Trolls

Eva:

re: So does this open the door for fantasy? Of course! This is the dwelling site of Hume's imagination, including god

Parenthetically, Kant's further inquiry into the neumenal world induced  him to write the Third Critique, or "Judgment": Freedom, art ,god, the sublime...all within the domain of the unreal, yet of enormous psychological importance.

But again, what's important is that the phenomenal world includes everything that's real.

Isn't that the same carny trick?    Imagining an untouchable garbage disposal, and then, if that isn't sufficient, wrapping the garbage in Hume's ideas of free will and freedom in general, in order to throw them -all- out while nobody is hopefully looking very closely?

Yes, by definition, God is (barely) imagined or even imaginable; if and when he is by the merely created, that is some sorry God.    The 'sublime?' Sublime is an adjective, and 'the subline' is simply an anonymous actual thing regarded as 'sublime.'     Art is never realized or realizable?   Freedom is either realized or not, just as rape is.   Can one be partially raped?   Then, can one be partially free?   As unappealing as being partially raped, I suppose.     Is either state realizable?  Can they be real?

The Herdists would love to leglift The Herd as the only 'real' sublime entity (as per Durkheim and his definition, finally, of "S"ociety as the One True God. his summary of Religious Formes), and to do so, need to cast the state of Freedom(defined as, ultimately, freedom from each other)as 'illusory' and 'imaginary' but ... who is buying that?   

That alone -- casting 'Freedom' into the garbage disposal -- is enough to indict Kant.

There are two primary forms of association in the world among peer humans; free association and forced association.   There is partially free association only to the extent that there are partial rapes and partial slavery and partial totalitarianism..  as little as possible of all of that in our lives, please, and the first step towards that goal is in realizing what they all have in common: forced association.  That is the only thing that distinguishes an act of love from an act of rape.  That is the only thing that distinguishes '12 years a slave" from '12 years working at my job."  That is the only thing that distinguishes Totalitarianism from Freedom. (There were wingtips, smokestacks, and banks in the USSR, too.)

Freedom is, free association, which is, ulrtimately, freedom from each other, not to be confused with hermitism; people who are free to associate do.

Forced association is none of that.   In that pile is slavery, rape,  national socialism, communism, and other forms of totalitarianism.

Its hard to evluate any philosopher who throws 'Freedom' onto the unreal/imaginary garbage disposal as anything other than a destroyer of Freedom.  

Towards what admirable end?   To declare all the world a free-rape zone?  I choose to advocate for a rape-free zone, and sleep like a baby doing so.

If Kant regarded Freedom as unreal, then Rand got nothing of significance wrong about Kant.

Because rapists want what they want, too.

regards,

Fred

Eva,

All philosophy is situated within contexts of time and place.

Well, all events are situated with contexts of time and place. For example, the creation of a particular philosophy, or the expression of a given piece of philosophy would be seen as events and therefore necessarily imply a time and place. And the philosophy or philosopher might relate to an event, or a place or a time in an explicit way. BUT, much of philosophy is specifically about transcending a particular time and a particular place. What would be a proper definition of 'entity' is a philosophical question that is not locked to any given time or place. The purpose of philosophy is to make generalizations that will have a broad base - sometimes so broad as to move beyond time and place.
---------------------

A good example of this [philosophy situated in contexts of time and place] is Rand's point of reference being the bolshevik uprising in her native country. We still read Rand, justifiably, to the extent that we feel that bolshevik tendencies remain present.

Stalin threw out the term Bolshevic replacing it with 'Communist' and so the phrase 'Bolshevik tendencies' is problematic in your statement. Rand might have pointed at evils in Communism, but it is the evils that remain possible to humans at any point. It wouldn't matter if an example of such an evil occured far in the future and even with a totally different name. She was not focused on the event in Russia but at the timeless conflict between initiated force and free choice. And broader still, with what are the standards by which we determine what is good - what is evil.
-----------------------

'Freedom' as a self-evident given is part of the American legacy, as written in by a slave-owning planter from Virginia. To this end, self-evident 'principles' (ie beliefs) do not, by definition, lend themselves to philosophy.

Self-evident was an unfortunate phrase. I have a hard time imagining that it was held in the mind of Jefferson that way. He had to know that it required reason to grasp the concept of natural rights. I have suspected that his intended meaning was that these rights can not be justifiably denied... or something like that. But it isn't anything I've spent any time researching.

And I distrust any tendency to focus on that phrase. It has an intellectual smell making it the equivalent to a once-removed ad hominem attack on the real substance: natural rights. I.e., like someone was saying, "He made a stupid mistake in saying that natural rights were self-evident, therefore why pay attention to anything else he said."

