If objective morality doesnt exist, what justifies libertarianism?

[luckylad33]

@Solid_Choke

If anyone is interested, I’ll make a new thread about what is wrong with Critical Rationalism; but this thread seems to be off-topic enough as it is.

I would be interested.

[wilderness]

@Angurse

@wilderness

Intellect is theory? Biological questioning or the science (episteme) questioning of intellect is irrelevant to what I said initially.

Natural law (lex naturalis) is theory, the very theory in question.

I don’t care that you want to talk about the theory of natural law. This is about semantics on what the word natural means.

@Angurse

Saying its discovered through intellect doesn’t answer the question of whether it actually has been discovered.

I never brought up anything being discovered. Again irrelevant.

@Angurse

@wilderness

me: your questioning intellect’s presence being true or real is irrelevant to my initial comment you responded to.

Again, I’m not questioning the presence of intellect at all. As I’ve been saying, your initial comment was irrelevant, as it didn’t prove/discover/verify anything, it was just a comment.

My initial comment was on what natural means in the tradition of natural law. Natural means intellect. What is irrelevant are your tangents away from this point. You initially commented on what I said with strawmen, tangents, and have tried to discuss theories. These are irrelevant to what I initially said.

@Angurse

@wilderness

another tangent of yours.

More proof that you don’t understand what “tangent” means.

oh yeah, your going on, and on about your personal ghost stories which are totally revelant to what I initially said. if you don’t like the meaning of natural ie intellect - Not my problem.

[Angurse]

@wilderness

I don’t care that you want to talk about the theory of natural law. This is about semantics on what the word natural means.

Exactly!!!

Semantics about the word natural are completely irrelevant to the discussion. The OP explicitly concerned objective morality (a natural rights theory). It was you who first introduced the off-topic death-spiral of the semantics behind the term natural. I’ve repeatedly stressed that I am NOT talking about the semantics behind the term natural.

@Angurse

You seem to have missed “natural law” as a specific concept and now confined yourself to defending “natural” as being equal to intellect. Who cares? That isn’t the topic.

Discussing the semantics behind the term may be interesting but it was never my intention nor was it related to the OP.

[Matgre]

I can’t figure out the meaning of about 50% of the words in this thread… eff you guys

Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to go school my ass.

[B]

[zefreak]

@Eric

@Solid_Choke

If anyone is interested, I’ll make a new thread about what is wrong with Critical Rationalism; but this thread seems to be off-topic enough as it is.

I would be interested.

I’m also interested. I consider myself 90% critical rationalist, in my understanding of the term. That doesn’t mean fallibilism and the critical rationalist approach to empirical science can be adequately applied to economics.

[Lilburne]

@wilderness

Natural in natural law tradition does mean intellect(ual). Robin Smith in Aristotle’s book Prior Analytics comments on how Aristotle’s deductions are called natural deductions as it is of the intellect.

Wilderness,

Natural deduction has nothing to do with the natural law tradition. Natural deduction was coined, not by a natural law theorist, but by a mathematician/logician (Gerhard Getzen). It refers to a particular approach to logic that developed in the 1920s and 30s which was is in contrast to the “axiomatic systems” which dominated logic in the earlier 20th century. By “natural”, Gentzen did not refer to natural law, but to a formulation of logic that he considered more “natural” to the way we actually think. What Robin Smith is saying in the introduction to Prior Analytics is that he believes that the philosopher John Corcoran has demonstrated that the logical system of Aristotle himself used what we would today call non-axiomatic (that is, “natural”) deduction. Again, this has nothing to do with the natural law tradition that evolved out of the philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas. For Aristotle, logic was a tool which one used to examine nature. This is why his corpus of logical works is called “the organon” (the implement). It was not nature itself.

[wilderness]

@Angurse

@wilderness

I don’t care that you want to talk about the theory of natural law. This is about semantics on what the word natural means.

Exactly!!!

Semantics about the word natural are completely irrelevant to the discussion.

Good. then you didn’t need to respond to me initially.

@Angurse

The OP explicitly concerned objective morality (a natural rights theory).

obviously.

@Angurse

It was you who first introduced the off-topic death-spiral of the semantics behind the term natural.

This is about natural rights, thus, natural law, as you say, yet I introduced the semantics about the word natural in a thread about natural ----. Perfectly relevant I am being.

@Angurse

I’ve repeatedly stressed that I am NOT talking about the semantics behind the term natural.

I am. So you need not respond to me anymore.

