It seems to me that the subscription to any system – political, religious, economic – is predicated on the acceptance of at least some absolutes or irreducible propositions. There is an enormous body of literature in all of these areas going back hundreds of years that substantiates this notion. It seems to me that many anarchists want their cake and would like to eat it as well.
I would agree.
If you assume said anarchist desires anarchy because it “ought” to be, not because they simply desire it.
We’ve had this discussion before and by your theory of liberalism, I was 100% right, you definitely are a liberal.
How so?
“Dependent on faith”, no faith means belief in the supernatural, otherwise it applies to everyone. Making it meaningless as a tool of demarcation.
OK, including etc… everyone is an ideologue then. Making it meaningless as a representative phrase.
An omniscient being would have perfect knowledge, we aren’t presuming perfection among men. Liberals accept that men make mistakes, not analgous to god or any omniscient being.
Not leaning on your faiths? Hardly, that’s exactly what you are doing (see above). And it isn’t an ad hominen, as I didn’t use your posts to discredit the argument put forth, as replied directly perhaps when you chopped them out you got confused.
As have liberals. Liberals just think some people’s asses are worth listening to when compared to others, hardly omniscience.
Thats quite a conundrum you put yourself in though, just read nigrahamUK’s responses. Let’s grant that expressing an opinion isn’t expressing a truth for now though.
Yeah, you are a raging liberal. Accumulated knowledge of reality doesn’t actually narrow the size of the truth cloud though as reality could all be an illusion. We’ve had this discussion.
Sure, you’ve just decided that “truth” lies slightly out of reach, just as liberals.
Just as well…everything. Remember
Either everyone is a religious ideologue, making the very terms useless and your entire argument moot, or the terms should be used with more scrutiny.
Maybe you should give it another read as one of us is clearly a huge fan of old Saint Max. He doesn’t seem to fully grasp his own argument. His entire critique against Feuerbachianism (which I think is where your characterization of all liberalism stems) while good, just points to a restructuring of… liberalism. Maybe if he wrote more it could be settled.
You are misunderstanding. Faith that man is capable of making absolute judgments, not faith that man of capable of making judgments.
Again, you misunderstand. an ideology states that someone ought to do/be something. That is an example of an absolute judgment. The difference between ideologues and agnostics. I agree with your position that both utilize these deductive tools. The difference is that once a deduction has been reached, an agnostic abstains from assuming the deduction is absolutely appropriate i.e., true/false, right/wrong.
Then you are contradicting yourself the minute the words “(fill in the blank) is true” or (fill in the blank) is false" hit the page, or dribble out of your mouth.
Again, you’ve contradicted yourself. A mistake implies your belief that there is an objective meter (of which you are capable of knowing) upon which actions can be judged as correct or incorrect.
Yes, you used them to attempt to discredit me directly, to make my argument seem less plausible. Isn’t that an ad hominem attack?
So why was I able to quote all of your references to truth? Shouldn’t you have said “believe it’s true”, or “what I think is the truth”? If that’s what you meant, I would argue that you aren’t a liberal.
and read “The Tortoise and Achilles” to how far Nirgraham’s argument can get you. Argumentation ethics only works if the opponent claims a contrary position, not if he is agnostic. That’s why he laughs when I say “I don’t know”, since not having the pretension of absolute knowledge is a completely foreign concept to him (if you’ve ever debated him, you know what I mean).
I still don’t understand why you insist that it has to be.
Well, yes that’s a possibility. Again, this position is based on my perception of reality. I could be totally wrong. It doesn’t bother me to admit my shortcomings. I don’t know.
Unless you happen to be omniscient, and I don’t know how objective knowledge of absolute truth could be possible. I’m not saying that it is impossible, If you know of a way, please let me know, because that would be awesome…
Once again, you misunderstand. Ideologues make absolutes out of their faith. Agnostics do not.
I think you’ve just read it through the eyes of an ideologue (black or white). Try it again with an open mind.
Then its just a no for liberals.
An ideology is a group of ideas that one used to guide their actions and expectations, people who share similar ideas can be placed into categories for convenience. It isn’t an example of an absolute judgment, its ones opinion guiding them. Liberals don’t just stop learning once they’ve reached point X of ideas, this is obviously true since many refine, alter and abandon their ideas, some so much that they don’t meat the minimal criteria.
Or you are just approaching them from an absolutist perspective and presuming more than you should.
No, it means there is a relative meter that cannot even be fully discovered. Like measuring the acceleration due to gravity.
I approached the argument head on “The reasons for determining truth aren’t the tools at all. The reason (motivation) differs, its generally to further one’s understanding to improve one’s odds of survival, gain wealth, or even to discover “truth.”” so there simply isn’t an ad hominen.
We’ve had this discussion before, I had already made it clear my views on truth and absolutes. Unless you think I’m god, its obvious that I can only express my opinion, most would assume as such. Famous liberals have argued this very point.
