Autolykos
“I really hope you don’t expect me to ever shrink down and back away from you on this, Kropotkinbeard - because I won’t. Now then…”
Impressive. I wouldn’t expect any less.
kropotkinbeard:
Nope [I don’t think being annoyed is a problem for me].
“So you enjoy being annoyed? It brings you satisfaction?”
Not at all. It’s simply not my problem.
kropotkinbeard:
It might be if the source of the annoyance was myself and I couldn’t seem to be able to do anything about it.
“The source of the annoyance is always yourself. No one and nothing makes you feel a certain way but you.”
Actually, no, were the fellow not hitting the wrong note over and over i.e.the source of the annoyance, then there would be none. Fixing his problem might alleviate the annoyance it is causing though.
kropotkinbeard:
When someone else has a problem [sic], that’s precisely what it is i.e.their problem [sic]. These could overlap in various way, but not really in anything mentioned thus far. If a guy is hitting a wrong note [sic] in the orchestra, and he can’t fix it [sic], he has the problem [sic], regardless of the fact that his note makes others cringe [sic]. Basically, it’s the same cringe response an actual libertarian/anarchist/communist [sic] has when hearing one referring to themselves as “anarcho”-capitalist [sic].
“His note doesn’t make others cringe. They make themselves cringe.”
You are getting desparate now. You are going to try and argue that when he hits the wrong note that they decide to cringe? Not in any way, shape or form. Just as a knife being stuck into one’s ribs causes him to cringe, the wrong note causes the people to cringe. And in neither case did the recipient of the pain ‘cause’ anything at all, nor even choose for that matter. Are you sure that “shrinking down” isn’t an option for you?
“And I couldn’t care less just how much you make yourself cringe when you hear someone like me refer to himself as an “anarcho-capitalist””
I’m sure you couldn’t, nor would I expect you to. This is irrelevant and is your problem which you’ll have to deal with. That the fellow mistakenly uses a term is his problem, not mine. All I can do is point it out to him and then he, like an adult, will have to decide whether he wishes to keep making the same mistake over and over, and live with ll the embarrassment and humiliation that this will cause, or learn something and move forward. I can’t make anyone play the correct note. They have to do it. And it’s their problem until they do.
“I, for one, will continue to call myself by that term as much and for as long as I want. In other words, I couldn’t care less about your feelings on this issue.”
Haha. How manly. You are starting to sound like the whining libertarians who flock to Stefan Molyneux’s comedy site on youtube. “I can do what I want! You can’t make me! Coercion! Coercion! Taxes are theft! Voting is aggression!” and all the rest of the childish nonsense. If you couldn’t care less, then why do you keep returning? Just drop it and go back to doing something else. You care or you wouldn’t be here. Also, you are projecting again. Also, are you going to actually claim to be an “anarcho”-capitalist yourself?
kropotkinbeard:
I have no problem.
“Then apparently you enjoy being annoyed. I don’t believe you here.”
I don’t have to “enjoy being annoyed” in order not to have a problem with it. This is you. You’re projecting again. The fellow hits the wrong note, he hits the wrong note. I cringe because of ‘his mistake’, which is his problem. Were he to simply learn to hit the correct note, and, yes, there really is a correct note, then not only will he have grown and erased his mistake, he would have spared me the non-voluntary reaction of annoyance when hearing him make his mistake. It’s a win-win.
kropotkinbeard:
I’ll let you know when it’s a problem for me.
“As far as I’m concerned, you already have.”
Yeah, and this is your problem. You need to examine your “concern” a little better.
kropotkinbeard:
His mistakes are his problem.
“Once again, I wasn’t referring to his actions per se. I was referring to your annoyance with them.”
My annoyance is irrelevant.
“As far as his actions go, if he wants to act differently (in this context, more consistently with certain standards/expectations), then I agree that that’s his problem.”
Great! Then you have finally agreed to what I’ve been saying since the beginning. See? Advances can be made due to the non-relativity of language.
kropotkinbeard:
But of course if I can help him repair his problem this would be a benefit mostly for him, and secondarily me, though this isn’t really the important thing. I mean, assuming the ‘virtue of selflessness’ is properly in tact. And as I’m the conductor of the orchestra, yes, I don’t expect his problem to bring down the quality of the overall sound of the orchestra. Therefore, as a mechanic doesn’t get angry at an engine which isn’t working well, especially if it’s someone else’s car, and does not have any problem at all (the car owner does), he simply goes about trying to help the owner with his problem.
“Well this seems to contradict what you were saying earlier, which seemed to be that you’re annoyed when one or more of your students keep acting contrary to your expectations.”
No, this contradicts nothing I’ve said earlier. And I have few expectations of students other than they try, and this trying entails trying not to make the same mistakes over and over, which is their problem, not mine. If I get annoyed it has nothing to do with being a problem.
kropotkinbeard:
No, I would say that the students preventable mistake i.e.problem, made me annoyed, though it probably wouldn’t even reach this point for a while.
“My point was that you appeared to believe that your annoyance is actually caused by external phenomena, and you just confirmed this for me. Thanks. However, your annoyance actually comes from within.”
