• In total there are 0 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 0 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 616 on Thu Jan 18, 2024 7:47 pm

Anarchy

A forum dedicated to friendly and civil conversations about domestic and global politics, history, and present-day events.
Forum rules
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.

All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
Izdaari

Re: Deeds

Unread post

Quote:I actually know an anarcho-capitalist from another online forum, Izdaari. As I understand it, the theory is that nearly all of the functions currently implemented by the government could be better implemented by the free play of market forces, no?Yeah, that's the idea. And except for police, legal system and national defense, the functions that rest on a legal monopoly on the use of force, I'd buy it. Anarcho-capitalists think the problems with competing providers of those functions can be solved, I don't. But still, I'd be in favor of trying it somewhere small as an experiment. Let's see what happens, and learn from it. Who knows? Maybe I'm wrong and they can make it work. Edited by: Izdaari  at: 8/28/05 12:16 am
User avatar
Mr. P

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
Has Plan to Save Books During Fire
Posts: 3826
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2004 10:16 am
19
Location: NJ
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 137 times
Gender:
United States of America

Re: principles of legitimacy

Unread post

Niall: Quote:Much of the time, I can't find the source of a belief to my satisfaction. I don't believe that there are any logical reasons that compell a person to believe in a god. I don't think that God is necessary to explain the origin of life or the universe etc. I believe because in God because I believe in God. Similarly, though though I have no way of justifying a belief in myself, others, reality, logic's validity, my own perceptions etc. this is not a problem. Niall:Quote:Once someone is forced to admit that their belief is without a logical foundation or if a belief is shown to be based on illogical thoughts, then the chances that the dangerous idea will spread are at least somewhat lowered.I am sorry, but how is this not contradictory? The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.The pain in hell has two sides. The kind you can touch with your hand; the kind you can feel in your heart...Scorsese's "Mean Streets"I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper
Niall001
Stupendously Brilliant
Posts: 706
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2003 4:00 am
20

Re: principles of legitimacy

Unread post

mister p. There is no contradiction.I believe in three main types of belief:1. Logical2. Illogical3. AlogicalDangerous beliefs (those that directly result in causing suffering) are usually illogical but their proponents claim that the belief is logical. The correct way to challenge such beliefs is to show that they are illogical.However, if a belief has an alogical origin, then showing the holder that it is not logical should not affect the belief's status. Since accepting the belief was not conditional upon it being logical, showing it to be illogical, should not have an effect (please note that this is something of a simplification and a generalisation, there are cases when this would not be the case, but for now....). Because my beliefs in myself, reality, logic and god are alogical, that they are impossible to justify logically does not disturb me. That said, it is difficult for alogical beliefs to spread. How do you convince somebody to believe in something without making a logical argument? So using the imperfect example of Nazism, if the Nazi claims his belief is logical, then you can show it to be illogical. This can result in forcing the man to drop the ideology and will show others, that the man is wrong and as believers in logic, they are not obliged to accept what he tells them. If he (Mr. Nazi) claims that his belief is alogical in origin, then it is unlikely to spread to those who do not already hold the belief, but showing it to be illogical should not affect Mr. Nazi holding the belief.In both cases, the danger that the belief would widely spread is defused. Let us agree, there is no one single reality. Not upon this stage, not in this world, all is in the mind... imagination is the only truth. Because it cannot be contradicted except by other imaginations - Richard MathesonThere are no conclusive indications by which waking life can be distinguished from sleep - Rene Descartes
User avatar
Mr. P

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
Has Plan to Save Books During Fire
Posts: 3826
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2004 10:16 am
19
Location: NJ
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 137 times
Gender:
United States of America

Re: principles of legitimacy

Unread post

Quote:logic and god are alogical, that they are impossible to justify logically does not disturb meLogic is alogical. How is THIS not a contradiction? How can any system such as this prosper? I just do not get it. It all seems like a simple justification for believing whatever one wants to believe and not need to justify it.A contrived way of not having to explain ILLogical beliefs...like belief in a deity and a subjective religiosity...which, as history can attest, has been destructive to a large extent.Mr. P. The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.The pain in hell has two sides. The kind you can touch with your hand; the kind you can feel in your heart...Scorsese's "Mean Streets"I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper
Niall001
Stupendously Brilliant
Posts: 706
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2003 4:00 am
20

Re: principles of legitimacy

Unread post

I never said that logic was alogical. I said that the origin of one's belief in logic's validity has to be alogical. Even logical beliefs need not be logical in origin. Try to justify your belief in yourself, reality, the validity of your perceptions, logic etc. These are beliefs that I'm pretty certain you hold but which cannot be justified without having first adopted them. Let us agree, there is no one single reality. Not upon this stage, not in this world, all is in the mind... imagination is the only truth. Because it cannot be contradicted except by other imaginations - Richard MathesonThere are no conclusive indications by which waking life can be distinguished from sleep - Rene Descartes
User avatar
Mr. P

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
Has Plan to Save Books During Fire
Posts: 3826
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2004 10:16 am
19
Location: NJ
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 137 times
Gender:
United States of America

