ETHICS: THE RIDER SERVES THE ELEPHANT
—“Nobody is ever going to invent an ethics class that makes people behave ethically after they step out of the classroom. Classes are for riders, and riders are just going to use their new knowledge to serve their elephants more effectively. “— Jonathan Haidt.
Source date (UTC): 2014-10-21 20:35:00 UTC
SOCRATES ON VALOR
—“Socrates was known for his courage in battle and fearlessness, a trait that stayed with him throughout his life. After his trial, he compared his refusal to retreat from his legal troubles to a soldier’s refusal to retreat from battle when threatened with death.”—
Seek moral battles. Never retreat. Never surrender. Show no mercy. Defeat your opponent completely.
Source date (UTC): 2014-10-20 15:34:00 UTC
DECLINE
— ‘The theory of the divine right of kings as it came to prominence in the seventeenth century had no place in medieval thought. Because of the mutuality of the relationship between ruler and people, should the ruler fail in his obligation—and his primary obligation was to rule under the law—then the bargain or compact was broken and the people released from their obligations to obey.’ — Andy Curzon
Source date (UTC): 2014-10-20 09:43:00 UTC
IRONY: CONSERVATISM IS A SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINE, AND PROGRESSIVISM IS AN UNSCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINE.
—“…while conservatism is arationally structured, and progressivism is rationally structured, it turns out that conservatism as practiced is scientific, and progressive is unscientific (religious).”—
This is in no small part because conservatism is structured demonstratively and progressivism is structured verbally.
But the palpable irony, is that conservatism is a scientific method advocated arationally, while progressivism is an unscientific method advocated rationally.
If humans can engage in such farcical verbal nonsense, on our most important matters, then what does that say about us? That we are just chickens clucking at the wind?
Source date (UTC): 2014-10-20 03:26:00 UTC
THE PERSISTENCE OF MARXISM
—“The persistence of Marxism in the West is a function of its persistence in academe. Without that, it would wither and die. Why does it persistent in academe? Because Marxism satisfies three deep cognitive wants for academics:
(1) It is a complex theoretical system. There is nothing that establishes one’s bona fides as a Very Clever Person more than mastering a complex theoretical system: the denser and more jargon-heavy the prose, the better. And Marx’s writings have plenty of dense, jargon-heavy prose.
(2) It is a system of grand intent. If one lives the life of the mind, then the grander one’s intellectual projects, the grander one’s cognitive sense of self: Marxism not only “explains” human history and society, it “reveals” the final end point of human and social transformation. What could be grander than such a project?
(3) It completely de-legitimises commerce. Under Marxism, the only legitimate economic role is to supply labour. All commerce is de-legitimised and all those engaged in it—including all those people who have far more wealth and organisational significance than academics—are de-legitimised, reduced to “exploiters” who are but immoral dust beneath the heels of academics in no way “polluted” by vulgar commerce.”—
Michael Philip
Source date (UTC): 2014-10-19 06:28:00 UTC
—“Before the bureaucrat, you have no obligation for grace. One does not blame the slave for trying to escape his master.”—
Source date (UTC): 2014-10-16 12:20:00 UTC
DELAYED REPRODUCTION AND SLOWING RELATIVE MUTATION ACCUMULATION
—“Delayed reproduction leads to more chance of mutations (eg from sperm) and problems with poorer quality control on release of older eggs (eg trisomy twenty one is probably the tip of an iceberg of similar problems).
***But late reproduction also reduces the number of generations and the possibility of mutation accumulation from that cause – so that modern people only have two generations (e.g. average thirty plus years) – i.e. two new lots of mutations in sixty-something years – where in historical times there would have been three generations per 60-70 years – three lots of new mutations****.