The same is true with the constant reference to Jefferson as a slave owner. The question to be asked is did his Declaration of Indepence, his political philosophy, his contribution to the freedom brought to the new nation contribute to the emancipation that finally freed the slaves? And if people show a consistent pattern of attacking Jefferson but not his ideas, then what are their ideas?

And about your mention of the possibility that he didn't read many of the books in his library - WTF does that mean? Is it a way of saying that he wasn't a book reader? Obviously false. Was it a way of saying he was actually illiterate? Obviously false. It can only be seen as taking cheap shots at one of those who stood as a giant in a short line people who mark the evolution of political systems from the horrors of tribal brutality, divine rights of the king, absolute rule of the Emperor, of the Sultan, of the Caliph, or the war lord. I haven't adequate skill with words to say what I think of focusing of something like unread books when compared to being a key player in envisioning and fighting for and implementing the first government on the face of the earth based upon individual rights and explicitly making government the servent of the individual.

Eva:

re; 'Freedom' as a self-evident given is part of the American legacy, as written in by a slave-owning planter from Virginia.

A public university is part of the American legacy, as proudly equally co-referenced on the tombstone of a slave-owning planter from Virginia.   (FOUNDER OF UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA.)

Monticello is a revered landmark and example of architecture, built by slaves at the top of a hill overlooking that university.

So among 'Freedom, public universities, and fine architecture', which are reasonable to cast on the shitpile because, finally, at the end of thousands of years of human tribal insanity tolerating forced association/slavery, there were slave holders at the end of that period of shame?  Dare we even cast our eyes on the pyramids of Egypt and speak well of their essence, their longevity, mass, and that accomplishment?

It is with some irony indeed that freedom/free association can be criticised as a concept because those who once uttered the words were slavery/forced association participants.  If that is so self-evidently damning, then freedom itself must be self evident as preferable to forced association.   Exactly.  To me, without hesitation or concern in the least, the condition of freedom is self-evidently preferable to the condition of slavery, rape, forced association.  Sleep like a baby with that as an absolute.   No concerns that I might be wrong about any of that, in the least.   An absolute absolutist in that regards,  modern chiropractic be damned(i.e., that which some must revert to after bending over backwards to twist otherwise.)   Self-evident; not requiring argument in the least.   In fact, a reliable litmus to gauge the insanity of my fellow peers.  Reliable, infallible, without uncertainty.  Known, to me, as a solid fact.

It is analogous, I think, to you and I and everyone in this nation living and uttering what we utter during a time and at a place in which humans still embraced forced association as an accepted political paradigm.   What words and thoughts uttered by any of us, during this dark time in human history, will be cast onto the trash heap of history because we lived during collectivist times, and tolerated pure democracy/the ethics of a gang rape in our thinking and political arguments?

regards,

Fred

Steve,

I’m really not aware of any philosopher who intentionally transcended time and space. All of which I’m familiar began by addressing particular problems, and usually those of living colleagues or teachers. Perhaps, later, a philosopher might acquire timelessness by the simple fact of being read far after his/her death.

The best example, of course, refers to Aristotle answering his teacher, Plato. It’s simply impossible to understand Aristotle without this context.

Even as for Randian epistemology (fundamentally Aristotelian), Kripke and Putnam referred directly back to Russell and Wittgenstein’s alternative ‘Kantian-Humean’, while making supportive reference to Quine.

Even my own fave, Deleuze, has been criticized for ripping Hume, Spinoza, and Kant out of context!

I’m therefore surprised to hear anyone suggest that Rand wasn’t as traumatized by the Bolshevik uprising as everyone else. And yes, it's ‘Bolshevik’, as thats what they called themselves at the time of the events.

The fact is that the Bolshevik takeover did, indeed concretely demonstrate that the threat was real, and could happen anywhere. That Rand saw a slippery slope is much to her credit. Unlike many others, she had the good sense to connect the dots—the first huge ‘dot’ being Lenin.

Okay, now for ‘freedom’….part 2

Jeff’s use of ‘self-evident’ is not ‘unfortunate’. Only a lack of clarity is that, and ‘self-evident isn’t. Rather, ‘self-evident’ is the common transcription of the legal, ‘prima facie’. Self-evident means ‘true on face value’, therefore not needing an explanation.

Of course, it was, indeed, common middlebrow English to speak of ‘natural right’ as meaning ‘self-evident’. Rights held to be ‘self-evident’ are so because they’re ‘natural’.

Well, not.

‘Natural right’ was proposed by Locke in his debate over divine right of kings. But as Berkeley wrote, he lost. In the Aristotelian sense, ‘natural’ means ‘so much in clear evidence that its existence is said to be self-evident. or ‘obvious’.

But what was ‘self-evidently true at that time was the existence of powerful monarchs everywhere. Obviously, said Berkeley god ordained this ‘natural state—otherwise it would not exist!