If I’m sitting in a room listening to a given tune, and all the notes are correctly hit, then there is no annoyance which arises because nothing has triggered it. If someone hits a note they shouldn’t have i.e.made a mistake i.e.their problem, then I may become annoyed precisely for their having hit the note. No externally triggered wrong note hitting my eardrum, no reaction of annoyance. One does NOT choose to become annoyed. “Oh, listen to that dog barking next door. I think I’ll become annoyed.” But if this is the way you respond I’d most definitely be interested in hearing more about it.
kropotkinbeard:
And if he kept making the same mistake for 5 more years, and I cringed every time he hit the wrong note [sic], it would still have nothing whatsoever to being a problem for me. He has a problem, similar to those whom mistakenly think of themselves as libertarians [sic], and yet believe that capitalism is not only acceptable, but a good thing. It is NOT my problem that they’re making a mistake [sic]. Now, I can easily think up scenarios in which this could be the case. Just nothing being discussed here so far demands this.
“So you enjoy cringing, then? Once again, I don’t believe you.”
That’s because you’re claiming that I’m doing something I’m not. You are projecting what you would do onto me. I don’t enjoy cringing at all. Actually, it’s not really and enjoyment type of response. It’s simply a reaction to hearing someone having made a mistake in one part of the song. And when someone sticks a knife into my ribs, and I cringe, I don’t enjoy doing it. It just happens as a matter of the external paid which was introduced. I don’t choose to cringe in either situation. But you do? A knife goes into your ribs and your first response is “Wait! Should I cringe because of that horrible pain in my side, or should I laugh, or start singing. Hmmm…Well, it’s up to me. And because I’m a “libertarian” I am free to choose. No one can “coerce” me to do anything! So, I think I’ll sing.” I mean, to bring your position to its obvious logical conclusion.
kropotkinbeard:
That’s fine. There are many people with different points of view. Some folks believe the world is flat, which is a different point of view. They’re wrong. Period. I mean, unless evidence to support thier [point] of view has emerged recently which would lead me to believe otherwise. I’m open for the evidence though.
“I think you’re making a category error here in comparing subjective phenomena, like definitions, to objective phenomena, like Earth’s shape.”
It’s possible. And, yes, I’m aware of categorical errors and the charges of making them.
"In other words, you’re comparing apples to oranges. Let me ask you this: how can one perceive the meaning of a word wrongly?"
There is an object which is small and furry, four legs, purrs, etc…It has been given the label “cat”. A person sees the word “cat”, and when it enters their mind a vision of what others would refer to as an elephant appears. The word “cat” has a meaning. He has perceived it incorrectly. Similarly, a person hears the word “libertarian”, an image of pro-capitalism pops into his head, well, he’s perceived the word wrongly.
kropotkinbeard:
Yes, I know. As I said, this is, or may be, a problem for you. Alcoholics often don’t believe they have drinking problems either.
“I see this as an egregiously clear example of you trying to force your subjective opinions on me.”
Then you see incorrectly This would be wour problem. But just to allow you the opportunity, what “subjective opinion” do you think you see which I’m trying to force upon you? I mean, I know that propertarians often have this paranoia of “force” and “coercion” everywhere they look, but I’ll assume, for now anyway, that you’re not one of them. So, again, I have no idea what you’re talking about with this assertion. If you’re referring to my statements regarding the fact that a libertarian/anarchist cannot be a capitalist, well, this has nothing to do with either my “opinion” or “subjectivity”. This is simply a fact. You can accept the fact, or you can deny it. Up to you.
“Do you really expect to plant a seed of doubt in my head by insinuating that I’m just in denial about what you’re talking about? I suggest you guess again.”
Firstly, you’ll have to be a little more specific about what you’re talking about here. I didn’t insinuate that you were in denial about what I was talking about. I insinuated that you didn’t understand what I was talking about, which is something quite different. If you are referring to the notion of what a libertarian is, then, you are either in denial, or you’re simply misinformed. In denial would probably entail that you at least knew on some level that you were bing less than honest. Being misinformed is simply not knowing something. You’re going to have to be clearer about what you’re referring to here. The musician? The phony libertarians?
kropotkinbeard:
Well, why on earth would you think I or anyone else couldn’t?
“Because you’re not me.”
If you’re going to parse, copy and paste, it would help to have the entire context, or at least enough of it to know what you’re referring to. I have no idea what this refers to, and I don’t wish to look back to find out.
kropotkinbeard:
If I, as a therapist and addiction specilist, know for a fact that a person drinks 3 liters of whiskey every day, and obviously has a drinking problem [sic], and yet they don’t believe they do, you don’t think it’s possible that I might know better than them?
“No. I think it’s entirely up to him to decide whether he has a drinking problem.”
Then, sir, you know nothing about psychology, which is common among propertarians, and the right in general. If he’s in denial, he doesn’t realize he has the problem. That’s what the term denial means. He doesn’t “decide” anything as he’s too impared to decide. He will die unless someone steps in a decides for him, which is the humane thing to do whenever one sees another committing suicide. And while I appreciate your attempts at trying really hard to force some vague notion of “individualism” which doesn’t exist, it does lead to some rather silly conclusions.
kropotkinbeard:
I don’t mean to suggest that you’re an alcoholic. Just as an example. Maybe. Also, would it really be my problem for simply recognizing that the person was an alcoholic, regardless if his drunken behavior was obnoxious and annoying from time to time. Not really a problem for me at all.
“Being addicted to alcohol doesn’t necessarily constitute a problem.”
Uhh…Okay. Whatever. Want to talk about fishing?
“It certainly doesn’t constitute a problem in any objective sense.”
No, only other than it can kill someone. But since death is probably subjective I guess this isn’t a problem.
