|
Also, isn't Germany basically a 2 party system between the CDU and SPD?
|
On October 17 2007 05:23 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2007 23:26 Mindcrime wrote:On October 16 2007 13:52 oneofthem wrote:On October 16 2007 13:50 Mindcrime wrote:On October 16 2007 13:47 oneofthem wrote:On October 16 2007 13:45 Mindcrime wrote:On October 16 2007 12:51 oneofthem wrote: what. i said his theory of labor was derivative of his theory of self ownership and this is entirely consistent with the cited material.
oh i see you took away that 'somehow' which is your fault, not mine. i meant by 'somehow' that i cannot be bothered to solve and translate locke's metaphysics. of course, to understand 'become a part of you' in the ordinary sense is ridiculous but obviously this is no ordinary sense.
if youw atn a rough translation, it means by 'self' the individual units of operations in a conception of social interaction. like you would project a driver to a racecar and say 'oh hey schumacher has collided with senna on turn 3!' No, originally you ignored his views on labor altogether. That was my grievance. what do you mean the only instance up to interpretation is this the extension from 'self ownership' to 'i own this forest' this is sketching his entire theory, since he took self ownership to be primary. Your post implied that Locke jumped directly from justifying self ownership to using self ownership to justify private property. only to an audience with no grasp of his theory. quite obviously, to locke, if his theory of self ownership fails, so does his theory of labor and so on, then it is fair to say his theory of property is an extension. i did not try to trace his argument as it is, just a critical overview. lockean theory of property acquires its natural law characteristic largely from the natural impression of self ownership, so drawing this connection is hardly improper. You misrepresented his progression from self ownership to land ownership in order to poo poo it. erm, no. that i can poo poo it legitimately rather testifies to my truthful representation of his theory. i eman the actual argument of poo pooing it will inevitably invoke his labor stuff so i dont consider the shorthand a problem.
You didn't do so legitimately. fail
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On October 17 2007 11:04 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2007 05:23 oneofthem wrote:On October 16 2007 23:26 Mindcrime wrote:On October 16 2007 13:52 oneofthem wrote:On October 16 2007 13:50 Mindcrime wrote:On October 16 2007 13:47 oneofthem wrote:On October 16 2007 13:45 Mindcrime wrote:On October 16 2007 12:51 oneofthem wrote: what. i said his theory of labor was derivative of his theory of self ownership and this is entirely consistent with the cited material.
oh i see you took away that 'somehow' which is your fault, not mine. i meant by 'somehow' that i cannot be bothered to solve and translate locke's metaphysics. of course, to understand 'become a part of you' in the ordinary sense is ridiculous but obviously this is no ordinary sense.
if youw atn a rough translation, it means by 'self' the individual units of operations in a conception of social interaction. like you would project a driver to a racecar and say 'oh hey schumacher has collided with senna on turn 3!' No, originally you ignored his views on labor altogether. That was my grievance. what do you mean the only instance up to interpretation is this the extension from 'self ownership' to 'i own this forest' this is sketching his entire theory, since he took self ownership to be primary. Your post implied that Locke jumped directly from justifying self ownership to using self ownership to justify private property. only to an audience with no grasp of his theory. quite obviously, to locke, if his theory of self ownership fails, so does his theory of labor and so on, then it is fair to say his theory of property is an extension. i did not try to trace his argument as it is, just a critical overview. lockean theory of property acquires its natural law characteristic largely from the natural impression of self ownership, so drawing this connection is hardly improper. You misrepresented his progression from self ownership to land ownership in order to poo poo it. erm, no. that i can poo poo it legitimately rather testifies to my truthful representation of his theory. i eman the actual argument of poo pooing it will inevitably invoke his labor stuff so i dont consider the shorthand a problem. You didn't do so legitimately. fail look, you have no case here. either youa re trolling or you do not have a grasp of what constitutes a good citation. perhaps you learned this in a different format, not my fault. this shorthand tracing of arguments is pretty common, and unless locke's thing is not based on his idea of self ownership you have no reason to complain. since i made the assertion, i only had to make sense in one way, my way, your role is understanding that. further objections are only based on stylistic points.
|
Interesting as all of the arguments may be, not one is properly rooted -- philosophically speaking.
Imagine that there was a debate about a starcraft strat but the opening bo was not mentioned or included in the context of the discussion. It would be discarded.
