EPTI do not wish to be banned again. Perhaps it would be more expedient for my reform to receive targeted critique.
Rerum Novarum
| Blogs > YokoKano |
|
YokoKano
United States612 Posts
I do not wish to be banned again. Perhaps it would be more expedient for my reform to receive targeted critique. | ||
|
Bannt
United States73 Posts
| ||
|
helpman176
128 Posts
The reality is always dirtier than anticipated. Learn from the past and move on. | ||
|
Jerubaal
United States7684 Posts
The only other comment I'll make about your statements is that it's dangerous to create inaccurate dichotomies, like libertarian and communitarian. | ||
|
YokoKano
United States612 Posts
SAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAVE! edit: and yes, I did. | ||
|
thezanursic
5486 Posts
Don't try to write as if you were some sort of apex intellectual because you clearly aren't and you're completely missing the point. | ||
|
YokoKano
United States612 Posts
On June 22 2015 14:28 thezanursic wrote: Uhmmm. There are words and then there are even more words, words that I understand, but your writing makes zero fucking sense. Don't try to write as if you were some sort of apex intellectual because you clearly aren't and you're completely missing the point. This OP was written with my one time friend and mentor, "oneofthem" in mind, and this is the true of several of my philosophy-oriented blogs. I am unsure if you are familiar with the jargon, from the employed syntax. But many a TL author is well-versed, perhaps even moreso than myself respectable esteemed within the community of philosophers, and technical jargon applied even sparsely is better or worse commonplace. | ||
|
Bannt
United States73 Posts
| ||
|
Bojas
Netherlands2397 Posts
| ||
|
Motlu
Australia884 Posts
| ||
|
JieXian
Malaysia4677 Posts
On June 22 2015 07:42 Jerubaal wrote: Did you purposely give this the same title as Leo XIII's encyclical? The only other comment I'll make about your statements is that it's dangerous to create inaccurate dichotomies, like libertarian and communitarian. ![[image loading]](http://www.wrywingpolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Mr.-Bills-Oh-No1.jpg) Jerubaal I urge you to expound on that in your following blog for all our sake. | ||
|
TojoSCO
24 Posts
On June 22 2015 18:12 Bannt wrote: Perhaps you should ask yourself who your intended audience is. Does a blog setting and your writing style fit? It's often the case with this kind of thing that the writer is their own intended audience. In my experience, if the only way you can communicate your views is with unnecessarily complex language, then you aren't confident enough to let those views stand on their own merit. I suppose it would be cynical to call this post masturbatory psuedointellectualism off the bat (I don't even know the OP), but it does seem a bit like that.  | ||
|
Jerubaal
United States7684 Posts
On June 22 2015 22:51 JieXian wrote: + Show Spoiler + On June 22 2015 07:42 Jerubaal wrote: Did you purposely give this the same title as Leo XIII's encyclical? The only other comment I'll make about your statements is that it's dangerous to create inaccurate dichotomies, like libertarian and communitarian. Jerubaal I urge you to expound on that in your following blog for all our sake. I assume you're being fatuous. I've learned I have to keep things down to the lowest common denominator here. | ||
|
hoby2000
United States918 Posts
On June 22 2015 05:55 YokoKano wrote: From its inception, civilization has been characterized by asymptotic distribution. On the one hand, there is the libertarian and on the other, the communitarian. What will it take to realize ideal positive and negative liberties for the individual? It seems we must err on the side of a rigid communitarian teleology, enforcing absolute essences as universals. Yet if Aquinas is to have his way, the sovereign must establish law beneficent with the community in mind. Is the libertarian always to be confined by the strictures of the human law and if the human law is too broadly encompassing, can the individual recover sought-after negative liberty? I do not wish to be banned again. Perhaps it would be more expedient for my reform to receive targeted critique. The libertarian is not confined to the structure of human law, or else they wouldn't be much of a libertarian - at least not confined in terms of understanding their free will. They are however, as I think you're suggesting, subject to the will of the communitarian especially in modern times where the most effective ideal is "equality". This in turn means that the libertarian is in a way limited to the social confines brought upon him by communitarian thoughts. I however would still say that even given a structure not mean to allow for much liberty at all, a libertarian can still flourish as long as there is some aspect of privacy which remains. I think over time even sought-after negative liberties disappear. They're described as negative liberties for a reason - Their consequences do not enhance a person's ability to live. In most cases, these are dependencies ranging from drugs to societal programs that promote the use of community resources instead of one's own. There other examples, but these things will either be rid of or have a use that brings about a positive change for enough individuals that choosing to use such a thing would still be an option. | ||
|
YokoKano
United States612 Posts