“But no, recognizing that he’s addicted to alcohol doesn’t necessarily constitute a problem for you, and I never asserted otherwise.”
Of course it doesn’t constitute a problem for me. And, yes, you did assert otherwise, though using a different scenario. But just to potentially contradict myself, the effects of his alcoholism could become a problem for me in the sense that if it causes him to become violent, steals, etc…it might be a problem for me.
kropotkinbeard:
A guy running out of a building screaming “Apple! Apple!” is anyone else’s problem? Really?
“That’s not what I said, is it? No. I said, “But if a person is annoyed by him screaming ‘Apple! Apple!’, that’s that person’s problem (as I see it) [emphasis added].” Are you deliberately overlooking that?”
I deliberately did nothing, so quit trying to find fault where there is none. It’s childish. And you’re still incorrect. Their becoming annoyed isn’t their problem. Has nothing to do with a problem.
kropotkinbeard:
Yes, that’s what I said. And that his finger just can’t sem to hit that note is his problem.
“No, you didn’t say that. You said (and I quote), “It’s an objective fact that a certain note was to be played at a certain point in time and according to the music written on the paper [emphasis added].” That is, you asserted that the music itself, as written on the paper, imputed a certain expectation, if not a certain obligation, to the violinist.”
It would really behoove you to quite trying to play philosopher. It’s not working. I asserted nothing of the sort. Music doesn’t imput expectations, nor have I even hinted at such, nor would I. It’s quite simple. There exists a note on the paper. The note means something. It means put your fingers on the correct places in order to get the correct sound to emerge. If the viloinist does not do this, he has hit the wrong note, which is his problem. The music has no expectations. The people who know what it’s supposed to sound like do. The music is irrelevant, just as the sounds coming out of your mouth are, unless they’ve been designated certain meanings. Then, they mean something. This is what meaning means. This is why you can understand, maybe, what you’re reading right now. You know, that obvious and trivial fact I keep repeating and you keep ignoring? I mean, after your “language is relative” statement, well, the hole can only become deeper.
kropotkinbeard:
That’s all I said. There was an objective way of reading the music. He either ignored it, or he simply can’t do it. Both are probelms for him.
“No, there’s no objective way of reading the music.”
Great! Just many little subjective ways. That’s fine. There is no objective way at the level of 2+2=4, but this has nothing to do with the real world, so it doesn’t really matter. I’m talking about the real world.
“There may be a conventional way of reading it, but that’s not the same as an objective way of reading it.”
They both support my position.
“I think I was a bit careless in what I wrote earlier. Let me amend it like so: if you’re defining the term “playing correctly” as “playing the notes according to the convention you follow”, then no, the violinist did not play correctly. There, I think that’s much more accurate.”
Yes, I would agree with that.
kropotkinbeard:
If they’re using written sheet music which demands a certain discipline and skill in hitting the correct notes, then, yes, they are bound to that.
“So conventions exist outside of the mind? They necessarily exert physical forces on people? In that case, how was the violinist able to play the notes “incorrectly” at all?”
No, I wouldn’t say that conventions necessarily exist outside the mind because it takes people to even be able to refer or see something as a convention. That being said, if a tree falls in the forest it does make a sound whether or not anyone is there to hear it. There is only such thing as an “incorrect note” if it has been agreed upon that a certain tune has certain notes played in certain places. A note is simply a sound, just as are the utterances which emerge from peoples mouths. The sounds themselves mean nothing until people decide that they do. If he is just hitting random notes, then he is not making a mistake. In fact, he can call it progressive jazz or soething if he wishes. Certain types of music lend themselves to NOT follwing conventional rules. In fact, I have made such music for years. I have also played “conventional” music.
kropotkinbeard:
If they wish to just make up a bunch of atonal noises and demand that this is their freedom, then, yes, they can do that, too. It would still be their problem [sic], and they would not be playing correctly [sic]. You’re getting back to your relativist position.
“Of course I am. I’ve never abandoned it.”
Okay, just wanting to make sure. Funny thing is that I find myself arguing relativist positions much of the time, especially against those who seem to think they have ‘the truth’ i.e.Plato, etc…I’m aware of the various shades between, but I do have a tendency to cringe whenever I hear someone positing something which sounds absolute. I mean, everything but what I’m saying now. haha
kropotkinbeard:
There IS an agreed upon set of notations on the sheet music.
“Agreed upon by who, exactly? Necessarily anyone and everyone? And must there be only one such convention?”
Good question. AGreed upon usually by the folks who took the time to start writing down the sounds on paper. Then when folks agreed upon reading the notes that way it become conventional. Then there are composers like Harry Partch who rejected this standardized form as too limiting. He made his own instruments, wrote his own music, and had to teach musicians to read the music and play the instruments. Personally, I think this is great. However, I do distinguish between this (music) and definitions of words. As I mentioned earlier, one can just make up their own language if they wish, but it will not really perform any function unless others learn it. It therefore seems pointless. Music is different. I’ll get into that if you wish, but it may open another bag of worms. And, no, with music I’d say there shouldn’t be such convention. Some folks in the music industry might disagree with me as they profit off precisely encouraging convention, but I’m not too fond of this.
kropotkinbeard:
And you ARE going to have to hit those notes if you’re going to be playing correctly [sic]. What you are NOT allowed to do [sic] is to hit whatever notes you want, and then try and claim that these notes are subjectively correct for me, and that it’s the other folks problem of they don’t accept my position. This is utter nonsense.
