Also, by anti-rationalist, do you mean anti-Rationalist, as in anti-philosophical rationalism, the position that paces the intellect and Reason over the senses and the empirical as a (or perhaps in its extreme form, the) source of knowledge, or do you mean simply anti-reason. If it’s the latter, then see the second sentence in my previous comment. If it’s the former, then eh. Nietzsche was an empiricst, even a naturalist (particularly in his later works), and not an enemy of reason, though he felt it too should be the subject of critique (his major criticism of Kant was that his critique of reason didn’t go far enough: it stopped just when it was on the point of actually accomplishing something). He was, however, certainly an enemy of Rationalism. I’ve always been under the impression that Rand had significant Rationalist tendencies, but wasn’t full-blown Rationalist ala Leibniz. I could be wrong, though.
Ha. I'm not sure Bob would disagree with that, which saddens me in a way. People like Bob who've been so steeped in the southern mythology of that war and its southern actors that they've lost any ability to recognize facts, do sadden me, I suppose because I saw it happen to so many of my friends, and that mythology is so... morally damaging.
Riiiiiiight. The south seceding, firing on federal troops, siezing federal land and supplies, etc., had nothing to do with it. It was all Lincoln's fault, because he did what?
Add Jefferson Davis in there, of course. And I'd say that Lee and Davis were much greater traitors than Arnold, since, you know, they actually committed treason that resulted in 600,000 dead Americans.
No, not universally. Lee was particularly harsh with his slaves. What's more, much of what we know of Lee personally is a post-war myth (e.g., he was distinctly anti-abolition, pro-secession, etc., despite more than a century of claims that he didn't want Virginia to secede and was at least sympathetic to the anti-slavery cause, but simply couldn't abandon Virginia). His personal papers, which only became available relatively recently, paint a quite different picture from the "universally" recognized one of the last century and a half.
Grant was a better strategist than any general in the South. Lee may have been a brilliant tactician, though Grant was probably his match, but Lee couldn't hold a candle to Grant strategically. This is why the South lost Gettysburg, for example, though the tactical mistakes, such as letting the Union troops take the high ground, were pretty glaring on the Confederate side as well. Longstreet was a great tactician, as was Forrest. I think the only high ranking Confederate general who had both strategic and tactical abilities that matched Grant's and Sherman's was Jackson (I can guarantee you that Jackson would have taken Cemetary Hill without hesitation; without Jackson, Lee looked near ordinary).
Plus, the South had Hood, who pretty much cancels out the rest ;).
Also, aside from Hitler's military ineptitude, there's nothing ideological about the defeat of the Nazis. They lost because they were fighting on two fronts against nations with more resources, both natural and human, and their philosophy of war production was outdated. It's nice to have the best tools -- the best machine gun, the best tank, the best artillery, the best assault rifle -- but you have to be able to produce enough of them, and be able to repair them easily and quickly, for them to be effective, even when you have the best trained troops.
One wonders, if it were an ideological failure that caused them to lose the war, why they did so strikingly well early on. And lest you suggest that this was before the U.S. entered the war, recall that for much of the time that the U.S. was in the war, 70-80% of the German army was thousands of miles to the East of any American troops, and the Germans never lost an even fight to the Americans. They lost that war because they ran out of men, and gas, and tanks, and planes, and because they made several strategic blunders (particularly in the East) that were more costly than the strategic blunders of the Allies (e.g., Market Garden), because they had a significantly smaller margin for error.
Hahahahaha... OK, sorry Tom, I just find people this predictable to be amusing. Congrats, BSK, you've brought Tom to his "I win!" moment.
Seriously though, Tom, that you see these things so clearly us-against-them situations (and often, in your case, us against the world) says a whole hell of a lot. Not quite so much as the fact that you think well-to-do white Christian males are the victims in our our political environment, but still a whole hell of a lot.
Because a very small number of communists have voted Democrat at some point in history, "commie-dem" isn't off base? By that reasoning, I'm certain that "fascist-repub" and even "nazi-repub" aren't off base. And I say this as someone who wishes there were real socialists among the Democrats.
