How so?
What he said. Two parties unsure of the absolute logical conclusion, discuss until some new logical conclusion is determined, which may or may not be a perfect conclusion.
“How so?”
You are throwing around the requirements for perfect knowledge and logic… as if you have any (or even could have any) knowledge about said things or what they would require.
“In a market exchange two people are simultaneously and respectively judges and therefore in some cases resort to intersubjective logic. Not polylogicism. Intersubjectivity doesn’t need to work outside of a basic framework of universal logic.”
Are you sure that has anything to do with logic and isn’t just people’s opinions about value(s)?
I am merely stating my deductions in regards to epistemology. I am unable to say one way or the other if they are objectively true. If you have an alternate theory, or a method for countering my deduction, I would be delighted to read it.
I would say that this is a false dichotomy, as individuals’ opinions determine what they view as “logical” and “illogical”.
“I am merely stating my deductions in regards to epistemology. I am unable to say one way or the other if they are objectively true.”
In regards to what epistomolgy? This is akin to my saying “you cannot know god” then deducing what color hat he wears.
“I would say that this is a false dichotomy, as individuals’ opinions determine what they view as “logical” and “illogical”.”
So its not their opinions, its their opinions about logic, which means its only their opinions after all.
(Also, a False Dichotomy, is a situation where two options are presented as the only two - If today is not Sunday, it must be Monday - this however was a simple question about the appropriateness of use of the term logic.)
Why not accept that Rothbard’s theory is an untenable joke?
Interpreting logic empirically requires intersubjective discussion/negotiation, almost always, in order to reproduce the same logic over and over that can apply to multiple circumstances … but not necessarily all circumstances. A paradox can occur where a particular thread of logic is, in light of a rational value judgement, just utterly stupid. Look at the results of Hegelianism. Opinions on logic.
But the outcomes of building logic through intersubjective exchanges can also be good, look at Aristotlean logic and the Austrian tradition.
I repeat, I’m not proposing that there are multiple forms of logic. I’m merely stating that value judgements cause logic to bounce around within the confines of a general framework, the primitive mind from which all of our higher mental capacity emerges.
Because without the premise of absoluteness it is seems impossible to deduce the desired conclusion: anarchism. Therefore from Locke only some parts are adopted, like homesteading, you only have to add absolute rights then.
I don’t think were on the same page at all, as value judgements don’t cause logic to do anything.
Evaluation sometimes leads to value judgement, and as an expression of an attitude thus can affect logic. See the paradox of the Heap to better understand what I’m implying. This directly affects how we measure proportionality.
That statement doesn’t make any sense: “Evaluation sometimes leads to value judgement [sure], and as an expression of an attitude [fine] thus effects logic. [how?]”
Expressions of attitudes have no bearing on logic just as they have no bearing on mathematics. The paradox of the heap doesn’t really show how attitudes and value judgement effect logic itself.
cognitivist. you might be interested in this
Laurence Goldstein Sorites ( heap) paradox - defence of logic.
Remember the credo: “Central Planning Does Not Work!” The case is the same in ethics, as it is in economics.
I think I may have typed about the same comment around a month ago.
I ask you the same question I asked Jeremiah Dyke: suppose that you’re a judge or jury and two people with no prior relationship ask you to resolve a dispute between them. On what basis do you make a decision?
The reason why this is a concern is because the idea of a “marketplace of human interactions” is so vague that it can be applied to any society, unless we begin with the premise that the marketplace is “free” according to some a priori standard. You claim that such a market is presently absent – why do you say that this is case? After all, any court will recognize that the State’s use of violence against you to make you pay taxes is “legitimate” and “justifiable.” But if we try to excuse this by saying “Oh, that’s just because the legal market isn’t free,” then that immediately begs the question: what is “free”?
Also, any theory about the emergence of a legal order has to be squared with the fact that the State (i.e., monopoly on violence) did not always exist but exists now. Therefore, we know that the absence of a monopoly on violence is not sufficient to prevent the emergence of a monopoly on violence.
I await it eagerly.
Intuition. Nothing more, nothing less.
The notion of an objective form of justice, or some mathematically/ethically perfected proportionality/degree of restitution is a chimera.
Well, you can say a bit more. I would base my decision on what would best satisfy both parties, likely looking to precedent to see how similar conflicts were resolved in the past. I may also resort to my own moral code (which may place heavy emphasis on strict property rights), which I assume the parties respect since they sought my counsel.
But yeah, what liberty student said.
Remember the credo: “Central Planning Does Not Work!” The case is the same in ethics, as it is in economics.
I think I may have typed about the same comment around a month ago.
It annoys me how, in matters of justice, libertarians and other liberals are always attempting to view a procedural and customary problem as a moral problem to be solved by floating concepts.