“Apparently people are allowed to do that.”
No, you are not allowed to do that at all if we are speaking of, say, calssical music. You’ll be kicked out of the orchestra. In other types of music is it not only acceptable, it is encouraged.
“I mean, when was the last time you heard of anyone employing coercion (physical force or the threat thereof) against a violinist because he played a “wrong” note?”
(Here we go with the “coercion” nonsense…) The last time was probably when the last violinist to hit a wrong note, repeatedly, was booted from the orchestra, though this has nothing to do with “coercion”. He freely joined the band. He freely stays there. He freely follows the agreed upon rules, or he freely gets booted. This generalizes to civil society as well. You know, democracy, which entails freedom?
“Otherwise, what do you mean by “allowed” above?”
If the conductor doesn’t care if he hits whatever wrong notes he wishes, then he has been allowed to do it. Just as if a person in a free and democratic society decides to allow its citizens to drive 30 mph or 300 mph through the neighborhoods.
“Simply voicing your protest doesn’t exert any necessary physical force on another person.”
Never said it did, nor would I. That being said, voicing a protest cn most definitely be considered force in other ways e.g.psychological, etc…
kropotkinbeard:
Yeah, that definition is incorrect. There is ONE defintion.
“Can you prove it?”
Yeah. Sort of like I can prove that Noam Chomsky has never said an “anti-American” word in any of his writings. You simply look and see that they’re not there. WIth the notes (if this is still what you’re talking about) there is one correct definition. If that little black spot on that line means C# then that’s what it is. If you ask 3 million people and they all say that is C#, then that’s what it is.
kropotkinbeard:
There are notes on a score, and they must be hit correctly [sic] if the [score] is to sound as the conductor wishes for it to. Folks have every right to become annoyed when someone’s problem [sic] [keeps] recurring, especially if they see no reason why they should repair it [sic]. Persisting on playing the wrong note over and over doesn’t make one a radical. It makes them incompetent [sic]. Again, they need help [sic]. [Emphasis added.]
“If you’re defining “playing music correctly” as “playing in a way that satisfies the conductor’s wishes”, that’s fine.”
The conductor and anyone else who expects to hear certain notes in certain places.
“But that in no way means that everyone has no choice but to share the conductor’s wishes in that regard.”
Never even hinted that it did. There could be some people for some reason who liked the wrong notes. There are probably some people who think it would be cool for the orchestra to hit all the notes incorrectly. They could kick back and wallow in the chaos. I probably have some friends who might do this. And I’ve even been accused of doing it from time to time, though I don’ consider King Crimson as chaos, regardless that there are parts of their tunes which are supposed to be something similar.
“The presumption that most people nevertheless do is irrelevant.”
Yes. This doesn’t conflict with anything I’ve said.
“Furthermore, I think people are free to become annoyed at any time”
Of course. Given that they have little or no control over it it would probably be okay for them to do it. Sort of like people are free to be happy at anytime. Why the introduction of “freedom”, as if I’ve even hinted at anything which was against it? I haven’t uttered a single sentence or ideas which even hinted at anything resembling not being a proponent of freedom.
“…but that in no way obviates my view that their annoyance is their problem. As I see it, whether something’s a problem has nothing to do with whether it’s justified.”
They do have to deal with the annoyance somehow. Perhaps you can give me a thought experiment to express this position. I’m not exactly sure how you are meaning something here.
kropotkinbeard:
Actually, I don’t believe most people usually decide to be or not to be annoyed, though with thorough meditation some annoyances can probably be reduced. I don’t know what the theird sentence is referring to. I’ve already said that the folks who mistakenly refer to themselves as “anarcho”-capitalists [sic] are probably not being dishonest because they aren’t really aware that they’re making the mistake. Were [they] fully aware [sic], and then just chose to use the term incorrectly [sic], well, that’s a different problem they have which needs to be worked on [sic], and it does have to do with dishonesty [sic].
“Do you think (most) people decide what expectations to have at any given point in time?”
Of course I do. If I go to a concert by a band that I think are great then I expect to hear the band play great. They may or may not live up to my expectations, but not to have expectations would be rather odd. In other situations not having an expectation would be perfectly normal. If I go into a job interview, and it seems to go rather well, though I know that 5,000 other folks have applied for the same position, well, I’d probably not expect too much as the probability is not exactl great. Depends on situation.
“My third sentence was referring to your sleight-of-hand in apparently defining “incorrectness” as “failing to satisfy one or more other people’s expectations”, on the one hand, and then apparently equating that with “dishonesty” (defined as “acting contrary to the truth”), on the other. This is where I think you and those like you are trying to have your semantic cake and eat it too.”
I wasn’t aware that I used a “slight-of-hand”. This sounds almost like I was trying to dishonestly pull something off. I can assure you that this has not been the case. If I did it, it was unconsciously, and I will need to examine this. Perhaps you can help. You’ll have to try this one again. I’m not sure what you’re referring to. Please clarify.
kropotkinbeard:
Of course they don’t have to. Again, they can choose to be wrong [sic]. And, again, this is a mistake they should fix [sic], unless they like making mistakes [sic]. They don’t have to define “cat” the way I do either. And if they call the thing with wheels on it over there “cat”, which they’re free to do, then they’re simply wrong [sic].
“Some people might enjoy acting contrary to one or more other people’s expectations - what you call “making mistakes”.”
