Music, books, movies, TV, games, hobbies, food, and potent potables. And forum games! Pour a drink, put on your smoking jacket, light a pipe (of whatever), and settle in.
Warren wrote: ↑17 Aug 2019, 17:36
But if you ain't got anything better, and you don't, whadda we talking about?
We're talking about fundamental flaws in the myths underlying the social institutions that fail in their ostensible functions. It's either naive or intellectually dishonest to reject critiques of those myths and institutions because the critic doesn't have a fully-formed alternative ready to go out of the box, because that's not how anything works.
I want a right to free speech. I want the right to say things you don't like. Natural rights gets me there.
That's reasoning backwards, though. While I also would like a right to free speech, as well as a lot of others, starting with the conclusion you want and accepting arguments because they get you there....that's just not how careful, intellectually honest reasoning is done. My point was the same one made by several others here. Natural rights arguments fail because they can't be justified ontologically while making an entirely ontologial claim. Painful as it may be, it's hard to justify rights arguments on anything other than utilitarian and/or preferential grounds.
ETA: Several thinkers have made solid attempts to fuse utilitarian and quasi-ontological arguments, including Rand. Of them, Narveson's (The Libertarian Idea) strikes me as the closest to convincing.
Number 6 wrote: ↑17 Aug 2019, 19:53
Painful as it may be, it's hard to justify rights arguments on anything other than utilitarian and/or preferential grounds.
It's not that it's painful. It's unsatisfactory. I want my rights though they have no utilitarian value.
Number 6 wrote: ↑17 Aug 2019, 19:53
Painful as it may be, it's hard to justify rights arguments on anything other than utilitarian and/or preferential grounds.
It's not that it's painful. It's unsatisfactory. I want my rights though they have no utilitarian value.
Well, your rights exist either because we* all agree to pretend that they're real, because we believe that a world in which rights are recognized is better than one in which they are not, or because you're able to defend them by force. Of those options, the first two are a lot easier.
*'We' meaning, for lack of a better term, society.
Number 6 wrote: ↑17 Aug 2019, 19:53
Painful as it may be, it's hard to justify rights arguments on anything other than utilitarian and/or preferential grounds.
It's not that it's painful. It's unsatisfactory. I want my rights though they have no utilitarian value.
Well, your rights exist either because we* all agree to pretend that they're real, because we believe that a world in which rights are recognized is better than one in which they are not, or because you're able to defend them by force. Of those options, the first two are a lot easier.
*'We' meaning, for lack of a better term, society.
Uh huh. Well when "society" doesn't like how I'm using my rights, decides "we" would all be better off if I didn't have them, and uses force to prevent me from exercising them, society is wrong.
Number 6 wrote: ↑17 Aug 2019, 19:53
Painful as it may be, it's hard to justify rights arguments on anything other than utilitarian and/or preferential grounds.
It's not that it's painful. It's unsatisfactory. I want my rights though they have no utilitarian value.
Well, your rights exist either because we* all agree to pretend that they're real, because we believe that a world in which rights are recognized is better than one in which they are not, or because you're able to defend them by force. Of those options, the first two are a lot easier.
*'We' meaning, for lack of a better term, society.
Uh huh. Well when "society" doesn't like how I'm using my rights, decides "we" would all be better off if I didn't have them, and uses force to prevent me from exercising them, society is wrong.
And all your shouting about natural rights will only be background noise to them as they drag you to the camp.
Number 6 wrote: ↑17 Aug 2019, 19:53
Painful as it may be, it's hard to justify rights arguments on anything other than utilitarian and/or preferential grounds.
It's not that it's painful. It's unsatisfactory. I want my rights though they have no utilitarian value.
Well, your rights exist either because we* all agree to pretend that they're real, because we believe that a world in which rights are recognized is better than one in which they are not, or because you're able to defend them by force. Of those options, the first two are a lot easier.
*'We' meaning, for lack of a better term, society.
Uh huh. Well when "society" doesn't like how I'm using my rights, decides "we" would all be better off if I didn't have them, and uses force to prevent me from exercising them, society is wrong.
