i’m with u up until the logical contradictions of anarcy.
there is no logically valid justification for primacy of the individual.
to prove me wrong, show me a person who beget themselves, and i’ll come to ur side.
until then, “the state” is the natural and implicit hierarchy embedded in humanity.
i know that’s not a fun as being an anarcist, but following logical consistency rarely is pleasant.
Anarchy is not about the primacy of the individual. It is about rules without rulers, communities formed voluntarily by people with common values, led by natural elites instead of psychopaths. There is nothing implicit or natural about the state.
“communities formed voluntarily by people”
how did u voluntarily consent to your parents creating you?
we don’t get to just start our philosophical analysis of what it means to be a human being when u are 18.
i undoubtedly agree with every critique you have against the state we have today.
but to say we can abolish “the state” categorically is non-rational. it’s absurd.
the first principles of the state are the same principles of parents.
to think a human beings can exist without “the state” is the exact same as thinking children can exist without parents.
just unpack the entailments and verify
whatever principles or rules u want to govern society, if their scope doesn’t account for the origin or the beginning, then it’s not addresssing reality, it’s just a speculative fantasy. it’s gnostic
Regardless of my opinion on it, you make an interesting point w/ a decent analogy.
I'll reply in more detail tomorrow with my ☕.
the state = imposed non voluntary social relations
that’s its formal essence/definition the analogy conveys rhetorically.
The question of consent for being born is anti-natalist nonsense. Children cannot exercise their self ownership just like someone in a coma can’t. Nothing follows from that, especially any notion that this somehow justifies being ruled by the state.
Analogies for the state as a parent are absurd. And the anarchist claim is not that we can abolish the state, it’s that it is deeply immoral. Just like child abuse is immoral and likely will never be exterminated, as it should be.
if anarchism only cries out about injustices carried out by states, then it’s a political version of Moms Agaist Drunk Driving.
is anarcism the idea that states should act better? or something more?
I accidentally "liked" this note.
I don't actually like it :P
that’s ok, most don’t like objective reality
can keep your fiat metaphysics
there is hope for your. the truth of objective reality brought you to bitcoin, if ur ego will allow it and u follow its logic, we end at the same place
I'm a strict materialist and agree with you about the last point.
i wouldn’t ask you to trust me, but verify for yourself, if you honestly push on materialism a bit, it falls apart.
you will not find a coherent explaination for why why anything exists instead of nothing.
why anything is ordered. categories, distinction, all morality, good/bad, better/worse, syntax, semantics, numbers, all the immaterial phenomena we rely upon and use everyday, have no basis in a materialistic world
in short, rationality and freewill go away
i was a materialist before, so i get its appeal
"why" is an incoherent question. Substitute "how" for your questions above.
"Why" is a human invention, and it's unsurprising that we invented a shoddy concept with some undefined zones. "How/what" are downstream of the laws of nature, and are thus reasonable areas of inquiry.
If you want to ask "why", talk to an artist, fiction writer, priest or politician. But expect opinions, not solutions.
How is it anything exists at all? as opposed to nothing exists?
materialism has no valid answers
it just presupposes its own conclusions
1. Not every question has an answer we can comprehend (see quantum physics). Some answers might be comprehendable but the information we'd need to answer the question is inaccessible (like "what was the population of a given lat/long coordinate in the year 1345?")
2. Why do I need to answer that question in order to answer other questions? Assuming some priors and is always a necessary limitation. If you learn new stuff about those assumptions or find new information that indicates the priors are imperfect (as they likely are) you update a bit.
"The best you can do" is a fundamental aspect of world.
“assuming some priors”
yeah, and and not all assumptions are valid
“if i assumed all of reality was made of cheese” you wouldn’t take it serious.
it’s demonstrabley wrong. it doesn’t have an answer to account for everything not cheese
it’s the same as assuming all of reality is just matter.