Re: principles of legitimacy

Unread post

This is where I bow out. I do not accept this line of thinking. It is reductionist to the point of meaninglessness.I dont believe in myself, I just am myself! Nothing too deep about that proposition. SOmetimes, waters do not need to be muddied...it just makes it harder to see. Just like NOT discussing things critically is bad, over discussing things critically is just as bad. SOmetimes it is better to just walk away. And I suggest we do this now before this discourse goes south.Mr. P. The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.The pain in hell has two sides. The kind you can touch with your hand; the kind you can feel in your heart...Scorsese's "Mean Streets"I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper
Niall001
Stupendously Brilliant
Posts: 706
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2003 4:00 am
20

Re: principles of legitimacy

Unread post

Quote:I dont believe in myself, I just am myself! Nothing too deep about that proposition.Which is to say that you believe certain things are self evident, that they are alogical in origin and need no logical justification. And yes, I think that this particular part of this discussion needs to end now. It is (or at least it was supposed to be) a thread about anarchism as an ideology and political system, not an example of the adjective. Let us agree, there is no one single reality. Not upon this stage, not in this world, all is in the mind... imagination is the only truth. Because it cannot be contradicted except by other imaginations - Richard MathesonThere are no conclusive indications by which waking life can be distinguished from sleep - Rene Descartes
MadArchitect

1E - BANNED
The Pope of Literature
Posts: 2553
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2004 4:24 am
19
Location: decentralized

Nazi Germany, forms of belief, and so on

Unread post

Niall001: ...what I hoped to communicate was my belief that had the German people had a greater commitment to critical thinking, it would have been much more difficult for the Nazism to grow.In that it might have led to the production of a critique and explanation of the historical circumstances that had brought Germany to the gestalt of the pre-Nazi and Nazi periods, yes, a broader application of critical thinking might have made a pivotal difference. Even so, though, I think the German people would have still required an outlet and a means for changing their contemporary situation, which means that, just as important as a more concerted effort at critique, an alternate mode of social reorganization would have likely been necessary to allow Germany to bypass the Nazi option. Anyway, that's a topic that would probably be better discussed in the history forum.I believe in three main types of belief:1. Logical2. Illogical3. AlogicalI would (of course) add that the first category is entirely contingent. There are very few, if any, logical beliefs that you can arrive at without building them on the foundation of alogical (and sometimes, though not preferably, illogical) beliefs. I've argued that idea ad nauseam on this site, so I won't go into details about it now, but I felt that it was pertinent to the course this discussion is taking to remember it to you all.misterpessimistic: Logic is alogical. How is THIS not a contradiction?Because you cannot formulate the system of logic according to logical principles. That would be like attempting to use English to construct a language, namely English. How can you use any given thing to build itself? Logic is, by necessity, a system that we accept without logical justification.(You could, in principles, use one of a kind of thing to produce something else of the same kind. Ie. it would be possible to make a hammer using another hammer. But that presupposes multiple instances of the same kind of thing, and for that example to be applicable to the construction of a system of logic there would have to be another logic, which there is not.)It all seems like a simple justification for believing whatever one wants to believe and not need to justify it.What Niall is talking about is not as widely applicable as that. You have to bear in mind that alogical principles are not necessarily arbitrary. Experience, for example, is a kind of alogical foundation for belief -- that's particularly important when we talk about our belief in a self, because that belief is arrived at almost wholly through experience. And since we are largely not responsible for the raw fact of our experiences, we must also admit that the category of alogical premises that is congruent to experience consists of premises that are not arbitrarily chosen.A contrived way of not having to explain ILLogical beliefs...like belief in a deity and a subjective religiosity...which, as history can attest, has been destructive to a large extent.Belief in a deity that is derived from logical argument can be (and likely is) illogical, but as Blaise Pascal pointed out, theological proofs have almost never produced actual belief. Most theistic belief is produced by other means than logical argument, and therefore belong more properly to the category of alogical belief. As for "subjective religiosity", I'd have to know what you mean by that term before I could even begin to comment on it.This is where I bow out. I do not accept this line of thinking. It is reductionist to the point of meaninglessness.It's only reductionist to the point of meaningless if you insist that rigid logic is the only way of producing valid belief.
MadArchitect

1E - BANNED
The Pope of Literature
Posts: 2553
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2004 4:24 am
19
Location: decentralized

And now, back to your previously scheduled anarchy

Unread post

A question for DH, Izdaari and anyone else who has read about anarchy to some extent:I've been reading Alexander Berkman's "What is Anarchy?" (also circulated under "The ABC of Anarchy" and "What is Communist Anarchy?") and I'm wondering to what extent his form of anarchy is representative of the whole ideology. In particular, I suppose, is the question of whether or not the socialist and communist groundwork is a necessary element to the anarchist critique. My next stop is Proudhon, of course, but I thought I'd raise this question in the meantime.
User avatar
Mr. P

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
Has Plan to Save Books During Fire
Posts: 3826
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2004 10:16 am
19
Location: NJ
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 137 times
Gender:
United States of America

Re: principles of legitimacy

Unread post

Quote:Which is to say that you believe certain things are self evident, that they are alogical in origin and need no logical justification.*sigh*Mr. P. The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.The pain in hell has two sides. The kind you can touch with your hand; the kind you can feel in your heart...Scorsese's "Mean Streets"I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper
Post Reply

Return to “Current Events & History”