Haha... at some point, this really just looks like post hoc rationalization. Yeah, the Republicans are increasing the deficit, but spending cuts, therefore smaller government, and the Republicans are the ones who really care about deficits! And while Republicans have been very clear about not raising taxes, even on the rich (when 80% of the country wants the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy to end, and there's no fiscal reason to keep them), secretly they're the ones who will raise taxes, because, you know, nth dimensional chess and all that.
I wish I could take any of this seriously, but it really just looks like... well, it doesn't look like anything serious.
But in the vast group that comprises the entire party rank and file I’ve no doubt one can find some and if you include historically it’s a near certainty.
That's wonderful. So you can't think of any Democrats who are or were communists, but you're certain that in the past and how the Democratic party, particularly in its left wing, contained many a communist. Got ya.
Can you name some communists in the Democratic party? I'll settle for one, though two or three would be best. And Bernie Sanders, who's not a communist, and not a Democrat, won't do.
Tom, yeah, that reminds me of the old Positive Liberty days. Backed yourself into a corner, decide that instead of trying to get out, you'll just tell the world you've won, and leave. If this weren't the case you could, for example, point to one place where I've misunderstood you. Since I've kept to your actual words, that won't be an easy task.
And by the way, I didn't say anything to imply you're endorsing fideism. You're doing nothing of the sort, as you're not even pretending faith, just choice. You'd make a good Sartrean. But it's true, I was participating in bad faith. I just wanted to get you to the "I win" moment, because it's amusing. I was a bit bored today.
If you wanted a real discussion, from me or from pretty much anyone here (you'll notice you don't get them from anyone but Ivolgin and Voegelin), you'd have to start arguing rather than throwing up flares.
I didn't take the football away. I let you take it away from yourself. When you start from the position that your view is better because it's firmly grounded in metaphysical certainty, and end up at the view that, eh, I just chose to go with this metaphysics because it works out better than other things we've tried, it's not I who's taken anything away from you or your position. You did it all yourself. Well done.
Tom, it's not my position, it's just a position. And you've now back tracked so far that you've chosen your values by fiat, or at best, pragmatically (which, by the way, is my starting point). It was fun to watch you shuffle, though. I always suspect that behind every moral absolutist is a moral pragmatist. I wonder how Bob sees this move you've taken.
Interesting. You stipulate that the DoI writers were just taking those things to be self-evident, even if they aren't, but then suggest that we need a ground. Since I offered nature as a ground, and your reply is that those things aren't self-evident in nature, why don't we just take them to be?
“All men are created equal” or “rights” or “inherent dignity”—none of these things are self-evident in nature. Therefore [see above].
I took the implication to be that self-evidency was important, or at least that they are self-evident in Natural Law (or in light of God, or whatever). If that's not the case, then why on earth would it matter whether they're self-evident in nature?
Tom, you wrote: By contrast, the principles of the French Revolution and other disastrous modern schemes like communism were indeed composed a priori.
That’s factually incorrect, but I recognize that you were just throwing a jab at things you don’t really understand or care to, so it can be dismissed as a bit of a joke. Funny stuff, too, sort of like me suggesting that Aquinas was an Epicurean.
However, you’ve also a.) Implied that principles of Natural Law are self-evident, and b.) stated quite clearly that they were not “derived a priori.” However, in order for them to be self-evident, they must, in fact, be “derived a priori.” They need not be analytic, and in fact you’ve implied in other comments that they are in fact synthetic, but they are still a priori. Otherwise, they do not contain the evidence of their truth. Put differently, anything that is not derived a priori, but derived a posteriori, requires something else (some relation, say) to demonstrate its truth. So, you have to make a choice: either your principles are self-evident, which, given your only real criticism of non-theistic grounds, is clearly a major reason for adopting Natural Law views of morality for you, or your principles are not self-evident, and not “derived a priori.”