On June 23 2015 11:09 hoby2000 wrote: The libertarian is not confined to the structure of human law, or else they wouldn't be much of a libertarian - at least not confined in terms of understanding their free will. They are however, as I think you're suggesting, subject to the will of the communitarian especially in modern times where the most effective ideal is "equality". This in turn means that the libertarian is in a way limited to the social confines brought upon him by communitarian thoughts. I however would still say that even given a structure not mean to allow for much liberty at all, a libertarian can still flourish as long as there is some aspect of privacy which remains. I think over time even sought-after negative liberties disappear. They're described as negative liberties for a reason - Their consequences do not enhance a person's ability to live. In most cases, these are dependencies ranging from drugs to societal programs that promote the use of community resources instead of one's own. There other examples, but these things will either be rid of or have a use that brings about a positive change for enough individuals that choosing to use such a thing would still be an option. Well, suppose I want to race marbles on a sidewalk. Marbles are not bicycles, and so are not ineligible for sidewalk traversing. But nor are skateboards bicycles. A sidewalk is rival in consumption, the child and his marbles and the teen on her skateboard compete on the walk. Whether this constitutes harmony is a relative question. The mother of one and the father of one, each a libertarian or communitarian respectively, will express an opinion concerning the right of way. I am not sure even the most enlightened of communities will side with the libertarian mother whose child endangers itself (and others) by rolling marbles without permission. The reality has it, community resources side with the communitarian willingly and the libertarian grudgingly, but it is a challenge to draw a distinction between the two advancing closer to a "corporate" social hierarchy. | ||
|
_fool
Netherlands678 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + Let me know if I win something ok? | ||
|
hoby2000
United States918 Posts
On June 23 2015 11:48 YokoKano wrote: Well, suppose I want to race marbles on a sidewalk. Marbles are not bicycles, and so are not ineligible for sidewalk traversing. But nor are skateboards bicycles. A sidewalk is rival in consumption, the child and his marbles and the teen on her skateboard compete on the walk. Whether this constitutes harmony is a relative question. The mother of one and the father of one, each a libertarian or communitarian respectively, will express an opinion concerning the right of way. I am not sure even the most enlightened of communities will side with the libertarian mother whose child endangers itself (and others) by rolling marbles without permission. The reality has it, community resources side with the communitarian willingly and the libertarian grudgingly, but it is a challenge to draw a distinction between the two advancing closer to a "corporate" social hierarchy. I want to say that despite what people may say (and I'm sure you've come to this conclusion already), you are quite brilliant. I think people are overlooking your intelligence because you use big words so they're assuming you're trying to sound fancy when really you're actually making a valid point. That being said, I can't disagree with you here. Most people will not side with the libertarian in that situation (and many others like it) because as you said the child is endangering itself. I suppose that's part of the real problem - The communitarian believes in being completely altruistic for the good of the community but fail to see that they give up their (and possibly another's) ability to advance on their own behalf which could equally benefit the community they desire to support. In this situation, the child playing with the marbles may indeed be in danger of the child on the skateboard, so the Communitarian must act for the community by saving the child. The question however we should ask is... Does that actually serve the community better? Suppose the child now understands that they are never in harms way because a altruistic being will always be their saving grace. The child continues to endanger itself because of this understanding. Has the Communitarian therefore done good in the long for their community? This is not to discount the idea that the Communitarian would not attempt to teach the child. However, experience is always a better teacher, and would not be fair of us to assume that EVERY child will learn from being taught instead of experiencing. In the opposite situation, lets say the most drastic of situations, the child dies. According to Darwin, the community has been done a favor because the child is no longer a liability. Even if the child comes out alive, they're less a liability regardless of what they've learned. On one hand if they have learned not to play marbles on the sidewalk while another child is riding their skateboard, then they will never put themselves in danger again, and have self-learned a survival technique. On the other, the child continues to endanger itself BUT DOES NOT have an altruistic force intervening therefore allowing the experience to play itself out enough for the child to either learn or be maimed enough by the situation that they will not revisit. It's not that altruism itself is at fault - Instead, it's the overuse of altruism that is at fault. One is not in the wrong for wanting to acting out community desire instead of self, but that also requires the comprehension that not all altruistic acts are a benefit - Much like having NO LAW would be absurd. The libertarian does not require a society where this is no law, but simply where law itself is derived from the ideals and experiences of the society as a whole which is not decided by any one or group of men. The altruist also does not require a society where one must put the community before the self ALL THE TIME. It simply desires a society where the altruistic practice is welcomed when it's needed, but not pushed on everyone as a requirement, again, less it be derived from the ideals and experiences of the society as a whole. | ||
|
YokoKano
United States612 Posts
| ||
|
Endymion
United States3701 Posts
| ||
|
YokoKano
United States612 Posts
edit: sorry for posting this i lost control of my pass. feel free to delete. | ||
| ||