I wouldn't take that assumption seriously because it immediate conflicts with all sorts of observations and experiment and doesn't explain any new unexplained phenomena.
Your argument here rests on the same processes that you are trying to say are useless.
How do you explain reliance upon immaterial phenomenon while simultaneously denying them?
Which ones am I relying on?
in the post, u use categorization, syntax, semantics, all outgrowths of order itself
the order that subatomic particles follow: no logicially valid argument for how that came to be materialistcally
materialism can only go as far as random chaos, if u are trying to explain any order beyond that, ur reliant upon the immaterial
to even say “the apple is on the table” relies upon the immaterial.
it’s an objective fact
and it doesn’t fit with materialism
Why do we need to answer "how it came to be?" rather than content ourselves with "how it works?"
What does the former question get you?
the state = imposed non voluntary social relations
that can never be scrubbed out of the human condition, be it a kind family or a tyrannical empire, the matter is accidental, but the form is immutable
That's an empirical question, not a law of nature.
what’s an empirical question? a universal property of human existence?
it’s like saying all human bodies having extension in space is an empirical question.
we could go count every human on earth, and count every human on earth with extension and empirically see if the numbers match.
or use rationality, abstract the universal property and know with 100% certainty that the numbers match.
The "empirical question" is whether or not people can live in a stateless society. You state it as if it's a law of physics and I'm saying it's not.
Furthermore, it's already been done in past and contemporary societies large and small - the claim is empirically already disproved with existence proofs.
as soon as a person in the stateless society has a kid, it is no longer stateless.
they just imposed a non voluntary social relation on another and formally created a state.
here is a why question for you.
why is a big tyrannical state bad?
can we only have “opinion” on that matter? or is there an objective truth there?
Re: tyranny: what do you mean by "bad"? Whose definition are you using? No, I don't believe there is any objective truth wrt individuals' value judgments. There are only norms and agreements between individuals.
Yes, I think creating people is an essentially coercive act. Mostly because of the above: it makes the "consent" question basically irrational and thus difficult to reason about. Did a child consent to being born? What would either answer even _mean_? It's like an undefined zone of ethics, so I don't comment on it. Any comment would be baseless.
That doesn't mean I don't think that continuing the population and improving quality of life, expanding across the whole galaxy, etc. are bad. I prefer those outcomes. But I can still be "no opinion" on the means to those ends.
dont need to argue about any definition of bad, just that you use the category.
your preference of this over that creates the immaterial category.
but since they are no objective truths to ground those preferences, we are back to Thrasymacus and might makes right.
unfortunately feeble grounds to try and fight against the state
you speculate about some fantastical reality where all that exists is matter, and invite me into your gnostic bubble.
it’s just as invalid and stupid as all other gnostic theologies.
u use language, speak to others, attempt to persuade them that your way of thinking is better, should be adopted, all while denying the thing the that makes it all happen
how order came to be is of primary importance because it’s what determines man’s relation to reality.
we find some alien spacecraft, and you want to focus on what color it is, instead of understanding how it came to be.
thx for the mental exercise 🫡
but imma enjoy my saturday
Yes, you do eventually go back to might makes right, unfortunately. all you can do is set norms within trusted communities and attempt to establish extremely competent defenses against outside intrusion that doesn't conform to the norms. Defectors who choose the zero-sum coercive strategy might have an edge in some games, so some of us try to play positive-sum games which reverse that.
I'm not trying to persuade anyone that my way is better. I'm merely saying I'm going to do it, and for anyone who runs the same open protocol as me we'll be doing it together. Feel free to opt-out. that's sort of the whole point...
"How order came to be" is irrelevant. you're describing investigations into how things work, what they do, what they might do, etc. Hopefully you can allow the available-to-you history to contribute to your present analysis as much as possible, but even if the history is totally inaccessible to you, you can still attempt to make sense of the present.