It wasn’t an application of AE, it looked like a clever point on this trivial knowing/thinking dichotomy and relativism. Saying “I think…” before a statement doesn’t make it knowledge neutral. Because stating I think is implicitly stating "I know that I think…: and on to infinite.
As are all positions! Why your position isn’t an ideology is just you not wanting to call it as such.
Then you are still in the same boat as liberals. Perhaps the terms need more scrutiny.
LOL. I’ll take an informed mind thank you very much. There isn’t any reason to hold him above critical analysis.
simply browsing this thread, skipping along, saw this, and yes, nirgraham made a clever point indeed as I remember that argument.
Our whole discourse was based our agreed definition of Liberalism:
"Man should be free’‘’
This contains an absolute, the should.
based upon absolute definitions:
“An ideology is a set of aims and ideas that directs one’s goals, expectations, and actions. An ideology can be thought of as a comprehensive vision, as a way of looking at things (compare worldview), as in common sense (see Ideology in everyday society below) and several philosophical tendencies (see Political ideologies), or a set of ideas proposed by the dominant class of a society to all members of this society (a ‘received consciousness’ or product of socialization). The main purpose behind an ideology is to offer change in society, and adherence to a set of ideals where conformity already exists, through a normative thought process. Ideologies are systems of abstract thought (as opposed to mere ideation) applied to public matters and thus make this concept central to politics. Implicitly every political tendency entails an ideology whether or not it is propounded as an explicit system of thought.” - Wiki
That is irrelevant to the definition of ideology.
At which point they are no longer Liberals. I’m not saying that people can’t change their minds.
I approach them that way because they are absolute terms by definition:
“Truth can have a variety of meanings, from the state of being the case, being in accord with a particular fact or reality, being in accord with the body of real things, events, actuality, or fidelity to an original or to a standard.” - Wiki
I apologize if I was incorrectly presuming you were using words as they are defined.
I don’t really understand this passage. If the meter is relative, than there would be no “mistakes” as everyone could define them differently, or if you posit it is unknowable, then it would be external to our perception, hence objectively exist, we just can’t fully understand it. This is what I’ve been saying with the whole omniscience thing.
I don’t understand the analogy.
That wasn’t what I was referring to:
Not ad hominem?
You’ve made them known, but judging by your numerous self-contradicting statements, I don’t think they are very clear (even to you).
I think we agree on this. Of course, to claim you are a believer in Liberalism (men should be free), would imply that you are willing to trust your opinion as if it were truth (hence be on par with omniscience, or god), so I’m not sure what your position is on the matter.
Than I would argue they aren’t Liberals.
It is claiming an (non-omniscient) absolute to claim that one must exist to think.
Unless deemed true by faith.
It’s me not claiming it as truth.
Not according to our formerly agreed upon definition. Perhaps you should re-evaluate what you consent to labeling yourself as.
Well, you can interpret it any way you want, and I’m sure Stirner would challenge anyone to subject his ideas to the most intense critical analysis they can muster.
I just think you are missing some important points he makes. He doesn’t posit that he should or ought to be free, he simply points out how an ideology is simply a religion, and how Liberalism has replaced man with God. I don’t remember reading passages where he betrays those positions to support a new argument, or where he contradicts himself.
But I said that wasn’t a definition. And our whole discourse hasn’t been really based on anything.
Read the first sentence. “An ideology is a set of aims and ideas that directs one’s goals, expectations, and actions.” looks familiar…
Sure, but its useful when categorising them. Like say… liberal
Are you just agreeing with me now? If they meet the commonality “liberty” then they are, if they stray from that then aren’t. I’ve mentioned several who don’t stray from the commonality. Using your sentence at the beginning: If a person, say, Alain says “people should be free because they are generally well behaved and won’t harm one another” hes a liberal, “people should be free” after all. After years of study he changes his mind, “people are just awful, however they’re are so awful putting one in power would be stupid so they should be free” hes still a liberal.
Not really, even the definition you’ve provided is open ended. It even provides a link for you can explore it further.
What is still ultimately relative can still be accepted by many. One can measure G and declare its 9.81m/s, further 9.806m/s etc… or they can measure it to be 32.2ft/s etc… Either way gravity will never be fully realized. Or one can play the role of the eternal skeptic and say “you’re instruments are faulty, you’re methods are faulty, … don’t even bother this may all be a dream.” Even if his last contention is correct and it is relative to somethings fantasy is in fact correct it doesn’t matter. Again, read Popper.
I didn’t say your argument was wrong because your a manchild (ad hominem). I said 1. your first sentence is false (not an ad hom) and the following seemed odd (not an ad hom). You still haven’t explained yourself, instead you jumped on the ad hom wagon.
If I’ve made them known then those self-contradicting statements cease to be so.
LOL. It doesn’t mean that you are willing to trust your opinion as if it were absolute truth at all. It means you trust your opinion as far as it hasn’t been falsified yet (that you know of). To be directly contrasted with religious people who believe in the Qur’an despite it being shown to be incorrect.