So slowing reproduction (by increasing the average age of reproduction) may perhaps reduce mutation accumulation temporarily; given that the effect of aging on mutations may be less per decade than the effect of an extra generation of new mutations. “—
Source date (UTC): 2014-10-14 06:42:00 UTC
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/oct/07/creative-writing-killing-western-literature-nobel-judge-horace-engdahl
Source date (UTC): 2014-10-14 01:52:00 UTC
http://www.amazon.com/Empty-Ideas-Critique-Analytic-Philosophy/dp/0199330816IT’S NOT JUST ME: PUTTING A WOODEN STAKE IN VERBALIST PHILOSOPHY
http://www.amazon.com/Empty-Ideas-Critique-Analytic-Philosophy/dp/0199330816
“Analytic Philosophy Consists of Empty Ideas”
http://www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2014/06/philosophy-is-a-bunch-of-empty-ideas-interview-with-peter-unger.html
Like I said. The 20th century was an attempt at restoring mysticism.
Source date (UTC): 2014-10-13 21:16:00 UTC
http://www.propertarianism.com/2014/06/21/mises-praxeology-as-the-failure-to-develop-economic-operationalism-yes/UNDERSTANDING MISES, HAYEK, ROTHBARD, AND THE AUSTRIAN PROGRAM
(from elsewhere)
Gabriel Zanotti is correct that (1) the hard core of the Austrian scientific research programme: is the study of dispersed knowledge. But Austrians also retain the remaining thesis of the Austrian program (2) that the business cycle (whether government intervention amplifies and extends booms and busts.) And (3) the Austrian program is perhaps best understood as an effort to develop a legal philosophy of economics rather than rational or empirical. Failure to understand this distinction is probably why the movement failed.
The following might be life altering for those of you who are deeply engaged in philosophy?
A) Mises’ program can best be understood as a failed effort to develop Economic Operationalism. He intuited it, but was not skilled enough to solve it, as did Bridgman and Brouwer in science and mathematics. (See my post at: http://www.propertarianism.com/2014/06/21/mises-praxeology-as-the-failure-to-develop-economic-operationalism-yes/ )
B) Hayek succeeds in grasping that a legal philosophy is what is needed for the formation of a free society such that we produce the optimum economic outcomes – unfortunately he fails (as does Popper, Mises, and Rothbard, and even Hoppe) to solve the underlying cause, which is that property and morality are identical expressions given the structure of the family in relation to the structure of production. Hoppe correctly determines that property is the unit of commensurability and compatibility in all human cooperation (social systems) but his generation lacked the science to demonstrate that all human moral intuitions (instincts and norms) can be expressed as property rights, or to map them to the various family structures. (See my post here: http://www.propertarianism.com/2014/09/28/the-evolution-of-cooperation/ for condensed list, although I discuss this topic daily.)
D) Rothbard an best be seen as an attempt to give us a religio-moral code, and an formal-institution-free society, rather than a legal system of formal institutions, and a legal philosophy. Rothbard writes as a cosmopolitan ideologist using the same arguments as marxists, socialists and neo-conservatives: to express Jewish ethics in christian legal terms. And, yes, Rothbard writes simply and accessibly. He excites our moral sentiments. But just as Hayek’s legal framework will produce beneficial ends, Rather than the high trust polity of the northern europeans advocated by Hayek using the formal institution of law, Rothbarian ethics using the informal institution of belief (moral religion) would produce the low trust levantine polity of the middle east. So while few self identified libertarians will like or appreciate it, Rothbard is probably as damaging to the liberty movement as Hayek was beneficial. As far as I know I have put Rothbard to bed permanently. (See: http://www.propertarianism.com/2014/06/20/rendering-rothbardian-fallacies-intellectually-embarrassing-and-argumentatively-impossible/ )
Roula Robinson above, is largely correct: only western-into-europeans of the north sea region invented liberty as we know it (universalist liberty), by evolving it. And only the English managed to implement it as a formal system of legal institutions. And only Americans wrote it down in a constitution (Rather poorly it turns out). But that does not mean that once a formal institution is understood (universal individual property rights, rule of law, organic evolution of that law), it cannot be spread and adopted. However, the point I think Emmanuel Todd has demonstrated most convincingly, is that family structure and structure of production, determine moral intutions (as well as our genetics). So diversity turns out to be a ‘bad’, if diversity means a diversity in family structure. (See http://www.propertarianism.com/2014/08/26/how-do-family-structures-vary/ , or any of these: http://www.propertarianism.com/?s=family&submit.x=0&submit.y=0 )
Source date (UTC): 2014-10-13 20:24:00 UTC