And all your shouting about natural rights will only be background noise to them as they drag you to the camp.
So would any other argument. It's all just noise unless you can shoot them in the face, and they can probably get more guns.
But then, every society more complicated than "I hold the gun on you, and you dig" runs on mythology. As does every ethical system, period.
Ultimately, every ethical system is a lot of work to cover up that people were working backwards to desired end states. We just have generations of true believers afterward who think it's the other way around.
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
Cet animal est très méchant / Quand on l'attaque il se défend.
Number 6 wrote: ↑17 Aug 2019, 19:53
Painful as it may be, it's hard to justify rights arguments on anything other than utilitarian and/or preferential grounds.
It's not that it's painful. It's unsatisfactory. I want my rights though they have no utilitarian value.
Well, your rights exist either because we* all agree to pretend that they're real, because we believe that a world in which rights are recognized is better than one in which they are not, or because you're able to defend them by force. Of those options, the first two are a lot easier.
*'We' meaning, for lack of a better term, society.
Uh huh. Well when "society" doesn't like how I'm using my rights, decides "we" would all be better off if I didn't have them, and uses force to prevent me from exercising them, society is wrong.
And all your shouting about natural rights will only be background noise to them as they drag you to the camp.
So would any other argument. It's all just noise unless you can shoot them in the face, and they can probably get more guns.
But then, every society more complicated than "I hold the gun on you, and you dig" runs on mythology. As does every ethical system, period.
Ultimately, every ethical system is a lot of work to cover up that people were working backwards to desired end states. We just have generations of true believers afterward who think it's the other way around.
Meaning in the human sense is constructed not derived or even discovered. The nature of meaning is facts contextualized and given narrative significance by a set of values - hopefully values with some kind of internal consistency.
Also I’m drunk so ... I kinda don’t remember why I said that. Pretty sure I believe it in sober light., but, hmm...
JasonL wrote: ↑17 Aug 2019, 23:09
Meaning in the human sense is constructed not derived or even discovered. The nature of meaning is facts contextualized and given narrative significance by a set of values - hopefully values with some kind of internal consistency.
Also I’m drunk so ... I kinda don’t remember why I said that. Pretty sure I believe it in sober light., but, hmm...
JasonL wrote: ↑17 Aug 2019, 23:09
Meaning in the human sense is constructed not derived or even discovered. The nature of meaning is facts contextualized and given narrative significance by a set of values - hopefully values with some kind of internal consistency.
Also I’m drunk so ... I kinda don’t remember why I said that. Pretty sure I believe it in sober light., but, hmm...
Just finished Interface by Neal Stephenson and Frederick George. You can tell that Stephenson had a co-author because this story has an ending.
I never thought I would root for martial law, but I totally did.
"saying 'socialism' where normies can hear it is wrapping a bunch of barbed wire around a bat, handing the bat to the GOP, and standing with your head in the strike zone."
--Lunchstealer
I'm wrapping up Ken MacLeod's The Corporation Wars trilogy.
25 light years from Earth around a habitable solar system, mining robots gain sentience and AI-directed 'Dis-Corporates' awaken human mind-states from storage to put down the 'bots in realspace using combat frames and equipment. Human minds train & relax in sims and then up/download to the combat frames as needed. Conflict between the woke 'bots, human mind-state factions, dis-corporate AIs, and Direction AI-agents arise; The Direction being the one-world gov put in place back on earth 1000 years ago after the Acceleration-Reaction war to end all wars. Much transhumanism, but not quite post-singularity setting.
Sci fi, political and economic theory, and culture war crap painted on a little too-think, but I'm quite enjoying it.
I wish Stevo were around to chew the fat on it a bit.
Jasper wrote: ↑18 Sep 2019, 17:05
I'm wrapping up Ken MacLeod's The Corporation Wars trilogy.