@Angurse

You seem to have missed “natural law” as a specific concept and now confined yourself to defending “natural” as being equal to intellect. Who cares? That isn’t the topic.

No. I pointed out to you what I was talking about and you keep responding to me about irrelvant tangents about theory. Understand. I don’t want to talk to you about the theory. I am simply responding to your original response to me on the semantics. That’s what this discussion between you and me has been about. It is your ghost fetish to argue about the theory. Find somebody else.

Original response:

@Angurse

@wilderness

throughout the history of natural law, natural law has always meant intellectual law.

Its a doctrine.

@wilderness

Intellect isn’t a doctrine.

---

@Angurse

Discussing the semantics behind the term may be interesting but it was never my intention nor was it related to the OP.

Then you could have moved on cause I incidently brought up the semantics of the term ‘natural’ and you argued it. Not my problem as I’ve stated. It is irrelevant and a tangent that you keep responding to me as I’ve said.

[wilderness]

@Lilburne

@wilderness

Natural in natural law tradition does mean intellect(ual). Robin Smith in Aristotle’s book Prior Analytics comments on how Aristotle’s deductions are called natural deductions as it is of the intellect.

Wilderness,

Natural deduction has nothing to do with the natural law tradition.

It has something to do with it. I wouldn’t say “nothing” in the absolute of the term. Aristotle’s deductions are most definitely used in the natural law tradition. Whether they are thought of as only natural deductions and exclude axioms may be a debateable point, but I’m not going to argue that and I haven’t been arguing that. It is clear though that Aristotle’s deductive method is used in the natural law tradition. What is included or excluded from Aristotle’s method today - was never part of the original discussion I brought up and I don’t find it interesting at the moment to pursue it currently in a discussion.

@Lilburne

Natural deduction was coined, not by a natural law theorist, but by a mathematician/logician (Gerhard Getzen). It refers to a particular approach to logic that developed in the 1920s and 30s which was is in contrast to the “axiomatic systems” which dominated logic in the earlier 20th century. By “natural”, Gentzen did not refer to natural law, but to a formulation of logic that he considered more “natural” to the way we actually think. What Robin Smith is saying in the introduction to Prior Analytics is that he believes that the philosopher John Corcoran has demonstrated that the logical system of Aristotle himself used what we would today call non-axiomatic (that is, “natural”) deduction. Again, this has nothing to do with the natural law tradition that evolved out of the philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas. For Aristotle, logic was a tool which one used to examine nature. This is why his corpus of logical works is called “the organon” (the implement). It was not nature itself.

I never said it was nature itself for as long as I’ve been in this forum.* Glad to see you agree on that point. My initial point was that natural has had a particular meaning (amongst many) that means: “to the way we actually think” to quote you - in other words - ‘natural refers to the intellect’ to quote me from various posts in this recent trend of a discussion.

I said Robin Smith calls Aristitle’s deductions “natural deductions” so your simply repeating what I said.

What the term natural means goes back before the 1920’s. The term natural deduction may have been coined then, but not the term natural with its connotation of intellect.

*by nature itself I’m assuming you mean nature devoid of human

[Wade]

@zefreak

it is almost straightforward for her to figure out exactly how it feels to see red.

@Eric

There is just a conceptual difference that cannot be breached between subjective experience and objective third-person data.

This is a very interesting discussion. Eric, I think you are introducing a very valid point. The excerpt above could be reworded as so: "There is just a conceptual difference that cannot be breached between how it feels and how it appears.

This reminds me of one of my favorite excerpts from Adam Knott’s book “Striving and Attainment”:

When I walk into a park and see a person posing as a bronze statue, I may believe this person’s intention to be making money, or getting attention or notoriety, or practicing for an acting class, or something else. But upon nearing this person and realizing that it is actually a statue that looks like a person posing as a statue, then what was the true nature of the intentions I previously held to have real existence? Apparently they were physical facts or physical appearances to which I imputed an intention…

There is no certain point at which another person’s intentions might not change for me upon the next observation I make of him. What another person’s intentions or actions are or were may always change upon my receiving further information. Thus, what another person’s intentions or actions are or were is always a function of something that happens for me. This implies that, for me (for my consciousness), another person’s consciousness (his actions, intentions, values, etc.) is not something that can be a “real” aspect of that person (cannot have a spatiotemporal existence).

In keeping with our previously stated approach, this is not to be interpreted as an assertion or implication that other consciousnesses do or do not exist. Rather it is to be interpreted as saying something about the relationship between a conscious observer A and another consciousness B, from the point of view of consciousness A.