But, actually, Berkeley was a good guy who sympathized with where Locke, mere amateur, wanted to go. So with lots of his help, Locke re-formulated ‘natural’ to be that of all our common human aspirations. But it no longer meant, ‘self-evident by virtue of  what we can observe of the real world’. In other words, Aristotle was turned on his head.

Hence, we see the schitz between the empirical self-evident and the mental state of natural rights. This is more or less the model, as it were, that Kant, some 70 years later, developed onto the phenomenal and neumenal worlds.

In sum, ‘natural rights’ are a mental frame of reference that overcomes the objectively self-evident. For Spinoza, the mental frame was striving (conatus), for Hume, imagination, and for Kant, the sublime.

All of this, of course, would have been totally confusing to anyone who would write, “Laws of nature and of nature’s God…self-evident truths…endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights….” There is no evidence, anywhere, that Jeff understood The Enlightenment .

Lastly, the fact that Jeff was a slave-owner is not a moral judgment. It was how life in 1770-ish Virginia defined life in terms of social relations, love it or leave it. For example, I believe that he really did love Sally; he was forbidden to marry her by state law.

Rather the ‘WTF’ issue revolves around the myth that he was more than just a genteel slave-owner. So after we realize that Wash would not a have cut down a cherry tree, anyway, and lied as much as anyone else, and was an obsessive social-climber to boot, we still have the notion that some Founding Father must have been an inveterate reader of all things enlightened.

Well, it was probably Franklin, Adams, and Payne, supercharged Rousseauite that he was. All boring new Englanders, who really didn’t think much of saying cuties such as,“The government that governs best, governs least”. (or as Adams would retort,  “What’s ‘least’ about being ‘necessary?)

OTH, Jeff was a poseur who collected wine and books to impress his slightly less-educated fellow landowners. He became a powerful national figure because Virginia was the largest state.

As for your last paragraph, the Dutch Republic came into being 100 years before America. The English king’s power was delimited by consent in 1688. Common Sense, as written on both sides of the lake (Pitt, Payne), indicated that America should become its own formal self-governing political entity because in great part it alwyts was. 

As for the democratic process, there are lots of specific reasons why we can be proud: universal suffrage for free males in 1828, for example, some 40 years ahead of the Brits. In general, we’re contributors to a general evolution towards more freedom—pushing and pulling, as it were, my ancestors the Hungarians and Greeks, along behind.

Jeff is simply given far too much credit, at the ostensible expense of the more worthy.

Eva

Fred,

Per post to Steve,

'Freedom' is not natural in the Aristotelian sence--therefore not 'self-evident'.

Rather, it's 'natural' only in the sense given by Spinoza and Hume, then developed by Kant.

Jeff clearly did not understand this.

You seem to be suggesting that those who comprehend this state of affairs must surely love freedom less than those who don't.

No comment.

Eva

(Edited by Matthews on 1/26, 9:38am)

Eva,

Your understanding of Jefferson and Washington are so badly out of tune with realtity that I have absolutely no interest in continuing to discuss it with you.

I've made my judgments based upon reading what the the founding fathers actually wrote - their words.... not what smears some smarmy, smart-ass far-left professor thinks he can get away with feeding gullible young students who still think it is clever and cool to engage in massive put-downs.

Have you read "Notes on the State of Virginia"?

You can spend as much time as you want making unfounded observations about their psychology or character as you want. When, or if, you want to discuss their ideas... let me know. I enjoy discussing ideas.

I revere those who had the intelligence and fortitude to put the best of the ideas of their time into practice.

I have no respect at all for those whose smirking efforts are but to throw mud on these heros. A culture that not just loses the good sense to honor the best of their heritage, but instead focuses on tearing it down will not retain those good qualities for long.
----------------------------

Jefferson's Education:

Jefferson began school at age 5 and by age 9 he was studying Greek, Latin and French.

He entered college at age 16 where he "...enrolled in the philosophy school and studied mathematics, metaphysics, and philosophy under Professor William Small, who introduced Jefferson to the writings of the British Empiricists, including John Locke, Francis Bacon, and Isaac Newton. He also perfected his French, carried his Greek grammar book wherever he went, practiced the violin, and read Tacitus and Homer. Jefferson displayed an avid curiosity in all fields and, according to the family tradition, frequently studied fifteen hours a day." (from Wikipedia)

He was not just a member, but for 18 years, the president of the American Philosophical Society founded by Benjamin Franklin.
--------------------

Some Jefferson Quotes:

I make it a rule never to read translations where I can read the original. [Discussing the importance of a classical education where the student learns Greek, Latin and French.]
--------

...that to read the Latin and Greek authors in their original is a sublime luxury; and I deem luxury in science to be at least as justifiable as in architecture, painting, gardening, or the other arts.
---------

In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty.
----------

The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
----------

Under the law of nature all men are born free
----------

No people can be both ignorant and free.
----------

Reason and free enquiry are the only effectual agents against error.
----------

The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.
----------

It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes, a principle which if acted on, would save one-half the wars of the world.
-----------

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.
-----------

My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.
-----------

No free man shall ever be deprived the use of arms.
-----------

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
------------

To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
------------

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property - until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.
-------------

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.
--------------

On every question of construction of the Constitution, let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.

