you must be turning me into the most radical type of subjectivist because I have no idea what you are trying to communicate here
I’m saying that ideologues begin to live for the advancement of their ideals.
that’s good propaganda you got there.
FINALLY, man it took forever. I am so glad the Nazi’s and commies are back in another religous debate. The Nazi’s are definatly the opposite of what you believe and very similar to what your opponent favors.
It took forever? I do believe the Nazi’s and Commies were ‘back in the debate’ pages ago when someone other than me brought them in…
Alright, but if they’re indiscernible, how can you blame the collectivist ideology from causing so much harm to others and to himself? If it’s part of the individual’s choice…
It seems like the case of the killer who pulled the trigger: the gun being the ideology and the killer being the egoist fully conscious of what pulling the trigger meant. You can’t blame the gun at all, can you? It may have enabled the killer to kill, but the killer was… the killer, not the gun, or the bullet.
So I think you should put less of an emphasis on other people’s adopted ideologies and rather focus on why did they choose to adopt these ideologies in the first place, as a descriptive question of inquiry. (Perhaps you were doing that already but idk)
Because to an ideologue, there are the brothers of the faith, and the infidels, the righteous, and the heathen, the true men, and the un-men.
That seems like a fair analogy.
Yes. It’s a tool to make the coercion possible. Rather than the physical aspect (the gun), the Ideology the justification in the eyes of the ideologue.
I think it’s important for an individual to realize that the fixed idea is just a belief, just conjecture. An idea without an ought is held by the Individual, not the other way around. These are much less dangerous, because they don’t open to door to righteous action..
this is just so much propoganda
It isn’t even remotely on topic either. I asked him to back up his assertion that libertarianism is a religion, and to attempt to explain why it might be different than all these other ideologies he listed, then he just plays dumb, ignores the question, and keeps ranting.
- I think his sig indicates he isn’t certain about this. “I think you should do X deed, though do not think it is something I fully believe in, it is just the conclusion I came up with at the moment” seems to be the gist of it. If that is propaganda, so be it.
2)He could just be stating preference and his subjective value system. If I say play Xenosaga because it is an awsome game, I would not consider that propaganda. Actually it is a fact, Xenosaga is an awsome game.
espousing what? I was merely expressing an opinion.
The guy asked me a question, I answered it.
You asked me how they were different. I don’t think they are. I asked you to explain, and you refused.
I don’t think it is.
I’d say that’s exactly what you’re doing, not me.
If you want to know what my definition of ideology is, I suggest you read some of my former posts. That’s not what you asked:
I don’t they think they are distinct, so please - tell me why you do.
How are you going to blame a gun or bullet for murder? I mean, I agree with most if not all you’re saying, just that the emphasis is a little off.
And to all the people complaining about LaRose, haters are gonna hate lol
Sorry, that was confusing. I meant “yes” like “I agree” in that response.
Excellent.
mr. burns macro image
It doesn’t excuse you going off-topic. I mean seriously…
You said that libertarianism is a religion and a “sect of liberalism”. MAYBE the former is relevant, but you did nothing to back up your assertion. Making a disclaimer that “everything is just an opinion”, doesn’t give you license to spout nonsense.
You still can’t name any difference between libertarianism and communism? Big surprise, it was a waste of time to try to talk to someone like you.
To answer captain Picard, my position on true men and un-men is explained in much greater detail in “The Ego and Its Own” by Max Stirner.
I would try pages 4-9 of this thread for an explanation.
I don’t think I really stated it as a disclaimer. Also, that is a rather crude distillation of what I’ve been saying. Where should I apply for a nonsense license?
Sure, there are lots of differences. Primacy of the individual instead of “the proletariat” as lawgiver, for example. The commonality that makes them both sect of Liberalism, though, is some form of “Man” as lawgiver, instead of appealing to a transcendental entity (such as God).
Of course, you didn’t ask that, and I didn’t assert it either.
“Fixed ideas are ideas that have subjected man”
“What is it, then, that is called a ‘fixed idea’? An idea that has subjected the man to itself.”