I’ll be honest, I don’t read General Ivolgin, so I’m not quite sure why he brought up their a priori nature (and for Aquinas, though he didn’t use the terminology because it would have been a strange anachronism in his time, they were certainly a priori for him; he’s quite clear about where the first principles of Natural Law come from), but this is not a trivial issue. If they are in fact derived a priori from first principles then, while we might quibble about their self-evidency (the principles are self-evident for Thomists, but the secondary principles generally aren’t), in order to criticize the principles themselves, we have to either call into question the first principles, or call into question the reasoning from those first principles to the secondary principles of Natural Law, which are the ones we have to live by. If, on the other hand, they are not “derived a priori,” that is, if they don’t come before experience, but are instead derived empirically, then criticisms of the secondary principles of natural law need not have anything to say about the first principles (including God), but can simply point out that their empirical basis is flawed. So you can’t have it both ways, and you have to be really clear about which way you want to have it: self-evident and a priori or empirical. Otherwise, there’s no discussion anyone can have with you on the subject.
Tom, well, no and no. A priori derived a posteriori is not a priori, and therefore not self-evident. And communism, at least of the Marxist variety, is distinctively empirical, even if wrong. I am starting to wonder if you know what these words mean, much less the ideas to which you're applying them.
I have played with these for hours upon hours (I'm having flashbacks right now; I think I might have a little bit of PTSD), and I can say with certainty that: a.) 95% of the differece between any two tops in a given battle is a result of the launcher, and b.) with the same launchers, it's mostly about weight: the heavier tops will win about 80% of the time.
Beyblades? They're spinning tops. They've been around for thousands of years, and somehow toy makers have convinced us to buy them for $8 a pop because they have relatively crude (mostly mythology or astrology-related) decals on top.
Granted, I say this as someone who has forked out far too much money for these things. But seriously, they're tops! That run into each other.
On “His Master’s Voice”
Where can I find her explanation?
Also, by anti-rationalist, do you mean anti-Rationalist, as in anti-philosophical rationalism, the position that paces the intellect and Reason over the senses and the empirical as a (or perhaps in its extreme form, the) source of knowledge, or do you mean simply anti-reason. If it’s the latter, then see the second sentence in my previous comment. If it’s the former, then eh. Nietzsche was an empiricst, even a naturalist (particularly in his later works), and not an enemy of reason, though he felt it too should be the subject of critique (his major criticism of Kant was that his critique of reason didn’t go far enough: it stopped just when it was on the point of actually accomplishing something). He was, however, certainly an enemy of Rationalism. I’ve always been under the impression that Rand had significant Rationalist tendencies, but wasn’t full-blown Rationalist ala Leibniz. I could be wrong, though.
On “Foote’s Civil War, Volume II: Tragedy and Just Causes”
Glad you didn't answer the question.
"
Ha. I'm not sure Bob would disagree with that, which saddens me in a way. People like Bob who've been so steeped in the southern mythology of that war and its southern actors that they've lost any ability to recognize facts, do sadden me, I suppose because I saw it happen to so many of my friends, and that mythology is so... morally damaging.
On “His Master’s Voice”
Rand may have liked Nietzsche. I see no evidence that Rand understood Nietzsche. Just wanted to throw that out there.
Oh, and it seems strange that Rand, or any Objectivists, would consider Nietzsche, staunch anti-capitalist that he was, an ally in any way.
On “Foote’s Civil War, Volume II: Tragedy and Just Causes”
Riiiiiiight. The south seceding, firing on federal troops, siezing federal land and supplies, etc., had nothing to do with it. It was all Lincoln's fault, because he did what?
"
Add Jefferson Davis in there, of course. And I'd say that Lee and Davis were much greater traitors than Arnold, since, you know, they actually committed treason that resulted in 600,000 dead Americans.
"
No, not universally. Lee was particularly harsh with his slaves. What's more, much of what we know of Lee personally is a post-war myth (e.g., he was distinctly anti-abolition, pro-secession, etc., despite more than a century of claims that he didn't want Virginia to secede and was at least sympathetic to the anti-slavery cause, but simply couldn't abandon Virginia). His personal papers, which only became available relatively recently, paint a quite different picture from the "universally" recognized one of the last century and a half.
"
Well, they did make allies with Ukranians, at the local level. I don't know much about the Polish occupation outside of the major cities.
"
Grant was a better strategist than any general in the South. Lee may have been a brilliant tactician, though Grant was probably his match, but Lee couldn't hold a candle to Grant strategically. This is why the South lost Gettysburg, for example, though the tactical mistakes, such as letting the Union troops take the high ground, were pretty glaring on the Confederate side as well. Longstreet was a great tactician, as was Forrest. I think the only high ranking Confederate general who had both strategic and tactical abilities that matched Grant's and Sherman's was Jackson (I can guarantee you that Jackson would have taken Cemetary Hill without hesitation; without Jackson, Lee looked near ordinary).