I encourage everyone to read this book, if they are interested in the philosophy of consciousness and ethics. It is really groundbreaking work.

Here is the problem as I see it coming from my interpretation of Adam Knott’s “Striving and Attainment”:

What is a relationship? In terms of praxeology, what I typically consider a “relationship” is actually a collection of objects in space and time, and this sometimes includes an assignment of a motive to that collection of objects. Most of my conscious experience in regard to the relationships I am involved in have to do with physical, verbal, and/or contextual interactions and not necessarily assigning a motive to those physical, verbal, and/or contextual interactions.

This problem is we tend believe that simply by listening to a word, it’s placement in a sentence, the tone, and what another body looks like when the word comes out of it, that we can essentially deduce a consciousness or motive out of that arrangement of objects. We are essentially trying to deduce a conscious experience from an arrangement of objects.

(see also Knott’s pg. 14 in the “The Logic of Happiness” in regard to body and speech)

[Amanojack]

@Wade

This problem is we tend believe that simply by listening to a word, it’s placement in a sentence, the tone, and what another body looks like when the word comes out of it, that we can essentially deduce a consciousness or motive out of that arrangement of objects. We are essentially trying to deduce a conscious experience from an arrangement of objects.

This is crucial to understand. I suggest that communication of a conscious experience goes through four stages:

1. Experience: A experiences something

2. Transmission: A attempts to communicate that experience (by words, tone of voice, facial expression, gestures, etc. - some of these being involuntary)

3. Receipt of transmission: B senses (hears, sees, feels, etc.) the communication attempt

4. Interpretation: B attempts to interpret the communication

(This whole discussion will eventually hinge on whether each participant believes that humans fundamentally think in words or not. I believe we do not, although there are reasons why it feels as if we do.)

[Wade]

@AJ

@Wade

This problem is we tend believe that simply by listening to a word, it’s placement in a sentence, the tone, and what another body looks like when the word comes out of it, that we can essentially deduce a consciousness or motive out of that arrangement of objects. We are essentially trying to deduce a conscious experience from an arrangement of objects.

This is crucial to understand. I suggest that communication of a conscious experience goes through four stages:

1. Experience: A experiences something

2. Transmission: A attempts to communicate that experience (by words, tone of voice, facial expression, gestures, etc. - some of these being involuntary)

3. Receipt of transmission: B senses (hears, sees, feels, etc.) the communication attempt

4. Interpretation: B attempts to interpret the communication

(This whole discussion will eventually hinge on whether each participant believes that humans fundamentally think in words or not. I believe we do not, although there are reasons why it feels as if we do.)

Thank you for you insights AJ. I think that is an excellent interpretation of the complexity of human social interaction. I have had similar intuitions myself. It seems that we are all trying to “jump start” the feelings we have into someone else by manipulating the material objective world. This is because we are working within the limitations of human action. We cannot “read other people’s minds” so to speak. So we use something that we ourselves believe is attainable by others, because we ourselves can attain those things, those things being “words, tone of voice, facial expression, gestures, etc…”

Thank you for the link to your other discussions about this phenomenon.

[wilderness]

@AJ

(This whole discussion will eventually hinge on whether each participant believes that humans fundamentally think in words or not. I believe we do not, although there are reasons why it feels as if we do.)

I almost had others discuss this a long time ago, but they shelled up like a turtle. Your brave enough. I have a question:

Do you think it is possible to put your explanation into words? (whatever that explanation is, is not pertinant to what I’m asking specifically)

first this, and then we’ll move on.

[Amanojack]

This is addressed to Wade:

Since I was 10 years old, I have been thinking on this topic more or less non-stop. It always bothered me that we have to rely on the terribly blunt instrument of words to communicate, when our thoughts can be so much richer and more precise. I also think this accounts for nearly all arguments, including the debates on these forums.

Reading other people’s minds is a technology I am seriously looking forward to.

[wilderness]

@AJ

Since I was 10 years old, I have been thinking on this topic more or less non-stop. It always bothered me that we have to rely on the terribly blunt instrument of words to communicate, when our thoughts can be so much richer and more precise. I also think this accounts for nearly all arguments, including the debates on these forums.

Reading other people’s minds is a technology I am seriously looking forward to.

it’s pleasant you say this, but yes or no? I’m not being confrontational.

edit: lol… sorry. I didn’t check to see who’s that reply was to. I thought that was your answer to me. My fault.

[Amanojack]

My position is that words are not the fundamental unit of thought. Before I explain why I think that, I’d like to know if anyone actually disagrees, or if I’m misunderstanding the “thoughts=words” position.

