we can ignore it as untrustworthy.

By all means do so.

I doubt that.

You will never prove to me that I do not exist.

Rosa Lichtenstein

8th July 2007, 21:20

Funkmaster:

It is a paradoxical contradiction. So I am not going to fall into the trap of answering that in a way that I feel intuitively you are getting at.

Until you do, it makes your position untenable.

All that we can show with reason is that we should not be overly dogmatic. This is contradictory in the sense that I have used reason to derive this statement. But, really what I am getting at, is that when a dogma say Historical Materialism is shown to be). likely false ( in that capitalism has yet to fall and become quite reformist in the west. At that point we cannot hang on to reason and the dogma attached to that as if it were a rational end in itself. The way the current world is and the way that the world changes in a non-predictable way shows that our reason is simply a tool of understanding what is, not what can be. Reason may be our only tool available, but it appears to me that it is a fallible one.

Forgive me, but I really cannot see what this has got to do with 'reason'.

This lies under the same line of thought as truth being subjective in that all people interpret the world and events slightly differently. We generally except that people see things differently, yet to make a statement about it requires a contradiction for asserting subjectivity as truth.

Can you truly tell us that truth is subjective?

If you are right then this is just your subjective view (and we can ignore it); if you are wrong we can ignore it anyway.

By all means do so.

Then why bother telling us? You might just as well tell us you like chocolate, or otherwise

You will never prove to me that I do not exist.

I merely doubted it was self evident.

funkmasterswede

9th July 2007, 00:35

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 07:46 pm

Even if this were so, what has it got to do with what you said earlier?

It is more or less a toned down version of what I was getting at earlier in that I was originally addressing the issue that causality necessitates faith in one's senses. I realized I had a made a mistake and read a little bit more, specifically about historical materialism. So while I will say that I originally misinterpreted your viewpoint, however I still feel that a similar line of thought can be used to address what I see as your actual belief.

How can you use reason to demonstrate it cannot be used, or cannot be used reliably?

It is a paradoxical contradiction. So I am not going to fall into the trap of answering that in a way that I feel intuitively you are getting at.

All that we can show with reason is that we should not be overly dogmatic. This is contradictory in the sense that I have used reason to derive this statement. But, really what I am getting at, is that when a dogma say Historical Materialism is shown to be). likely false ( in that capitalism has yet to fall and become quite reformist in the west. At that point we cannot hang on to reason and the dogma attached to that as if it were a rational end in itself. The way the current world is and the way that the world changes in a non-predictable way shows that our reason is simply a tool of understanding what is, not what can be. Reason may be our only tool available, but it appears to me that it is a fallible one.

This lies under the same line of thought as truth being subjective in that all people interpret the world and events slightly differently. We generally except that people see things differently, yet to make a statement about it requires a contradiction for asserting subjectivity as truth.

Then that comment applies to itself, and we can ignore it as untrustworthy.

By all means do so.

I doubt that.

You will never prove to me that I do not exist.
All I really have to say is that I do understand the problems that you have brought up with my thought process. However, all the evidence of the world drives me to this position.

My thought process is that morality and political philosophy as schools of thought are not based on a certain premise of humanity being the premise and then a logical extension of that premise in order to create human flourishing. But, rather that, the end society is what the individual professing this idea starts with and he or she uses reason as a means to rationalize.

What does this have to do with everything I said? It may not seem very connected, but it is. This is why I distrust reason. I really have a hard time believing, considering the numerous ideologies out there, that the use of reason on a premise of humanity would lead to so many different conclusions. If it was reason that derived the end state of the philosophy, I would imagine that both Nozick and Rawls would end up at the same political philosophy as they start with the same notion of ethics. This evidence makes me believe that political philosophy as a subject including Marxism which implies historical materialism start with an end state that is desired and justify it with reason.

I am sure your thought will be that their social situation determined their desired end state and thus altered their use of reason. However, I prefer non-essentialist and non-reductionist thought. Individuals in the same environment will share certain characteristics, however there is something innate in their psychology that will differentiate between them. People are affected by their environment as well as their human psychology.

