But there is a distinction between laws that be denied yet not defied, and “laws” that can be both denied and defied.
Removing your eyelids or killing yourself wouldn’t be the ego overcoming the impulses though, it would just be physical destruction. It has lost.
yes but how do you defy that you are in epistemic error when you both deny property rights or act to violate them? you can’t. its immoral to murder innocents; murdering them will not change that. its silly to state that A!=A, stating it doesn’t change that A=A despite what you ‘state’. A will continue to be A… and immoral murder will continue to be immoral murder.
But it would prevent the impulse from being enacted via an act of conscious will. So which is more important?
The impulse for males to spread their DNA as far and wide as possible. A vasectomy defeats that impulse, due to the recipient of the procedure deciding “I no longer want to obey this impulse”.
But of what use is the distinction of external right and wrong if it ultimately has no control of interactions in the real world?
It’s like saying “God exists, but does not influence the world in any way”.
If so, so what?
here’s a practical effect. when you make an epistemic error i can notice it and tell you about it.
this seems to upset you.
Hoppe:
He … asks me in turn “So what? Why should an a
priori proof of the libertarian property theory make any difference?
Why not engage in aggression anyway?” Why indeed?! But then, why
should the proof that 1+1=2 make any difference? One certainly can
still act on the belief that 1+1=3. The obvious answer is “because a
propositional justification exists for doing one thing, but not for
doing another.” But why should we be reasonable, is the next come-
back. Again, the answer is obvious. For one, because it would be
impossible to argue against it; and further, because the proponent
raising this question would already affirm the use of reason in his act
of questioning it. This still might not suffice and everyone knows that
it would not, for even if the libertarian ethic and argumentative rea-
soning must be regarded as ultimately justified, this still does not pre-
clude that people will act on the basis of unjustified beliefs either
because they don’t know, they don’t care, or they prefer not to know.
I fail to see why this should be surprising or make the proof somehow
defective. More than this cannot be done by propositional argument.
But again, Hoppe’s argument is incorrect, because he is comparing apples to oranges with the two laws.
One is of the deniable, not defiable category (math)
The other is of the deniable, and defiable category (objective ethics)
no its not defiable. if you claim that you defy it you perform a contradiction.
Ha!
How?
The ten commandments are the true laws of morality. Simply a meaningless statement of my belief.
You may believe the logical conclusions you or your prophets come to are true for everyone, but any assertion that is both deniable and defiable requires just that, belief, to be of any use.
I’m in contradiction, so what?
so you are wrong. so that. you claim its of no import yet you can’t stop responding to someone that calls you out for your epistemic error.
sort of hurting your own argument arent you?
Well, it was more of a rhetorical claim, but still, you haven’t yet provided a reason for me to care about these external ethics. Without enforcement, they remain essentially meaningless.
I go on these forums to challenge my presuppositions, to see if they are sound against criticism. Not to pointlessly argue my ossified dogma.
The impulse isn’t defeated, it is still just as present as before. The recipient isn’t deciding “I no longer want to obey this impulse” he’s saying “the consequences of this impulse are too great, I’ll just have to severe my genitals.” If he had free will he wouldn’t need physical destruction to overcome his impulses. The vasectomy clearly demonstrates that he doesn’t.
what are you conceding with the word ‘essentially’ ? lol
To Flic:
But to me, it seems the distinction is meaningless. We have the will to alter the consequence of the impulse, to render it impotent, if you will (couldn’t help it)
Nothing.
They are of no value unless you convert me, or coerce me, into following them.
I enjoy recognising your epistemic errors. deal with it.
I also enjoy yours.
How can you deal with the objective when you have no capacity to observe or conceive anything objectively?
Explain.
sure i do. does subjectivism presuppose the concept of subject? the truth of that statement is formal and is an objective truth.
Being able to “cut it off at the knees” still leaves the source, the impulse, intact, your ego, your free will simply is not capable of winning. The distinction between involuntary and voluntary is still present and the fact that you cannot stop breathing without killing yourself (therefore destroying the you, the ego) should show how important the distinction is.
Flic?