25 light years from Earth around a habitable solar system, mining robots gain sentience and AI-directed 'Dis-Corporates' awaken human mind-states from storage to put down the 'bots in realspace using combat frames and equipment. Human minds train & relax in sims and then up/download to the combat frames as needed. Conflict between the woke 'bots, human mind-state factions, dis-corporate AIs, and Direction AI-agents arise; The Direction being the one-world gov put in place back on earth 1000 years ago after the Acceleration-Reaction war to end all wars. Much transhumanism, but not quite post-singularity setting.
Sci fi, political and economic theory, and culture war crap painted on a little too-think, but I'm quite enjoying it.
I wish Stevo were around to chew the fat on it a bit.
I'm just starting "The Cassini Division", having re read the first two MacLeod books in the series for the first time since I was young, I'll probably move to the Corporation Wars after I'm done. If you like alternate political histories, definitely check out the Star Fraction and the Stone Canal!
Jasper wrote: ↑18 Sep 2019, 17:05
I'm wrapping up Ken MacLeod's The Corporation Wars trilogy.
25 light years from Earth around a habitable solar system, mining robots gain sentience and AI-directed 'Dis-Corporates' awaken human mind-states from storage to put down the 'bots in realspace using combat frames and equipment. Human minds train & relax in sims and then up/download to the combat frames as needed. Conflict between the woke 'bots, human mind-state factions, dis-corporate AIs, and Direction AI-agents arise; The Direction being the one-world gov put in place back on earth 1000 years ago after the Acceleration-Reaction war to end all wars. Much transhumanism, but not quite post-singularity setting.
Sci fi, political and economic theory, and culture war crap painted on a little too-think, but I'm quite enjoying it.
I wish Stevo were around to chew the fat on it a bit.
I have that on my kindle, and read a few pages while casting about for my next read. I've enjoyed a lot of his stuff before, but was put off by one simple line in which a person's hand is said to move in response to a stimuli 'faster than reflex.' WTF does that even mean? Petty, I know.
The Golem and the Jinni moves slowly but is trying to do something. It has American Gods themes of immigrants brining with them their myths to the new world and can all the myths and people survive. It has occasional episodes of beautiful writing. It’s worth a read/listen.
I was feeling stressed and clicking around for books that might help, and came across a book called How to Do Nothing: Resisting the Attention Economy by Jenny Odell. "Hmm, this seems like an interesting idea," I thought. Then I read a sample.
blah blah blah.jpg (44 KiB) Viewed 3504 times
Oh my GOD. In the words of Soren Bowie, my arm is not long enough for the jerk-off motion that is in my soul.
Also, internet confession, I have no idea what neoliberal means.
In this case, it means the usual "Stuff that the author doesn't like"
when you wake up as the queen of the n=1 kingdom and mount your steed non sequiturius, do you look out upon all you survey and think “damn, it feels good to be a green idea sleeping furiously?" - dhex
JasonL wrote: ↑23 Sep 2019, 10:10
The Golem and the Jinni moves slowly but is trying to do something. It has American Gods themes of immigrants brining with them their myths to the new world and can all the myths and people survive. It has occasional episodes of beautiful writing. It’s worth a read/listen.
I've had that on my list for a while, but something about it has always made me find other things to read instead. Maybe I'll move it up the list.
Ellie wrote: ↑23 Sep 2019, 11:50Also, internet confession, I have no idea what neoliberal means.
It's a magical curse word that gets used for anyone from people like us to Obama to Europeans who think not completely socializing the economy is a good thing. It gets used by some people who'd be called neoliberal by other people.
You can pretty much replace it with "capitalist" and get the same sentiment.
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
Cet animal est très méchant / Quand on l'attaque il se défend.
Longtime Grylliaders will remember my critiques of Barbara Ehrenreich's Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America, which contained a level of scorn only possible when one has not read the book and never intends to.
I hadn't thought about that in years, but I checked out three books from the library today (recommended by different sources but all variously related to poverty) and EVERY SINGLE ONE had a blurb from Ms. Ehrenreich on the jacket. I feel like when I read these, I will be giving her a point somehow, and she'll totally know that she is getting back at me