Wow, the difference is so obvious! Please. Nothing in Stirner’s definition includes people who push ideas because they believe its in their own self-interest. Like liberals and everybody else. Stirner was attacking a straw-man, sorry.
No he didn’t. As it didn’t occur to him that people may not accept his all or nothing dogma because they don’t think its in their own self-interest, There isn’t any distinction, the fact that people can drop an idea entirely implies that they can drop them partially, alter them, fuse them, etc… the idea is always subject to their will.
As their is no such thing as submitting to “fixed ideas.” Everyone acts in their own self-interest (so obviously a half-egoist is nonsense as well).
Could you actually explain how instead of copying wikipedia stubs, as there certainly isn’t anything inherently contradictory. Example: I describe the fact that freedom makes things cheaper (descriptive) and with said knowledge I tell the king he should lower taxes (normative) as I want cheaper things. Nothing contradictory.
Please, enough of the lies, there is nothing about the definition of truth which requires it to be absolute.
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. In archaic usage it could be fidelity, constancy or sincerity in action, character, and utterance.[1] The term has no single definition about which a majority of professional philosophers and scholars agree, and various theories and views of truth continue to be debated. There are differing claims on such questions as what constitutes truth; what things are truthbearers capable of being true or false; how to define and identify truth; the roles that revealed and acquired knowledge play; and whether truth is subjective, relative, objective, or absolute.
More importanly,
The Absolute is the concept of an unconditional reality which transcends limited, conditional, everyday existence.
Its hard to believe that anyone would think that when one spoke his words transcended everyday existence or that the definition of truth required such a thing.
Wrong. Here’s you saying the opposite:
“The thing is to keep them under your will, not to modify your will to suit the idea.”
“Although, the distinction lies in whether the person believes that the idea determines their best interest, or if the idea is subject to the individual’s will”
And this is exactly what a religious nut would say:
“I think you’ve just read the bible through the eyes of a heretic (black or white). Try it again with an open mind.”
"Well, you can interpret it any way you want, and I’m sure Jesus would challenge anyone to subject his ideas to the most intense critical analysis they can muster. "
“It’s terrible what a great work can be contorted to in the hands of a heretic. I implore you to read the bible again.”
“This is exactly what a heretic would presume. I’m sorry, I attempt to be as Christ-like as possible, which seems like a concept beyond your scope of comprehension. The “for us or against us” mentality of zealots…”
Look familiar?
I had to comment about this howler, there is no such thing as a normative idea. You are equivocating hard. Statements are normative, ideologies are normative (this isn’t actually true either as ideology can mean a few other things) ideas aren’t normative. they are abstract concepts.
Dude!
I know I’m late to this again - some of us have to work for a living. I used to be into Death Metal, but, I’m sorry to have to tell you, firstly, Venom suck (that’s a bad word!) Secondly, most of their stuff is a parody of death metal, not the real thing. I still love Frost’s ‘To MegaTherion’, and some of what’s on ‘Into the Pandemonium’ is good, but the new, revamped version of Frost, with that ‘MonoTheist’ disk, is just pathetic. But Tom Fischer just couldn’t leave well-enuf alone…he had to destroy his legacy…very sad.
As for my personal reflection, I’ve been listening to Hildegard, and reading my Good News Bible…yeah, I know it’s a kid’s Bible, but I love it. Is there such a thing as the Satanic Bible? And if so, what does it say? Even if no-one else is interested, I am! I’m just interested to find out if it says anything worthwhile, or is it just mindless drivel. Remember, as any good Death Metal afficianado would remember, Tom Araya sang, “There is no heaven without a hell!” (‘South of Heaven’, 1988)…turn that on its head: there is no hell, no Satan, without the God that made him and uses Satan to do His bidding. (Now I’d like to see Tom Araya sing that. That is genuinely heavy - Satan is but a tool in the hands of The Lord, and can do nothing but God’s unrevealed will…As Van Til said, ‘Satan is entirely self-frustrative’.)