What is an “(non-omniscient) absolute?” Absolutes come from Omniscience, no? I don’t why see one couldn’t exist without thinking though.
Question-begging (or complete non-sequitar, your choice)
And neither are liberals. “It isn’t an example of an absolute judgment, its ones opinion guiding them.” “Liberals don’t believe that man is perfect in judgement at all.” You are in exact the same boat when it comes to making claims.
When never agreed that ideology was a matter of making absolutes. And what I label myself as is irrelevent to your attempts to try and fuse ideology with religion.
Maybe you have a selective memory. Yes, he does expose Feuerbachian Humanism to be replacing god with man, and many liberals at the time (and area) were Feuerbachian Humanists. You’ve already conceded that Humanism isn’t liberalism so your (and his) conclusion about liberalism (as a whole) are false. Further, he didn’t point out how ideology itself is simply religion, thats a case you are trying to make. I didn’t say he contradicted himself I said he didn’t seem to fully grasp what he was saying as he laid very big grounds for liberalism itself. His ranting about the state are great, his ranting about morals running people are shortsided. And his elevating freedom is pretty obvious.
I think Stirner’s critique of liberalism was only directed at certain branches of it (and possibly before the term took on an evolution in meaning). I mean Von Mises and de Jasay are considerd liberals. The word itself seems a bit confusing. I set up a topic to hopefuly help me seek clarity on the definition.
Quit agreeing with me! [:P]
So Liberalism is not an Ideology. Is that what you are saying?
And ignore the whole:
Because it would not serve your purpose.
don’t understand, try using more prepositions next time[:P]
Yes, exactly. Because he has made a judgment in the absolute sense, the should. Unless you are specifying what sect of Liberalism, how he comes to understand his faith in that absolute is irrelevant.
“An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: “argument toward the person” or “argument against the person”) is an argument which links the validity of a premise to an irrelevant characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise.” - Wiki
Not if they keep getting altered to suit your case.
Then please explain the “should”
As true in the objective sense.
How?
Claiming an absolute without omniscience.
Then Liberalism is not an Ideology, so it is a meaningless term. Why use it at all?
Of course you didn’t. You don’t have to either. Hell, from now on, to me “Ideology” is going to mean the stuff I find in my belly-button. Without agreement on definitions, this debate has devolved into simple contradiction. If you don’t want to accept the definition of words, you don’t have to.
Ideology and Religion are absolute statements of belief, just like truth is an absolute statement. But if we disagree about the definition of truth as absolute, then the whole argument is just wasted characters. It is obvious that neither side has a reason to concede, since each has firmly decided that the respective meanings they’ve attached to the groupings of letters in question is correct. I suggest a draw, as this has no end in sight.
I was really going out beyond Stirner with Liberalism, because it is still a set of fixed ideas that one must abrogate himself to.
I never said he did. But I will say that Ideologies are fixed ideas, and Stirner has loads to say about them.
It’s terrible what a great work can be contorted to in the hands of an ideologue. I implore you to read it again. Actually, it would be great if you could write up a critique. Marx’s was 400+ pages though, so be warned, those are some pretty big shoes to fill.
I’ve said repeatedly that it is an ideology. “The word basically means ‘a political ideology, stressing the importance of liberty for a variety of reasons.’”
Read the whole, it doesn’t proclaim ideologues as pushers of absolute truth at all. In fact, an ideologue could push something that they believe is false.
That would probably sting more if you didn’t chop the explaining (and preposition-filled!) body off.
Except, there was nothing indicating he made a judgment in the absolute, rather from his own observations. Unless you are saying he has faith in his observations… which you know you shouldn’t be. And “that absolute” is a nonsensical term.
Exactly. Nothing about asking what your position is can even be insinuated as an attempt at invalidation. I’m still trying to get your premises straight as they aren’t clear.
Good thing I’ve made my self clear already.
There is nothing to explain really. My saying what you should do doesn’t imply a belief in absolute truth. For example I see you standing in the middle of a dark street at night, I see two headlights coming towards you fast. I shout “you should move!” however as it turns out it was really two motorcyclists riding along side one another. I didn’t know absolutely, in fact, I even knew what a motorcycle was and that they had lights, however that didn’t seem likely. So I proceeded in yelling. Nothing absolute, no faith.
The objective sense isn’t obtainable, remember we could be in a dream.
Its an contrasting device, I’m not going into Qu’ran problems.
That isn’t being done in this case though.
Or you could use a better term for ideology that isn’t necessarily fused at the hip with religion, it would makes more sense, and been more in line with the general useage.
“An ideology is a set of aims and ideas that directs one’s goals, expectations, and actions.” And please don’t lie. “Not according to our formerly agreed upon definition.” vs. “Of course you didn’t.”
Restating your refuted premises doesn’t help your case. There was never a reason to think that ideology demands absolute statements of belief over mere expression of opinions the definitions even agree, so accept it, Stirner won’t look down at you.