Yes, I’m aware that there are people like this. Calling “cats” cars just to be contrary, might get them off in some sort of childish way. And, again, you must not have understood what I’ve written. Consciously choosing to be contrarian and making a mistake aren’t the same. So, your chagre here is incorrect.
“Or they may just not care, because they just don’t care about those other people’s expectations.”
Perhaps. Then they’re probably pathological. Many phony libertarians would fall into this category. Perhaps too much reading of Rand caused the disorder. I mean, if there was one person walking around spewing their vile ignorance it was it was probably her.
“But apparently that’s not good enough for you.”
Haha…Someone consciously acting like a third grader isn’t good enough for me? Again, their acting like a third grader is not my problem, it’s their’s.
“You apparently think that people are somehow harming you when they act contrary to your expectations”
Wrong again. This is your “libertarian” paranoia and fear that everything out there is trying to “get you”, “coerce you”, and “steal your money”. I’m more of a realist.
“and this apparently gives you the right to force them to satisfy your expectations.”
How many times are you going to say “force”. I haven’t even hinted at “force” anything. But then again I’m more of a democratically-minded thinker and force is rarely used.
“The implication of this is that you believe that you’re more important than they are.”
You’re projecting again. And their having a problem and making mistakes, especially if they do so repeatedly, well, speaks for itself. If a rational person sees what’s taking place they can decide for themselves if consciously calling a “cat” a “car” makes me “more important” than they are. Doesn’t have much to do with “importance” at all that I can tell. SImply has to do with one person being rational and another one not. Also, these statements are reeking a little bit of a common feature of much of right-wing blog babble, and that is that they start making similar chrages when cornered. Be careful. After all, we “lefties” are out to get you!
kropotkinbeard:
Of course one or more people expected this. In fact, everyone familiar with the song expected him to play the note on the paper. And were he to hit the wrong note [sic], then that his problem [sic], and he should [sic] do his best the next time to fix it [sic].
"You’re presuming that everyone familiar with the song expected him to play the note on the paper. That doesn’t make it necessarily true. Just saying.
Yes, you’re correct. I am. And, no, it may not make it necesarily true. There could possibly be some other deviant contrarian out there hoping that he wouldn’t hit the correct note. Many sick people in the world. I’m also presuming that everyone there thought he would have a head, but that doesn’t make it true either. Just an educated hunch I guess.
“Furthermore, what are you or anyone else going to do if he doesn’t “fix his problem” the next time?”
Well, if he doesn’t I will probably just not go see him any more. The conductor may kick him out of the orchestra. He may then be required to sell himself into wage slavery so that he can get enough money to buy some Mises’ books and de-intellectualize himself. I don’t know. Something.
kropotkinbeard:
Well, actually, if people know the song, they know the notes which are to be played [sic] at what time, they know which notes are correct [sic] and which ones aren’t, then, yes, there is a correctness to their expectation [sic] because they know what the correct note is [sic] and they expect it to be played. If they expect he may hit the wrong note [sic] because he looks nervous and this is his first performance, and he hits it, then they were correct [sic], and the only way for them to be correct [sic] is to be able to compare the correct note [sic] with the one they actually knew [sic] he was supposed to hit.
“If you define “correctness” as “satisfying one or more other people’s expectations”, which is how you’re apparently defining it in this context, then saying that someone’s expectation is correct is the same as saying that his expectation satisfies one or more other people’s expectations.”
Perhaps.
“But that seems to contradict your argument above. You seem to be giving the expectations of one group of people more weight than those of another group of people, and then presenting that subjective judgement as though it were a universal truth.”
No, in THAT situation, where there IS a score of music which is written a particular way, and which the musicians are to be playing as it is written, there would naturally be expectations which will either be satisfied by the people playing the correct notes or not. Which other group?
“Can you prove that the expectations of thehen itroup are inherently weightier than those of the other group?”
I’m not sure “other group” you are talking about now.
kropotkinbeard:
Okay, then we should say that he subjectively expected that the fellow would hit the objectively correct [sic] note which he didn’t. Either way, it’s the guy who hit the wrong notes problem [sic], unless, he just doesn’t care or something.
“But if (once again) you’re defining “correct” as “satisfying one or more other people’s expectations””
No, there IS a correct and incorrect note to hit. Period. He hits it or he doesn’t. If he doesn’t, he’s made a mistake. This in one thing. Doesn’t matter if anyone else is there to hear it. If a note plays in the forest, and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound? Answer: Of course.
“then what you’re really saying is that he subjectively expected that the fellow would hit the note that would satisfy his subjective expectations.”
If you wish. Or, given that there is A single correct note, which everyone counts on, it could be objective. But just a bunch of little subjectivities in agreement would be fine.
“He’s still not bound to have the expectations that he happens to have”
Which “he” do you keep referring to, the musician or the people in the audience? If he wishes to stay in the orcestra, yes, he is bound to what he’s been assigned to do. If he wishes to demonstrate that he’s free, then the conductor will probably more than happy to assist him in his quest for freedom by booting him out of the concert hall.
“nor does the fact that he has certain expectations obligate anyone else to satisfy them. Hence it’s not anyone else’s problem if they don’t satisfy his expectations.”
