Nostr Web Client

Totally agreed. While I haven’t really spent time learning or getting familiar with Kant, I don’t know that I want to because of the reality disconnect. I’m much more intrigued by Husserl, Stein, and (I think) JPII’s explorations of phenomenology.

Society is made up of people, not money. Take away the money and there’s still a society. Can’t say the same about the inverse.

Granted, “fix the perverse incentive structure of fiat currencies” is nowhere near as catchy. Time will eventually come to show how broken humans will be able to misuse even bitcoin, to the dismay of many maxis (who may even find themselves being the very people they sought out to oppose in the first place).

MichaelJ 1y ago

Kant at least holds that there is a reality "out there;" he just says we can't know it.

The money and society question also reminds me of Rosseau (whom my wife studied in college as a political philosophy major). Rosseau held that people are born innocent and good and are corrupted by society.

The Bitcoin argument seems much the same: "people are corrupted by fiat money."

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Omekau 1y ago

I see. I guess that’s the cat Descartes let out of the bag with “ego cogito sum”.

Ah Rousseau. That whole anthropology falls apart by simply asking “what about babies?”

Definitely, I like what Juan Donoso Cortes outlines in “Essays on Catholicism, Liberalism, and Socialism” which basically highlights that when the fundamental dogma of original sin is rejected, there’s a logical inconsistency in where evil stems from. If humans are basically good then what’s causing there to be evil in the world? The state is comprised of people so the socialist solution of aggrandizing the state still fails to address the fundamental problem of evil.

Bitcoin does not “solve” our sinful nature.