All of that is what makes me somewhat distrusting of the use of human reason. Is it possible to use human reason to form an idea of either the inevitable utopian society or merely the society that should be. I would like to hope so. However, I am not sure how good people are at separating themselves from the society that they intutively feel is just.

So basically I will concede to you on this debate as if you do not accept the Nietzchean line of thought, there is little I can do to convince you besides trying to show the above point. I probably overstated my views originally and for that I apologize. I distrust reason when it is used as a tool of justification for a philosophy rather than the means of building a philosophy.

Rosa Lichtenstein

9th July 2007, 02:36

Funkmaster:

However, all the evidence of the world drives me to this position.

Now this is either an irrational 'drive' (which means its conclusions cannot be trusted), or it's a rational one (which means it undermines itself once more).

I am sorry but this did not seem to make much sense:

My thought process is that morality and political philosophy as schools of thought are not based on a certain premise of humanity being the premise and then a logical extension of that premise in order to create human flourishing. But, rather that, the end society is what the individual professing this idea starts with and he or she uses reason as a means to rationalize.

Now, I think Nietzsche is a genius (in places), but, like yours, his ideas simply undermine themselves:

So basically I will concede to you on this debate as if you do not accept the Nietzchean line of thought, there is little I can do to convince you besides trying to show the above point. I probably overstated my views originally and for that I apologize. I distrust reason when it is used as a tool of justification for a philosophy rather than the means of building a philosophy.

I'd rather see the back of philosophy, since it is a useless spin-off of class society; which fact helps explain why not one of its 'problems' has been solved in 2500 years.

Hume's bonfire is the only way forward for this empty profession, I am happy to say.

funkmasterswede

9th July 2007, 04:26

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 09, 2007 01:36 am
Funkmaster:

However, all the evidence of the world drives me to this position.

Now this is either an irrational 'drive' (which means its conclusions cannot be trusted), or it's a rational one (which means it undermines itself once more).

I am sorry but this did not seem to make much sense:

My thought process is that morality and political philosophy as schools of thought are not based on a certain premise of humanity being the premise and then a logical extension of that premise in order to create human flourishing. But, rather that, the end society is what the individual professing this idea starts with and he or she uses reason as a means to rationalize.

Now, I think Nietzsche is a genius (in places), but, like yours, his ideas simply undermine themselves:

So basically I will concede to you on this debate as if you do not accept the Nietzchean line of thought, there is little I can do to convince you besides trying to show the above point. I probably overstated my views originally and for that I apologize. I distrust reason when it is used as a tool of justification for a philosophy rather than the means of building a philosophy.

I'd rather see the back of philosophy, since it is a useless spin-off of class society; which fact helps explain why not one of its 'problems' has been solved in 2500 years.

Hume's bonfire is the only way forward for this empty profession, I am happy to say.
I have conceded on the issue of your major point of post-modern thought being something that cannot make an objective point based on reason and thus undermining itself. You have forced me to reevaluate my views, and I have to figure out an epistemology that I can justify, but that does not undermine itself in that it is not merely a subjective view. I am still very young, so any guidance would be appreciated.

However, I am curious in how you determined that philosophy is an effect of a society with classes? You could PM me if you want this thread to stay on topic.

Rosa Lichtenstein

9th July 2007, 10:10

Funkmaster:

and I have to figure out an epistemology that I can justify, but that does not undermine itself in that it is not merely a subjective view. I am still very young, so any guidance would be appreciated.

You do not need an epistemology. All you need is a scientific theory backed up with evidence.

Now, I happen to think Historical Materialism is such a theory.

Why it has so far failed is of course a separate question, but not one that cannot be answered.

However, I am curious in how you determined that philosophy is an effect of a society with classes? You could PM me if you want this thread to stay on topic.

Well, the systematic study of Philosophy could only begin with class society, since you need plenty of leisure time to persue it.

Historically, in the West, it began in ancient Greece, with various aristocratic figures transforming tales about the gods into abstract systems more in line with the new political structures that emerged in the 6th century BC.

I will PM you with more details.