I have no idea what you’re talking about now. Try again. Who is “they” and “his”?
kropotkinbeard:
Of course the notes don’t. They’re irrelevant in and of themselves. They’re relevant in the sense that they’ve been [ordered] in a particular way in which a particular composer wants them arranged. Therefore, there ARE correct notes and incorrect notes**[sic]. Same goes with language as I’ve been saying since the beginning. The sound or written word is meaningless unless wedecide** that it means something. So, when we decide to call that thing a “cat”, then the sound means something. If someone then calls it a “car” they’re wrong [sic], and if they wish to communicate even remotely effectively, then they should learn the difference and repair their problem [sic]. And it will most definitely be their problem [sic] if they plan on living in human society with other people.
“Something I forgot to ask before: who exactly do you mean by “we”?”
Haha…This sounds familiar. If you’re referring to the quote above, “we” obviously means people. “..unless ‘we’ decide it means something”, means people. So, the sound of the word ‘cat’ means something, and it’s different that what is meant when one says’car’. People decide all of these things. Same goes with the notion of “rights”, or “natural rights”. There are no such things. People decide what they are and then implement them. Same as words and their meanings. Quite similar, in fact.
“This goes along with my point earlier about conventions not necessarily concerning everyone under the sun. Also, different conventions can exist in different contexts, right? Finally, what exactly do you think separates one “society” from another?”
I haven’t said a word about anything having to be conventional to everyone under the sun. If we’re talking about music or a certain sort, calssical in this case as I thought was obvious, then, yes, there are certain conventions, and if people are going to play the music called classical they’re going to have to abide by the conventions, or they simply won’t be playing classical music. They can call it something else if they wish. No problem. What they can’t do is call what they’re doing country music. I mean, of course they can, but they’re simply wrong, unless the vast majority of folks who use the term in it’s conventional use decide to change it. It’s logically possible, but highly unlikely. Similarly, folks referring to themselves as “anarcho”-capitalists should refrain from calling themselves this as it’s the same as were an orchestra to call what they’re doing country music or rap. The orchestra is NOT playing country or rap, and this is not simply an opinion.
kropotkinbeard:
I’m not sure why we’re going this far off from my initial, simple and trivial assertion that those who refer to themselves as “anarcho”-capitalists are incorrect [sic], as there is no such thing [sic]. They’re hitting the wrong note [sic], and the score has already been written in this case [sic].
“For one thing, who exactly do you think is the conductor of this score? Who exactly do you think is the audience?”
In this case the folks who initially called themselves libertarian anarchists, communists, socialists, and other anti-capitalists. That’s who. Regarding who the audience is, well, there are those libertarian who are well aware that what I’m saying is as uncontroversial as my saying that the furry thing is a cat and not a jeep. That’s enough. Then are those who haven’t a clue as to whom the conductors were e.g.Bakunin, Proudhon, Kropotking, Malatesta, and on and on…mushc less that what they’re playing is not only not classical, which they believe it is, it’s more along the lines of really bad heavy metal. Not only that, it gets worse. As many of these folks are so indoctrinated, it actually borders on religious belief, it’s actually much easier to take anyone off the street whose even moderately open-minded and simply show them the data, and without knowing anything about the suject, could within a very short time confirm that what I’m asserting is correct. I’d be happy just to have a simply “anarcho”-capitalist to read a single book by a real libertarian. I’ve been trying for years and have found none yet. In fact, it’s proetty much like my looking for a Chomsky ciritic who has read a single book. I’ve met less than 5 in 20 years. ANd this includes Horowitz, Kamm, and other illiterate liars.
“For another, aren’t other people free to write their own scores and perform them with their own conductors and for their own audiences?”
Of course people are free to write their own scores, and perform with their own conductors, and if the wish have ther own audiences. Then they could all sit around thinking what they were playing was rap when it was classical. I mean, if that’s where you were going with it.
kropotkinbeard:
Yes, I know. And just as the guy who keeps hitting the wrong note [sic] doesn’t realize he is [sic], this is your problem [sic]. ANd my asserting otherwise doesn’t need to change the fact of what’s happening [sic], just as my asserting the fact that the guy hitting the wrong note doesn’t have to or need to change his problem if he doesn’t wish to [sic]. Now, how did you say humans could communicate if language is relative?
“Let’s try this again. You saying something is my problem won’t make me agree with you that it is my problem.”
Of course it doesn’t have to. You could be an alcoholic in denial, I could correctly call you an alcoholic, and you could disagree until your liver fell on the floor from alcoholism. You don’t “have to agree” with anything I’m saying. You can call the furry thing a ‘car’ until you’re blue in the face, and actually believe it. The fact is, you’ll still be wrong, regardless of what you believe. Your awareness of your being wrong is irrelevant.
“You can continue to believe that it’s my problem all you want, but it’s not going to change anything I think or do, as I consider such a belief to be irrelevant to me.”
Yes, exactly as I said. Most Scientologists and Pentacostal snake-dancer preachers say the same thing. Most alcoholics say the same thing as well. I’ve worked with both. It’s quite common. And you can consider it to be irrelevant to you all you want. It’s still incorrect.
“In other words, I simply don’t care if you believe it’s my problem. Do you understand?”
Uhh…I simply don’t care if you care that I think it’s your problem. It is nothing but. Do you understand?
“What you’re doing is demanding that I acquiesce to your semantics because… apparently because you say so.”
