DearDiary.2006-08-11
Great Ideas: Two Caveats Name: D Stephen Heersink Date Posted: Aug 10, 06 - 9:51 AM Email: dshsfca@intergate.com Website: http://gayspecies.blogspot.com Message: Rarely does a single site offer so much I find compatible. Popper and Darwin are the two most influential individuals in my conceptual scheme, so already the overlap is enormous. If Hayek had appeared, well who knows? I would caution, or at least urge revisit, of two themes. Ayn Rand's selfishness is a misconstrual, indeed a perversion, of Adam Smith's self-interest. Her objectivism is also wildly misplaced. Smith anticipated Darwin in many ways, especially with "empathy" and "reciprocal altruism." While both Smith and Darwin understood the significance of "competition," especially in the Struggle to Survive, survival of the fittest, and as being the best means of allocating scarce resources, cooperation figures prominently too, both as means to a competitive edge, as the basis of all morality, and as a survival strategy. Selfishness, on the other hand, is not the opposite of altruism, but the opposite of moral. It is solipsistic egoism that disregards, if not repudiates, the other. Self-interest, on the other hand, is "blindly" altruistic, not in intent, but in its unexpected, yet desirable, outcome. It is because of this unexpected consequence, in addition to its other salient benefits, that self-interest can be recommended at all. In other words, because it is deeply moral, it is justified. Liberalism, or more specifically, liberal principles are the bedrock of an open pluralistic liberal democracy and liberal society. Popper, Mises, Hayek are liberals, not libertarians. Libertarianism, conversely, is a fanatic liberal dogma on speed and intrinsically destructive, leading to anarchy, chaos, or both -- the antithesis of liberal principles and the destruction of a liberal society. Indeed, libertarianism is as illiberal as Marxism, Fabianism, tyranny, etc. by virtue of its fanatic dogmatism. Whereas liberal principles are the foundation of an open pluralistic liberal democracy, the means to the end, in libertarianism the means are also the ends, their own raison d'etre. This "minor" shift has enormous adverse consequences. While not spiritual, I enjoyed the Tao comments. While very attractive on one level, it is counter to a central Western Idea: The Project Pursuit. While teleology is not a part of the "natural" world, it dominates the human one. Commitments, projects, desires, objectives are motivations for excellence, meaning, and progress. Tao's detachment in order to go with the flow has a certain intuitive appeal, but it cannot be the controlling idea without loss of our selves. Humans are deeply teleological, so much so, Aristotle assumed all of nature had to be too. It was a category mistake, but at least an understandable one. Re: Great Ideas: Two Caveats Name: JimScarver Date Posted: Aug 11, 06 - 5:35 AM Email: JimScarver@gmail.com Instant Messenger: JimScarver Website: http://whitescarver.com/jim
I wish I had time to reply completely. Let me share my immediate thoughts.
Rands Objectivism is [in one way] the worst sort of objectivism, random. While it evolves unconsciously and represents the survival of the fittest, it is far too democratic and orchestrated by special interests. Truth is not a democracy (objective) and neither is it subjective. Synthesism implies to me, a non-random objective philosophy, which is a synthesis of what we can be known. Truth is not absolute, it is a process, of synthesizing the thesis and antithesis. It is obeying a rarely observed discipline of only including the uncontradicted as Truth conditionally until synthesis. Synthesism applies this neoobjectivism by incorporating philosophies which appear to be sound empirically as well as by perhaps uncommon, common sense, to be simply and undeniably true and both supported, and not contradicted by non-controversial history.
Synthesism denies absolute truth but implies the best truth we can get. It ought to be a sort of best practices in truth discovery.
Our statements are context dependent. Synthesism may be like no other particular philosophy in that it promotes no preferred contexts except the verifiable. It is not random or static, it is cumulative.
Re: Great Ideas: Two Caveats Name: JimScarver Date Posted: Aug 11, 06 - 5:30 PM Email: JimScarver@gmail.com Instant Messenger: JimScarver Website: http://wikiworld.com Message:
Liberalism in the Jeffersonian sense is not far from Libertarian. liberals today have become social democrats closer to communists than proponents of personal liberty in a politically correct society dictating a notion of the good life we are becoming enslaved to.
While the Libertarians may seem extreme, it is incorrect in my view to lump them in with anarchists. Enforcing a social contract that cherishes individual rights to the extreme is the heart of liberty and the clearly quite different from anarchy. Libertarian principles do not give you the right to trample on the freedoms of others. It implies a live and let live contract where I will not interfere with your pursuit of happiness if you don't interfere with mine.
I call myself a Internationalist Libertarian since the so called liberalism of the day is so far from serving the individual. I only find the isolationist views of many Libertarians disturbing.
Poppers philosophy of science is most certainly enlightening. However, even he saw the limits of falsification. All scientific theories outside basic quantum matrix mechanics have been falsified. They are known to be incomplete and fail outside their domain of applicability.
I expect many here cringe when I speak of the verifiable. Indeed, each thesis in a world without absolute truth is false is some contexts, and true in others. Falsification does not invalidate a theory, it simply limits the domain of its applicability. Verification on the other hand can determine the domain of applicability, subject to falsification.
Many would apply Popper's idea of falsification further than Popper would. I will not go as far as Popper. While Popper's arguments against classical empirisism are sound, we cannot dismis verification as it is not true that theories are either right or wrong. they are useful in so far as they get the right answers dispite the fact that ultimately they are generally wrong.
Reply to: http://pub44.bravenet.com/forum/3773605535/fetch/767063/
"The question is not whether something HAS been falsified, it is WHETHER it CAN be falsified."