Plus, the South had Hood, who pretty much cancels out the rest ;).
Also, aside from Hitler's military ineptitude, there's nothing ideological about the defeat of the Nazis. They lost because they were fighting on two fronts against nations with more resources, both natural and human, and their philosophy of war production was outdated. It's nice to have the best tools -- the best machine gun, the best tank, the best artillery, the best assault rifle -- but you have to be able to produce enough of them, and be able to repair them easily and quickly, for them to be effective, even when you have the best trained troops.
One wonders, if it were an ideological failure that caused them to lose the war, why they did so strikingly well early on. And lest you suggest that this was before the U.S. entered the war, recall that for much of the time that the U.S. was in the war, 70-80% of the German army was thousands of miles to the East of any American troops, and the Germans never lost an even fight to the Americans. They lost that war because they ran out of men, and gas, and tanks, and planes, and because they made several strategic blunders (particularly in the East) that were more costly than the strategic blunders of the Allies (e.g., Market Garden), because they had a significantly smaller margin for error.
On “Muslims and PR: A response to comments”
Hahahahaha... OK, sorry Tom, I just find people this predictable to be amusing. Congrats, BSK, you've brought Tom to his "I win!" moment.
Seriously though, Tom, that you see these things so clearly us-against-them situations (and often, in your case, us against the world) says a whole hell of a lot. Not quite so much as the fact that you think well-to-do white Christian males are the victims in our our political environment, but still a whole hell of a lot.
On “Are Liberals Nihilistically Tolerant?”
Because a very small number of communists have voted Democrat at some point in history, "commie-dem" isn't off base? By that reasoning, I'm certain that "fascist-repub" and even "nazi-repub" aren't off base. And I say this as someone who wishes there were real socialists among the Democrats.
On “The Czar of Benton Harbor”
Yay! Now if only the conservatives, and not just libertarians like Jason, would read this. It might clear up some misconceptions.
On “Are Liberals Nihilistically Tolerant?”
Haha... at some point, this really just looks like post hoc rationalization. Yeah, the Republicans are increasing the deficit, but spending cuts, therefore smaller government, and the Republicans are the ones who really care about deficits! And while Republicans have been very clear about not raising taxes, even on the rich (when 80% of the country wants the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy to end, and there's no fiscal reason to keep them), secretly they're the ones who will raise taxes, because, you know, nth dimensional chess and all that.
I wish I could take any of this seriously, but it really just looks like... well, it doesn't look like anything serious.
"
But in the vast group that comprises the entire party rank and file I’ve no doubt one can find some and if you include historically it’s a near certainty.
That's wonderful. So you can't think of any Democrats who are or were communists, but you're certain that in the past and how the Democratic party, particularly in its left wing, contained many a communist. Got ya.
"
Can you name some communists in the Democratic party? I'll settle for one, though two or three would be best. And Bernie Sanders, who's not a communist, and not a Democrat, won't do.
On “Weekend Jukebox and Open Thread”
Tom, yeah, that reminds me of the old Positive Liberty days. Backed yourself into a corner, decide that instead of trying to get out, you'll just tell the world you've won, and leave. If this weren't the case you could, for example, point to one place where I've misunderstood you. Since I've kept to your actual words, that won't be an easy task.
And by the way, I didn't say anything to imply you're endorsing fideism. You're doing nothing of the sort, as you're not even pretending faith, just choice. You'd make a good Sartrean. But it's true, I was participating in bad faith. I just wanted to get you to the "I win" moment, because it's amusing. I was a bit bored today.
If you wanted a real discussion, from me or from pretty much anyone here (you'll notice you don't get them from anyone but Ivolgin and Voegelin), you'd have to start arguing rather than throwing up flares.
"
I didn't take the football away. I let you take it away from yourself. When you start from the position that your view is better because it's firmly grounded in metaphysical certainty, and end up at the view that, eh, I just chose to go with this metaphysics because it works out better than other things we've tried, it's not I who's taken anything away from you or your position. You did it all yourself. Well done.