Here goes the phony libertarian paranoia again. You cn believe that a cat is a car all you want. You can believe libertarians are “capitalists” all you want. You would be wrong in both cases, regardless of whether you realize it or not. And, it’s trivially easy to prove. And, if you ask me to prove it, well, be prepared to have to read something. It’s usually at this point where one of several responses happen, the most common being a refusal to look at any material which may threaten their belief system, and the usual and predictable excuses as to why this isn’t necessary. In fact, this is accounts for about 98%. Another common response would be to just disappear. Another common response would be to start attacking in various and tediously juvenile ways. Anyway, it’s up to you. So, just out of curiosity, what anarchist or libertarian works have you read? Oh, and neither Rothbard nor Mises qualify. I said ‘anarchists’ or ‘libertarians’.
“As I keep trying to point out and make clear, I’m under no obligation to do that. That is, I don’t consider myself to be unde thinkersr any such obligation.”
How “independently” admirable of you. You’re under no obligation to not walk in traffic either. Many things you’re not under any obligation to do. You’re not under any obligation to call a cat a cat. You can call them cars. You can even call pro-capitalist propertarians libertarians or anarchists if you so desire. In all cases you’ll simply be wrong.
“I’ve already explained how I said humans could communicate if language is relative. Please check out this post and this post. You seem to be ignoring them for some reason.”
I’ve ignored nothing, nor do I have a reason to.
kropotkinbeard:
I think they know if they have a problem or not. They don’t at all [sic]. The violinist is absolutely responsible for his making his mistake [sic] and hitting the wrong note [sic]. If he can’t hit the correct note [sic], it is no one else’s problem but his [sic]. Here, let’s try this. If I am a therapist, and someone comes to me with a problem, perhaps a problem that they’re not even aware of, it is in no way, shape, or form ‘my problem’. If they annoy me because they keep repeating the same crap over and over, yes, I will have to deal with it somehow, but that’s not a problem unless it begins interfering with the therapy [sic].
“No one performed the violinist’s actions but himself - I completely agree with that.”
Good. At least we have that much settled.
“However, what you’re saying seems to imply that the violinist deserves some kind of penalty simply if he fails to satisfy certain expectations of certain other people.”
You should perhaps quit guessing what believe me to be implying. I say what I mean directly. I don’t need to imply anything. That being said, he may, depending on how often he makes the mistake, and the temperment of the conductor, receive some kind of penalty, as he should. And this is precisely becuse people have pid to come and hear a piece they’re familiar with and like, and they’ve been cheated if they don’t. It’s now, in this sense, their problem, unless the money was no issue. But it is still the problem of the violinist who triggered the reaction due to his problem.
“Is that accurate? If so, what kind of penalty do you think he deserves, and why? If not, what are you actually implying here?”
He may deserve to be booted out of the orchestra. Depends on the conductor.
kropotkinbeard:
And, again, what would I have to be annoyed by? You don’t have to act in accordance with anyone’s expectations. You can call a “cat” a “car” all you want, and tell people who point out that there is a difference that they’re annoyed because you aren’t acting in accordance with their expectations [sic]. And this will still be your problem, not theirs [sic]. But if everything is relative, which, actually it probably is in a deeper sense, but nothing we’ve approached here, then it just wouldn’t matter what sound you used for that furry thing, or anything else [sic].
"I’d really like to know what you mean by “it just wouldn’t matter”.
Well, if you believe language and words to be relative, it just doesn’t matter what noises you make. Any noise can mean anything anyone wants, and this will put an end to most all communication other than perhaps gestures.
“I fail to see how saying that meaning is relative equates to saying that meaning does not and cannot exist in any way whatsoever - which seems to be what you’re implying.”
That’s because you’re a relativist perhaps. Even this statement demonstrates it. If meaning is relative, and there is no shared upon notions of meaning, then you would not be communicating with me right now. Meaning, if it has any meaning itself, cannot possibly be relative. If I say ‘catt’ and you think ‘elephant’, I say ‘car’ and you think 'spoon, I say ‘libertarian’ and you think ‘capitalist’, well, language is simply pointless as a means of communication. This is really odd given that it is precisely language which lies at the base of everything we know, much less being able to talk about it precisely because we know. And that there are many languages is completely irrelvant as well. Actually, that there is a variety supports my position.
“But I think you’re annoyed because I’m not going along with what you’re saying.”
Yeah, I’m aware that this is what you want to think, but you’re simply wrong, again. I’m not annoyed at all. I have no reason to be annoyed.
“I think the phrasing you’re using betrays this annoyance, such as using the word “period” after making a factual claim, as though you won’t allow any questioning of the claim.”
You think wrong. If I say period it’s because there’s nothing to discuss. It’s a closed issue. Just like if you were to want to debate the flatness of the earth and I said it was round, period.
“To that I say, too bad, I’ll question it all I want. You can’t stop me.”
And again your paranoia of someone trying to control you is creeping in. You really need to relax. It almost sounds as if you’ve done thing for the last several years than to listen, watch, and absorb all the babble which Stefan Molyneux is always pouring out. That really would be enough to make a person paranoid. But then again, look at the source. Molyneuw can’t express a sentence without throwing in “coercion” of the evil “state”. “Hey! Where’s my tie?” “The state took it.” “Hey, why is the toilet paper pink?” “The state did it.” It’s actually embarassing, and would be funny were it not so dangerous.
kropotkinbeard:
You seem to be going off into what resembles what phony libertarians often do now, by projecting your own dissatisfaction onto me. I could care less if you act differently. I’m simply pointing out that you’re hitting the wrong note [sic], and it does matter to folks who care about the score [sic], thoug it is your problem, not theirs [sic].