It's very obvious that you're trying to smuggle in a justification for believing in the supernatural. Just say "I want to, even if it might not make sense to you" rather than attempting to force it into the worldview I'm describing. I don't care if you want to believe weird shit.
We're on opposite sides of this: you think it matters (to outcomes) if the weird shit is there, I don't think it matters (to outcomes) if the weird shit is there or even paid any mind to. At the end of the day these are personal preferences and there's nothing to be gained by attempting to shoehorn them into a single frame. They can just be separate.
“They can just be separate”
not if you follow logic
separation leads to impasses, problems which have no answer.
Putnam and Nussbaum were the first secular philosophers to acknowledge how “untenable” the task of keeping form and matter, material and immaterial separated.
reality is hylomorphic, a fusion of both.
if you don’t want to wrestle with that objective fact, then ur just retreating into a hyper reality invented inside your mind.
https://academic.oup.com/book/32491/chapter-abstract/269649237?redirectedFrom=fulltext
I missed your first sentence earlier. Having kids doesn't introduce "The State", it introduces hierarchy (temporarily involuntary, unfortunately).
another benefit of hylomorphism:
you can comprehend the formal principles even if filled with different matter.
a kitten and a tiger are both feline
in the same way a family and a big government are both “states”
it’s just an objective truth
oh you should have told me from the beginning that "it's just an objective truth"! Had I known that then of course I wouldn't have deigned to disagree!
i know these are heavy philosophical weights. it’s ok u can’t lift them now. objective truth doesn’t need me holding it up, it will be there ready for you whenever u come around
fiat needs its gnostics propping it up the same as materialism needs its.
eventually the illusion will break.
And by "illusion will break" you mean "everyone will realize [my] god exists and [my other supernatural beliefs] are true" right?
no, just that objective reality exists. not “my god” but acknowledge something supernatural is in the sauce
the idea of a fucking triangle is “supernatural” form, order, logic itself.
it’s such a low bar.
you can try and wiggle around, straw man the issue, it’s just intellectually lazy and pathetic.
defend being a bitcoiner to yourself.
why do you prefer a volentary open protocol to coercive extraction?
it’s not just some accidental preference like enjoying strawberry ice cream over chocolate.
“why” isn’t stupid and for some things it’s accessible.
if you understand why bitcoin is objectively good, the seeds are already planted even if you deny it.
Bitcoin isn't "objectively good", its just a system **I** prefer. Central bankers, for instance, wouldn't see it the same, right? So do they have the "wrong" preferences?
Do you agree that value is subjective?
it’s both, if u haven’t picked that hylomorphic theme up yet.
yes, those preferences are objectively evil.
if someone tied u up, put a gun to your head and asked for a reason not to kill you, how would u respond?
if ur consistent, u would have to simply say, **I** would prefer if you not kill me, but I understand my preference is completely subjective and isolated from your preferences, so do whatever you prefer
you have no appeal to anything objective, no moral plea
it’s absurd
things can be absurd - it doesn't make them any less true. you ever see a platypus? (lol)
how can something be “absurd” if there is no objective measure? 🤦♂️
i guess being immune to logical contradictions has an “ignorance is bliss” type of upside
You said absurd. which i took to mean it was your subjective evaluation. i think a platypus is absurd.
both of these are opinions, not assessments against an objective measure.
philosophers typically use “absurd” when referring invalid logic
as in, only one with retarded mental faculties could think such a thing follows
Sorry I didn't realize I was dealing with a philosopher and needed to adjust to his special language. like "absurd" and "retarded mental faculties".
are you the type of philosopher who is familiar with ad hominem, or are you the retarded type like me?
...or wait... I forget if I'm not allowed to refer to the concept of categories without being called retarded. yOu TeLl mE PlsEAze
ad hominems don’t have any bearing on the argument, correct.
you didn’t want to wrestle with the argument, just make obtuse red herrings and non secquitars, all under the pretense of being taken serious.
you should be mocked for such behavior. ad hominems are great for that
You claimed that if one cannot have an appeal to an objective moral system, then the idea of negotiating with a captor in a murderous hostage situation is "absurd".
