That’s possibly due to a failure on part of the proponents of libertarian theories to a) realise what their own theories entail and/or b) make that aspect of their theories explicit. Either way, I think Rasmussen and den Uyl do favour something along the lines of panarchism though personally they are minarchists. But they’re not the sort who would say an anarchist society is taboo - they’d just prefer to let it be and keep to their own preferred society. That is the vibe I got from NoL and I think they do state as much somewhere in it, though it’s been to long since I’ve read it to recall where.
True a eudiamonia could possibly deal with things like popularity, likeability etc.
Do you mean to ask if there more important matters then simple preference that guide us towards eudiamonia?
Laughing Man:
No, I’m sorry. I don’t think you’re following me.
Previously, you wrote that your eudiamonia is intellectual advancement, but the eudaimonia of other people whose preferences you don’t know is their “social preference.” This latter definition made it seem as though you were making eudiamonia dependent on “social” in the sense of interpersonal relations; that a necessary component of eudiamonia in your theory is that the individual must be involved in interpersonal social relations, thus “social preference.”
I believe we clarified that the word “social” was not necessary, and that we could re-phrase your original reference to other people’s eudiamonia simply as “their preferences.” In other words, the eudiamonia of other people whose preferences we do not know is based on their preferences (social or otherwise).
(if it helps to clarify, this is something I am in general agreement with)
But I wanted to clarify a point about eudiamonia as you understand it, and I think you will see the reason I’m asking for clarification.
I wrote above:
“If I understand it correctly, “social preferences” are largely identical to “preferences of behavioral actors,” and may include, but do not necessarily include, interpersonal relations. Is that a fair interpretation?”
And you answered:
“True a eudiamonia could possibly deal with things like popularity, likeability etc”
The point I’m trying to clarify is whether eudiamonia must entail a “social” component.
Your answer seems to be: eudaimonia doesn’t have to be “interpersonal relations,” but it may be popularity or likeability, etc..
But these are still social components. They still refer to a social situation, i.e., these things still refer to a social context.
So to me it appears as you may be taking it for granted, but not explicitly saying that eudiamonia must have a social component.
A person can go in a hike by himself and sit on top of a mountain in the sun and warm breeze. A person can move to a far corner of Alaska and live in isolation, receiving only a few visits a year or month from a water plane that delivers essential supplies. A person can stay at home and watch a movie. None of these things is strictly speaking “social” in the sense of involving social interaction or reference to the opinions or thoughts of another person.
But throughout your explanations of eudiamonia you are seeming to default to a description of eudiamonia that contains a social component.
I hope this gives you a better context for the question I’m asking:
In your conception of eudiamonia, is a person’s eudiamonia exclusively based on his preferences? Or are there certain things a person must have as part of his eudiamonia, one of which is a social component?
Another way of asking the same question might be, in your conception of eudiamonia, if a person substitutes some other thing for a social component (such as living alone in the wilderness) based on his own agent-relative preferences, then can that person experience the same “level” of eudiamonia as he would were he to substitute a social component (interpersonal relations, likeability, popularity, etc.) for living alone in the wilderness?
If a person, based on his agent-relative preferences, chooses to constitute his eudiamonia with lots of things, but not social things, is this person just as eudiamon as he would otherwise be if he included social things?
Well who do you get the movies from? Who is the individual in the plane who is giving you supplies? And is hiking to the top of a mountain and sitting there an ultimate end in life?
I think that humans are social creatures, that we desire communication with others. I believe it maybe possible to achieve such a state but highly unlikely to ensue for a long period of time.
Wisdom.
Is it though? The implication here is that ice cream and fame are rivalrous, and that only one can be attained at the expense of another. Thickoids tend to see things as a zero sum game, instead of an ordinal series of preferences which includes ice cream and fame, and only worries about which should be attained first, not which must be rejected for the other.
Thickoids? Preferences can be ice cream and fame, I could enter an ice cream eating contest and gain fame. However, when presented with A or B and it can’t be both then there needs to a be a rational agent that chooses either A at the expense of B or vice versa.
Eudaimonia is based on ones virtues and wisdom. How can the individual diminish them and still be eudaimon?
Yes, I got the rivalry implication. And, as everything else, wisdom is proper to each individual. So is eudaimonia, of course.
Btw, what does it mean?!?
I believe it to be a degatory term for ‘thick libertarians’ which are libertarians who think libertarianism is more then simply the NAP.
OK if eudiamonia is comprised of xyz particulars, such as virtues and wisdom, then simply substitute those particulars for “eudiamonia” in my question.
Thank you. More like for instance what?
In my understanding eudaimonia is reached when you are at your best according to your personal moral and intellectual resources. If you lower your level then you are not in an eudaimonia anymore. Substituting it with what it means does not change my answer lol.
Flourishoids? Flourishers?
I think I understand this. And I have to say, “so what”? Of course where the choice is A/B (actually, there is always a C in positive scenarios) a rational agent acts. That is self. And ones self acts subjectively.
In star wars, C3PO and R2D2 are 'droids. Short for androids. We combine thick libertarians, with 'droids, and we get “thickoids”.
You should tell the teacher. [:P]
Lol.
What do you mean by a thick libertarian?
I don’t think I’m disagreeing with you Marquise. My point is that if I want to commit an immoral act, I can simply lower (or suspend) my eudaimonia for a while, commit the immoral act, and then after committing the immoral act, I can reach back for and attain my eudaimonia again.
It depends on what your moral values are. If honesty (by this I mean being honest with yourself) and coherence are part of it, then I am not sure that you can reach the same level of eudaimonia. I think that it also depends on what immoral act you are going to commit and according to whom this act would be immoral.
Maybe you should give me an example [;)]