“First off, I’m simply trying to refute the claims you’re making. Just what dissatisfaction do you think I’m projecting onto you, exactly?”
I’ve already said. I don’t make such assertions without saying what they are at the time. What did I say?
“This sounds like the old “I know you are, but what am I?” canard, to be honest.”
Check your hearing.
“Second, just because other people don’t like how I’m using a certain word doesn’t mean I have to care about that.”
I haven’t once said you or anyone else had to care. They can say a cat is a car all they want. They’re simply wrong. If they don’t care, I don’t care, unless, that is, their mistakes actually cause harm, which is highly likely.
“And if I don’t care about it, and I don’t think I have any problem there, then what difference do you expect it to make to me?”
I don’t. Why on earth would you think I did? I’ve only said 5,000 times now that you can think you don’t have a problem by calling a cat a car all you want. A problem is still a problem, regardless of whether you’re aware of it. It helps to be aware of it though. This is why when working with alcoholics and people in denial that the first step is for them to even acknowledge that they have a problem. This alone can take years sometimes. Then, AFTER they realize they have a problem, they can start working to change it. This alone should make it obvious that I epxect nothing from you.
“I think you’re annoyed (if not pissed off now)”
Again, this is probably projection because I’m neither annoyed or pissed off. This is YOU projecting what you are onto me.
“…that your efforts to get me and other anarcho-capitalists to change their semantics have been entirely in vain up to this point.”
LOL…That you’ve even said this proves my point even further. I haven’t once said that you had to change anything. I’ve simply said that if you think you are an “anarcho”-capitalist, you are wrong. Why on earth would that annoy me in the slightest, much less make me “pissed off”? And it has nothing whatsoever to do with “semantics” anymore than my calling a cat a cat instead of car as you prefer has to do wih semantics.
“That’s why I think you’re continuing to respond the way you are, even after I explained to you that your efforts there would in all likelihood not succeed.”
Huh? My efforts? What efforts? You think I’ve come here to try and make you stop incorrectly using words incorrectly? I’ve come here precisely for what is happening at this very moment. I’ve more than satisfied with the data collected thus far. In fact, you can keep giving it to me if you want. You’re helping me far more than you realize. I can’t believe that you actually thought that I was even remotely considering that you might change your position. That’s never been in the deck at all. You’re giving yourself far too much credit for something you think you’ve done, but haven’t.
kropotkinbeard:
Yes, I am anti-authoritarian and I haven’t even hinted in a sentence anything to the contrary [sic]. Pointing out that someone is making a mistake [sic] has nothing whatsoever to do with being an authoritarian. If I tell my son that his math problem of 2+2=5 is incorrect, I hardly think the charge of “authoritarian” would be the appropriate response. And if he did try and use this term, he would simply be [incorrect] about that as well and then I’ve have to teach him the difference be education and “coercion”. If you’re concerned about what authoritarianism is, perhaps you should read a few of the writings of actual libertarians and anarchists [sic]. Mises and Rothbard aren’t even in the ballpark. In fact, they’re cheerleaders for nothing but authoritarianism**[sic]**.
“I’m not even sure what you and other left-anarchists mean by the term “authority” (along with the term “hierarchy”).”
That you’ve admited this demonstrates that you are nothing having to do with anarchism or libertarian. Just call yourself a propertarian if you’ve accidentally been calling yourself a libertarian up to this point. Maybe no one will notice. And believe me, the libertarians and anarchists will be most appreciative. You won’t have to go through this entire thing with all of them over and over.
“I asked you before to provide your definitions for those terms, and you ignored it.”
I have ignored nothing. But that you’re even asking me to provide definitions is already an admission of not knowing. There are any number of a thousand places where you can find out if you want, and if you can break away from church long enough. I’ll give you two just because these are the closest ones at hand, and are quite succinct. Just go to the ‘Anachist Writers’ website and search for, say, ‘150 Years of Libertarian’, ‘Rothbard, We must therefore conclude that we are not anarchists’, and if you really want a a little longer and more in depth one ‘What would an anarchist society look like’. This one is good as it deals with several of Mises’ problems which one is usually not taught in the Church of Mises.
“But it seems clear to me that you’re trying to appear to me to be more powerful than me, with the implication that I’m obligated to acquiesce to those who at least appear to be more powerful than me.”
Again, this is your obession with power, having power, coercion, etc…This is comon among authoritarians. They often see the world around them as being authoritarian. This, again, is a common example of projection, and anyone who has ever studied authoritarian personalities is well aware of this. I’m not fixated on power and the state trying to get me. You are.
“That’s why I accuse you of acting in an authoritarian manner despite calling yourself an anti-authoritarian.”
Yes, ths is just another misperception which supports everything I’ve been saying.
“Also, let me ask you this: if your son told you that he didn’t care whether you thought he was making a mistake, what would you do then?”
Depends on what it was. If it was something which might harm him, then I’d stop him from doing whatever it was, regardless if force was necessary. If it was something harmless I’d encourage him to do it so that he’d learn the hard way. What do you want me to say I would do? Use “violence” and “force” against him? This would also be a projection on your part.
“Would you let him go on his merry way? Or would you start threatening (if not using) force against him unless he acted in conformance with your expectations of him?”
Here we go again. Please, do yourself a favor and flush down the toilet everything you’ve ever heard from Molyneux regarding psychology. He is inept at best in this field. And quit pushing your nonsense theory of force onto me. This is simply textbook projection.