Steve:

Interestingly, UVA has something called "Echols Scholars."   These students, selected on application their first year, are permitted infinite latitude in formulating their own class schedules and loads.   Of course, no student is forced to attend college, but for these selected scholars,  trust in their choices is granted, and they are not forced to associate with any concept of 'distribution requirements.'   They build their own course schedules each year.  They totally construct their own transcript, and they live or die by their choices.

There are also far fewer 'Jefferson Scholars' which have similar freedom, with the addition that they receive, I believe, full tuition.  Their choices before arriving at UVA are not only trusted but, rewarded.

At my university in the mid 70s, no such thing.   There were freshmen requirements, and distribution requirements, and assorted instances of forced association; a mandrel of thought, if you will, for better or worse.    Everyone who went through the gates was marched past similar mandrels of thought, barely masked crude attempts at political indoctrination.   And the results show it.   For every John Stossel that escapes intact, there are a hundred Katrina Van Den Heuvals cookie-cuttered out snarling out their rote instruction verbatum.   Michelle Obama...Sotomayor...Kagen....now there is some celebration of diverse thought  on its way to 22% of the USSC...

Which is why I discouraged my son from even applying to the Ivies, and he chose UVa instead, as an Echols Scholar.

regards,

Fred

Steve,

Of everything that you wrote, only this citation from Jeff seems important enough to warrant comment:

>>>Under the law of nature all men are born free<<<<

Precisely not.

Again (!), during the time that he lived, most everyone was not 'born free' in the natural sense as defined by Aristotle. Moreover, Jeff gives no indication of understanding how 'nature' might be understood to make this sentence even remotely true.

Perhaps Rousseau's , 'Man is born free, but everywhere I see him in chains"?

You might also consider Jeffs' rather liberal use of the g-word,partuicularly in the DofI. Natural rights are god- given to the extent that:

  a) you know what god wants

  b) god exists.

As an athiest, i'm really not that sure--so how 'bout you?

And if god doesn't make it on to the stage, whose left to sing the song of Natural Rights?

In sum, do only leftist professors lodged up in an ivy tower refuse to offer Jeff so many get-our-of-jail-free passes?

Eva

Eva,

Here is the full quote:

"Under the law of nature, all men are born free, every one comes into the world with a right to his own person, which includes the liberty of moving and using it at his own. This is what is called personal liberty, and is given him by the author of nature, because necessary for his own sustenance."

Jefferson wrote this in April of 1770 in the case of Howell v. Netherland where as an attorney he fought, pro bono, to free a young man whose mother was free.

Jefferson believed that freedom was the state our nature is suited to and that man and governments interfere with that state. Yes, like Rousseau - born free, but seen everywhere in chains. We are free until man, acting as a private person, or acting as an agent of government uses force or threat of force to deprive us of our freedom. Free means free of initiated force from others.
----------------

I'm an atheist as well - have been since age 14. But I don't take the position that anyone who in the 1700's and 1800's that wasn't is a dummy of no intellectual worth.

Nearly everyone of that period made frequent use of the word God in their writings. This was a long time before the ideas of Darwin or the advent of modern science. Jefferson is thought to be either a Deist or an Atheist and a Deist is pretty close to an Atheist for that period.
-----------------

And if god doesn't make it on to the stage, whose left to sing the song of Natural Rights?

Ayn Rand.

Moral rights, such as Individual rights as described by Rand, are logical constructs derived from human nature and without them you are left singing the song of the Left, which is that there are no natural rights, no moral rights, and no rights at all but legal rights which are created out of nothing, arbitrary, inconsistent and revocable.

Steve,

>>>Jefferson believed that freedom was the state our nature is suited to and that man and governments interfere with that state. Yes, like Rousseau - born free, but seen everywhere in chains.<<<

Yes, we know that Jeff believed in a natural state of freedom.

I'm saying that this is an error for reasons that I've already given.

To elaborate, romantic versions of anything confuse 'is' with 'ought' as a matter of practice--which makes for good literature and poetry, but not philosophy.

Rousseau's citation was made in the context of the 'social contract': humans are in chaims because the social relations are not voluntarily entered. Within a social contract that's justifiable, people will voluntarily relinquish part of their personal freedom in order to achieve more through collective endeavor. I

In brief, part of the social contract involves the use of force by a government that's freely put into power via said 'social contract'.

Jeff, oth, really didn't believe that government should have that much power to begin with...

Eva