What about persuasion and negotiationis absurd? There are two people with conflicting desires. If they can come to an agreement or compromise, they will. If they can't, and one insists on forcing their desire, and he's more powerful, he'll get it.
I don't think this is an enjoyable fact. I find it unpleasant, it brings me discomfort and unhappiness. Many other people react to it similarly.
Nowhere in that complex do you need to bring "objective moral standards" in for the situation to be "non-absurd".
I dont think it's me who is unwilling to deal with the actual contenr in front of us here. Which is that the introduction of "objective morality" doesn't provide any explanatory power, it just gives those who claim they know the truth leverage in their persuasion tactics. Doesn't make it true
a negotiation, a compromise, is two people with power coming to an agreement that works for both.
if only one side has power, that’s not a negotiation. there is no discussion.
there can be no compromise
your claim would be like saying a person can have a discussion with a rock. that’s not a discussion, and it is absurd to say it is.
This is why I said at the outset that **some** situations do come back to might makes right, unfortunately. Yes, if a person tries to have a discussion with a rock, that's not going to work (for objective reality reasons). It's up to that person to either not engage in fruitless discussions or to spend their time working on rock-discussion projects to attempt to make their otherwise infeasible goals perhaps more feasible.
I dont even really see where we disagree, if anywhere.
materialism either means something or it doesn’t.
that’s the disagreement
if a materialist uses logic, makes appeals to logic, then they are materialists in name only.
they actively behave in a manner contrary to their purported belief
there is an intelligible moral order which comes from the object that is a human being.
slavery isn’t wrong because some don’t prefer it, it’s objectively wrong because it is contrary to the nature of the human object.
okay yea that's where we disagree. I don't think math is incommensurate with materialism.
And I don't think that "the human object" is anything special, "just" a very complex adaptive system.
adapting to what is the question?
whatever it’s adapting to is the tether to objective reality.
it’s not adapting to speculative imagination, or subjective preferences, correct?
can we agree there, or you still have issue?
Yea I totally agree - adapting to its environment. Like all other Darwinian processes.
we finally bridged talking past each other.
if that’s how you need to think about objective morality, you’re already there.
if i understand you correctly, this should be in your language:
human beings are complex adaptive systems adapting according to their environment.
being social creautures, always in relation to others, be it parents friends, know and unknown neighbors, “others” are part of our environment. friend or foe
just like fish adapt fins to better swim through water
humans adapt morals to better navigate social relations.
objective morality is simply one adaptive system adapting to the presence of another adaptive system.
this adaptive process is not driven internally/subjectively within one person, but driven exterallly/objectively by an objective environmental condition: the presence of another complex adaptive system.
it’s not simply having preferences, it aligning your preferences to the environmental conditions, which for humans includes social relation
the philosophical word for this is:
intersubjective
one subjective being interacting with the object of another subjective being
if ur long on might makes right, its counter to that objective order and will lose hard in the end
if ur long truth, ur just aligning your preferences to rhe objective order
and that provides metaphysically grounded ethical defense to why murder,
theft, slavery, etc etc are objectively bad/evil/contrary to nature
and not just accidental preferences
how did i do?
You did very very well.
Just clarify this part for me before I respond. What exactly do you mean by this:
> if ur long on might makes right, its counter to that objective order and will lose hard in the end
here is a stab at it:
if a person prefers to adapt towards a “might makes right” strategy, they might have what appears to be a short term gain but in the long run will cost them everything.
not because they are unlucky, or didn’t execute the strategy properly, but because they are adapting in a manner contrary to the objective organization/structure of inter-related subjects
getting smaller fins and attempting to go against the current, a bad combo.
a live by the sword die by the sword type of thing
i think that’s really why i even engage with you, knowing you get bitcoin at some level, means something objectively true got in