What do I mean by this? So, as one example, let's suppose that someone thinks the government SHOULD do X or not do X. However, people disagree about what should and should not be done. The only place for the argument to go is an analysis of what gives weight to the SHOULD. So Hitler said the Jews should be treated this way. Other people said they should be treated some other way. What makes one way 'right' and the other 'wrong'. Politics is an offshoot of ethical theory. Without analysis that goes in this direction -- that is, analysis that makes explicit and provides justification for ones ethical theory, further argument seems fruitless.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
that, the normative grounding, not merly idealistically but methodologically (normative considerations expressed in various phases of the analysis by tehnature of the discourses used), should be elementary to any competent social and political theory.
|
oneofthem, you wrote:
"...normative considerations expressed in various phases of the analysis by the nature of the discourses used...should be elementary to any competent social and political theory."
First -- Are you claming that these considerations are necessary or sufficient or both for a S/P theory to be competent?
Second -- Why should this be elementary?
Third -- What system do we use to evaluate the "...nature of the discourses used..." and why?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
these are methodological concerns. kinda like the road signs or guard rails to keep your analysis straight.
you could have a purely empirical inquiry, talking about human beings naturalistically and employing physiological descriptions for psychological states and so on, but the scope of inquiry is limited by our available methods of investigation. that, you only know so many physiological and neural structures. and in examining normative matters involving mentalistic expressions, it is not immediately clear how to translate or categorize them. they are still normative. for example, if we are looking at something like + Show Spoiler +, it would apparently be unproblematic to say, this is fear, an emotion, and take it as physiology. this would be fine if fear was merely the reference to the physiology. but, our present understanding of mind and neuropsychology does not really allow for a completely naturalistic inquiry, and even these follow a certain theoretical framework. inevitably treatments of this sort involve the normative connection between the expression of fear and the analysis of the mechanism of expression. there are efforts then made to connect the normative states by their normative significance, such as fear is terrifying, etc. this is a layer of analysis that is thick with the normative.
a clearer version of that would be, imagine the methodology of empirical inquiry as this, machine > environment > response. but when the environmental inputs are normative inputs, the machine isolated by only correspondence with expressions of normative/mental stuff, (for example, the physiological analysis of pain), and the response, usually taken as normatively relevant, is still conveyed normatively, it is difficult to say this is an empirical inquiry. an actual example may be, 'people in tribal societies are constantly fearful of starvation.'
the main difficulty is really in mixing up things like 'people in tribal societies are fearful of starvation' with 'people survive by committing to solidarity in a tribal situation.' if you isolate teh normative elements of each, with their peculiar expressions, you'll see that these are vastly different methods of analysis.
a more important concern, for me, is the way the language of analysis defines analytic forms, or, the incommensurability of causal vs expressive analysis. to make a normative point, you necessarily must express normative sentiments and engage in normative arguments. it is irreplaceable as a facet of investigation by mere descriptive accounts, however valid those are. related topics to this idea, reification, alienation etc.
the mechanism for evaluation of the nature of discourses used is their respective admissibility of arguments. this is soemthing closer to epistemic class than paradigms. thsi is best understood descriptively as natural faculties with certain expressive forms, and another analysis may be that, the logical contour or shape of ideas and theories involved are 'close circle.' anyway, my background is analytic mostly, so i am very sensitive to these stuff.
|
Close thread, Colbert announced his canidacy, gg.
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
fox news are a bunch of jobbers
|
It's unproductive to see the matter of libertarianism as an ethical argument even moreso than it is to see the Ron Paul candidacy as a candidacy of libertarianism. Virtue is a voluntary act, in no way contrary to individualism or even "self-interest" since the latter is not necessarily the same as selfishness. I am inclined to agree that the moral sustainability of human behaviour is of a greater importance than economic sustainability, but how one proposes to apply that theory to the society we are faced with is a question which no human has the intelligence to answer. The corrective for moral excess belongs to the history of cultural epochs, not political ones, and is certainly not considerable in a case where someone is running for political office for four years.
As for abolishing the Federal Reserve, Ron Paul will not do this immediately or unilaterally. He would, if anything, legalize competing currencies and allow gold to circulate alongside the paper dollar.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
well talking about morality as concerning with the normative attitudes and states of mind, it is valid to describe the moral dimension of poltiical theories. for politics is activity and morality is a function/faculty the expression of which is important by nature.
|
|
|
|