Anyway, this list has degenerated into a ‘Bash Jackson’ fest, so I’m out. From what started as some individual complaining about religion, and its incompatability to Libertarian economic theory, we find that the true Libertarian, Jackson, the total egoist, winds up, you guessed it! On his lonesome. And here I was, thinking that the individual was primary on this site. Once again, we see that, when an idea, even an idea like the primacy of the individual, gains currency, it becomes the paradigm, and no challenge to it can be let co-exist as a part of the wider Libertarian community - “think as we do, or you’re out”. I can understand the prevailing paradigm here being against my philosophy of orthodox, historical Christianity, but Jackson LaRose shares your same basic presuppositions - he’s just more consistent to his.
In closing, to use the example from Sartre, a guy that should be widely distributed on this website but isn’t for some reason, between a Prime Minister and an alcoholic, a thorough-going wino, who is the most consistent existentialist/Libertarian? Why, the wino! Why? Becoz he acts without reference to anybody or anything outside himself, while a Prime Minister, no matter how existential his philosophy, is still thinking, even if out of pure self-interest, of the welfare of Society. What Mises did, really, in spite of his brilliant contribution to Biblical Economics, was to posit that, in his universe of chance, there was a law of Economics. The wino doesn’t believe in laws of any kind. He is the more consistent Libertarian.
oh, btw, just to put me in perspective for you, I’m a paid-up member of the Mises Institute. How many other people that decry orthodox Religion here are?
If I agreed with him, why would our definitions be different?
If you are pushing a belief just to further your self interest, rather than you believing it yourself and trying to convert another, that you are actively lying to, or deceiving, someone. That would make you an egoist. If you are attempting conversion, than you yourself are a subject to that supposed truth. That would make you an ideologue. I don’t see what Stirner (or I) am leaving out, or how it is a straw man.
For example. I don’t like to work for a paycheck just to pay my taxes. I’d rather be a subsistence farmer. So I’d like it for the government to go away. So I support Libertarian candidates, watch the progress of nullification/secessionist movements, etc. hoping that they will succeed. Am I a Libertarian? Do I think that the government is evil so making me a slave? Not really. I don’t like working just to pay tax. I’m not submitting to a ideal, such as “taxation is wrong” or “the government is evil” if the government told me tomorrow that I didn’t have to pay taxes anymore, ever, than I would be fine with its existence.
Sure it did, that’s why he called them hypocrites, because they want to decide actions for themselves, but still must provide justifications. He isn’t saying they shouldn’t be hypocrites, he’s merely pointing out the seeming contradiction in their position.
But why should they keep a fixed idea at all, since they’ve realized that their will is more powerful? Why change puppeteers? Just break the strings.
OK, tell that to a fundamentalist Christian, or a hardcore Maoist, or Hans Herman Hoppe.
If they believe that the advancement of their particular ideology is their self interest, than they are voluntarily submitting their will to the idea. Their will is guided/restrained by some arbitrary principles. I’m not judging them for it, I’m just pointing it out.
That is a statement in absolute terms. If it was descriptive, wouldn’t it be something like “Freedom seems to make things cheaper”
Why include the normative? Couldn’t you just say “King, I want lower taxes, because I think that this will make things cheaper, and I want that, too”. The normative implies that you are more important, more of a “true man” than the king. I don’t understand why anybody should do anything, just because you want them to. This is an example of man as lawgiver, i.e. you.
I just found this ironic.
OK, let’s play along. There is no definition of truth. Truth is whatever you want it to be at that particular moment. Who decides what is considered true, and what is false? You? Me? The electorate? Does everyone have different truths? It is unclear how anyone could derive normative statements at all.
It seems that you are right, I wasn’t using the word absolute correctly. I should’ve been saying “truth is normative”. Please mentally substitute this in to our past correspondence.
LOL, that’s pretty good. Again, I’m not holding a moral judgment against ideologues, I’m just pointing it out. Hold your beliefs as truths, I’m not trying to win converts here. Actually, since you are so convinced I’m a religious nut, do you mind describing my ideological statement which I profess to? We know the Liberal one, “Men should be free”. What would you say the egoist’s normative would be?