The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, in brief, is the idea that language creates ideas.
The Bitcoin maxis are saying something similar when they insist better money will fix society. The implication is that money *creates* society.
Discussion
in simple terms, it is called “manifesting” 😂
Words and phrases are more important than most people realize. Many of today’s debates come down to the words we use to frame differing positions, often times ceding ground unintentionally. Erroneous translations and definitions were at least a large factor (if not the biggest factor) in the Great Schism!
The language we use to describe reality matters, and it can certainly impact our perception of reality, but the language does not *make* reality, like the postmiderns claim (to varying degrees of emphasis).
The movie Arrival has a good example of the strong version of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. In the movie, aliens show up speaking a language that doesn't have a linear temporal structure. A human scientist learns the language, and finds she can move her awareness to any point in her life. It's a neat idea.
In reality, though, the world "out there" exists unto itself, and our perception does not change the underlying substance.
Likewise with Bitcoin. The maxis will insist that bad money poisons human nature, and that if we simply fix the money, we'll somehow fix people. The truth is, people will remain broken, whatever kind of money we have.
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).
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."
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.