[Wade]

@AJ

Since I was 10 years old, I have been thinking on this topic more or less non-stop. It always bothered me that we have to rely on the terribly blunt instrument of words to communicate, when our thoughts can be so much richer and more precise. I also think this accounts for nearly all arguments, including the debates on these forums.

Reading other people’s minds is a technology I am seriously looking forward to.

Hey AJ, you made me just realize what may be a fault in my reasoning.

Even if we were able to “read other’s minds” is this not something different from being able to experience their consciousness. In other words, if their thoughts become something objective, is there still not something there that is subjective experience?

But lets toy with this idea and say we could experience their consciousness through some kind of bizarre technology where we “become” them, would it be possible to have 2 conscious experiences at the same time? If we “become” them, can we still “be” ourselves too. Or would we then still be from the perspective of 1 consciousness?

[wilderness]

@AJ

My position is that words are not the fundamental unit of thought.

I wasn’t asking what is fundamental.

@AJ

Before I explain why I think that, I’d like to know if anyone actually disagrees, or if I’m misunderstanding the “thoughts=words” position.

I’m asking if you think that whatever you experience can be put into words. I don’t think me saying I agree or disagree would be valid because I don’t know what you are saying thus the question. I don’t know if disagree or agree needs to even come up that seems to be an altogether different topic of discussion.

[Lilburne]

@wilderness

Aristotle’s deductions are most definitely used in the natural law tradition.

Aristotelean logic is used in a great many traditions. That doesn’t make for some kind of special association between “intellect” and each tradition.

@wilderness

My initial point was that natural has had a particular meaning (amongst many) that means: “to the way we actually think” to quote you - in other words - ‘natural refers to the intellect’ to quote me from various posts in this recent trend of a discussion.

There is also a way of conceiving aesthetics that is natural to the way we actually react to art. So then you could just as well say that “natural” refers to aesthetics. In the same way “natural” could refer to love, fear, humor, digestion…

Philosophy isn’t a game of free association.

[Amanojack]

Wade,

I said “reading other people’s minds” but I should have said “direct mind-to-mind communication,” by which I simply mean much more detailed communication than is now available. I take for granted that it will probably never be perfect, so I’m not really meaning to get into the subjective/objective debate.

For instance, I have heard there are now technologies that allow people to imagine a shape and it will appear (fuzzy and distorted, but often recognizable) on a computer screen. If this technology advances smoothly, it may soon be possible to make a video display of whatever you’re visually imagining in real time. I imagine flying around in a mountainous landscape, and you can see it as I’m imagining it. Maybe I can also imagine music, and it will flow out of speakers wired to my brain almost exactly as I’m imagining it. With some practice, perhaps I could create on-the-fly video presentations of concepts I wish to explain. I could of course combine these modes of communication with words to further clarify the meaning.

Of course then, for example, the feeling you get when you see the video of the landscape and hear the music will be different than the feeling they give me. You wouldn’t yet be able to experience my consciousness exactly as I experience it, but we would probably understand each other a lot better.

So what I mean here is not yet “reading another’s mind” (although I realize that is more relevant to the preceding discussion), but simply having better tools for communication - better tools than words. We already have this to a degree. A filmmaker can make his vision into a film; a musician can compose and play, or even play his feelings at this very moment if he is good at improvization. But this is usually a prohibitively cumbersome process for, say, debate.

[Wade]

@Wade

@AJ

Since I was 10 years old, I have been thinking on this topic more or less non-stop. It always bothered me that we have to rely on the terribly blunt instrument of words to communicate, when our thoughts can be so much richer and more precise. I also think this accounts for nearly all arguments, including the debates on these forums.

Reading other people’s minds is a technology I am seriously looking forward to.

Hey AJ, you made me just realize what may be a fault in my reasoning.

Even if we were able to “read other’s minds” is this not something different from being able to experience their consciousness. In other words, if their thoughts become something objective, is there still not something there that is subjective experience?

But lets toy with this idea and say we could experience their consciousness through some kind of bizarre technology where we “become” them, would it be possible to have 2 conscious experiences at the same time? If we “become” them, can we still “be” ourselves too. Or would we then still be from the perspective of 1 consciousness?

The reason I am bringing this up is because even if we were able to “become” someone else temporarily through some kind of breakthrough technology, this would not necessarily invalidate Methodological Individualism, the method or Praxeology. In other words, the theory does not care which consciousness is being addressed, it is just a formal method from the perspective of 1 consciousness.