Good point, but the real question, to me, is, "Is truth absolute?" If not, then falsification is a weak test. Popper falsified the tenants of classical empirisism, but left us with an alternative that has limited applicability.
String Theory is now being termed "the String formalization" since they are no agreed upon tests that can falsify it. On the one hand, I think this suggests an important deficiency in String Theory, but it really does not speak to the ultimate utility of the formulation. Personally, I do consider it a theory and believe it will be falsified. I believe all "theories" will ultimately be falsified.
My own scientific views, Objective Information Physics, is dismissed off hand by many for the same reason as it includes a methodolody such that it is only improved by falsification.
The synthesis includes how Popper is right, and how he is wrong. Am I wrong in presuming that synthesism does not include doctrin?
"Historical liberalism is NOT libertarianism in any sense."
I only read the book, and found in it sound Jeffersonian liberal principles. I am not conversant in how these principles have been perverted by radical extremists Libertarian's in practice or how perpavive these extremist views have become in the various Liberatarian political parties around the world. I would join you against extremists of any persuasion. However, if you consider my personal sovereigncy extreme, I would give my life to protect it.
"Libertarianism makes two fatal mistakes. (1) Confusing means for ends, and (2) untenable reductivism."
Individual sovereigncy is an end in itself, which happens to be a means to a better society. I entrust government only with the duty to enable me to fullfil my dreams to the extent it does not impede others from fullfilling their dreams. Goverment is notoriously bad at legislating the common good and should never do so at the expence of the individual in my view. If you are suggesting that personal freedom is subservient to some greater good then I would suggest that perhaps liberalism has sacrificed the ultimate end of allowing individuals to thrive with some perverted notion of the common good.
'No liberal would have endorsed the Libertarian "principle" that one must sign to become a member.'
Again, I don't know the specifics here, I am discussing an ideaology rather than the specifics of one party here. We are not comparing US Liberatarians to US Democrats as either is an easy target.
"Only a very specific sense of "liberty" can be both instrumental and an end. Making "liberty" an end inevitably, even if unintended, leads to anarchy. Even "liberty" can be an "end" only in a restricted sense. Liberals considered it one of numerous instrumental means, never an end in itself."
This is precicely why a very clear and explicite social contract is necessary. Libertarians understand that war may be inevitable for defense of liberty. Anarchy implies anybody can step on my liberty. I do not agree that compromising my liberty is necessary to preserve my liberty except where it restricts the liberty of others. I am applauled by the notion that a philosophy called liberal whould not hold liberty for all as the highest ultimate end. Anything that forses us to compromize our personal liberty must ONLY be to increase the liberty of others if our philosophy is truely liberal. Vague references to higher ideals is the hallmark of the facists and communists.
"Your observation about "liberals" today being illiberal is on target."
I susspect we are largely in aggrement. But if we tolerate illibralism in government, we are abandoning our principles. Liberatarians are steadfast is upholding liberty and that is good. There are other areas where the liberatarians may be off base. The fact is that they have taken the first step in promoting a social contract that places personal liberty where it should be, first.
Does that mean government has to be small? Not necessarily, as long as personal liberty is not sacrificed.
Does that mean government should not take a major role in protecting and furthering the interests of the contry and maximizing future value? Not necessarily, as long as personal liberty is not sacrificed.
Does that mean we should be isolationists? Definately not in my view.
Truth is not absolte in the synthesist view as I see it. Lebertarianism is good, and it is bad. how it is good and bad is is the synthesis. In that sence everything in synthesism is a caveat.
Jefferson's liberalism is far from today's liberalism, and perhaps less restrictive than libertarianism. It is not so much a matter of philosophy, it is a matter of vision and principle. He was not afraid of government action but abhorred what liberalism has become in this country. He did his best to insure it could never happen, but failed. America has become a social democracy. Laws fill buildings and it is only getting worse with few but the Libertarians showing the slightest concern.
Your definition of "selfishness" is useful, but opposed to self interest. Being selfish in that sense is counter to your self interest.
Any salesman will tell you that you must give something away in order to get a sale. We get by giving. It is in our interest to give so that we may get in both simple ways and where it matters. If we should appear selfish, we wont get anything and the getting part is never guaranteed when we give.
Being selfish to me, is my right. My heart is measured by the love I receive. I give love to everybody, well, I try... I deserve to fulfill my dreams. It will never happen unless I act out of my own self interest and be selfish in that sense. Most all those who love me have told me so. I believe they are right. It is in everyones interest that I promote my self interest without compromise, such that I might excel, and we succeed as a whole because our individuals are thriving.
I cannot agree that being selfish is amoral. I have as much right to be a selfish bastard as the dear has the right to live in the forest. That does NOT mean that I am allowed to hurt others actively. Others will be hurt undoubtedly, but it is not the dears fault you got hurt hitting it with your car. You and the dear were each within you rights following self interest no fault. If I take your customers or suck you for free advise and buy elsewhere, or deliver less than you expected, I am still within my rights, though that would not be in my best self interest to do business in that manner.
I practiced the Tao, and realized the Zen. Noniterference with ourselves is Randian selfishness while noninterference with others is the ultimate selflessness.
With the Tao, comes great power, which backfires when exersized. We learn noninterference because of our own ineptness to control our world. We are nurtured by our environment, which will fail us if we screw with it. Nurturment equals self interest. It is the currency of love, growth, and survival.
But noninterference does not mean having no vision and promoting no interest. There is a vision of freedom and prosperity yet to be realized which all those that share ought not deny. noninterference simply means promoting evolution, not revolution, and signing in to a live and let live social contract.
I misinterpreted Rand's Objectivism, it is closer to my own than I had remembered. More is at http://synergism.com
<tasks> [2] move some of this to a Synthesism page, etc. </tasks>.