"
Tom, it's not my position, it's just a position. And you've now back tracked so far that you've chosen your values by fiat, or at best, pragmatically (which, by the way, is my starting point). It was fun to watch you shuffle, though. I always suspect that behind every moral absolutist is a moral pragmatist. I wonder how Bob sees this move you've taken.
"
Interesting. You stipulate that the DoI writers were just taking those things to be self-evident, even if they aren't, but then suggest that we need a ground. Since I offered nature as a ground, and your reply is that those things aren't self-evident in nature, why don't we just take them to be?
"
Tom, you wrote:
“All men are created equal” or “rights” or “inherent dignity”—none of these things are self-evident in nature. Therefore [see above].
I took the implication to be that self-evidency was important, or at least that they are self-evident in Natural Law (or in light of God, or whatever). If that's not the case, then why on earth would it matter whether they're self-evident in nature?
"
Tom, you wrote:
By contrast, the principles of the French Revolution and other disastrous modern schemes like communism were indeed composed a priori.
That’s factually incorrect, but I recognize that you were just throwing a jab at things you don’t really understand or care to, so it can be dismissed as a bit of a joke. Funny stuff, too, sort of like me suggesting that Aquinas was an Epicurean.
However, you’ve also a.) Implied that principles of Natural Law are self-evident, and b.) stated quite clearly that they were not “derived a priori.” However, in order for them to be self-evident, they must, in fact, be “derived a priori.” They need not be analytic, and in fact you’ve implied in other comments that they are in fact synthetic, but they are still a priori. Otherwise, they do not contain the evidence of their truth. Put differently, anything that is not derived a priori, but derived a posteriori, requires something else (some relation, say) to demonstrate its truth. So, you have to make a choice: either your principles are self-evident, which, given your only real criticism of non-theistic grounds, is clearly a major reason for adopting Natural Law views of morality for you, or your principles are not self-evident, and not “derived a priori.”
I’ll be honest, I don’t read General Ivolgin, so I’m not quite sure why he brought up their a priori nature (and for Aquinas, though he didn’t use the terminology because it would have been a strange anachronism in his time, they were certainly a priori for him; he’s quite clear about where the first principles of Natural Law come from), but this is not a trivial issue. If they are in fact derived a priori from first principles then, while we might quibble about their self-evidency (the principles are self-evident for Thomists, but the secondary principles generally aren’t), in order to criticize the principles themselves, we have to either call into question the first principles, or call into question the reasoning from those first principles to the secondary principles of Natural Law, which are the ones we have to live by. If, on the other hand, they are not “derived a priori,” that is, if they don’t come before experience, but are instead derived empirically, then criticisms of the secondary principles of natural law need not have anything to say about the first principles (including God), but can simply point out that their empirical basis is flawed. So you can’t have it both ways, and you have to be really clear about which way you want to have it: self-evident and a priori or empirical. Otherwise, there’s no discussion anyone can have with you on the subject.
"
Tom, well, no and no. A priori derived a posteriori is not a priori, and therefore not self-evident. And communism, at least of the Marxist variety, is distinctively empirical, even if wrong. I am starting to wonder if you know what these words mean, much less the ideas to which you're applying them.
On “Societal Constructs Often Result In Sub-Optimal Leisure Options”
I have played with these for hours upon hours (I'm having flashbacks right now; I think I might have a little bit of PTSD), and I can say with certainty that: a.) 95% of the differece between any two tops in a given battle is a result of the launcher, and b.) with the same launchers, it's mostly about weight: the heavier tops will win about 80% of the time.
"
Beyblades? They're spinning tops. They've been around for thousands of years, and somehow toy makers have convinced us to buy them for $8 a pop because they have relatively crude (mostly mythology or astrology-related) decals on top.
Granted, I say this as someone who has forked out far too much money for these things. But seriously, they're tops! That run into each other.
On “Weekend Jukebox and Open Thread”
Bob was in his youth back then, so he'd know. ;)
I kid because I love, Bob, because I love.
Anyway, things were probably pretty rosy prior to that if you were a white, male land owner who wasn't in debt. Otherwise, not so much.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.