Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[Dak]

The problem is that I've been arguing against what I perceive among the Austrians as view of freedom-in-itself. You, on the other hand, are operating according to a more refined version, but proceeded to argue with me as though you were defending the Austrian version. I'm not sure whether you made the definition up as you went along, or whether we simply weren't seeing eye-to-eye; but you were trying to defend something different.

Austrian economics might not be a "homogeneous suite," but their mode of argumentation, especially their invocation of praxeology, leads me to conclude that they perceive free market economics as leading to freedom-in-itself. That seems quite universal to me.

Praxeology is the deductive study of human action based on the action axiom

The action-axiom is the basis of praxeology, and it is the basic proposition that all specimens of the species Homo sapiens, the Homo agens, purposefully utilize means over a period of time in order to achieved desired ends. In Human Action, Mises defined “action” in the sense of the action axiom by elucidating:
"Human action is purposeful behavior. Or we may say: Action is will put into operation and transformed into an agency, is aiming at ends and goals, is the ego's meaningful response to stimuli and to the conditions of its environment, is a person's conscious adjustment to the state of the universe that determines his life. Such paraphrases may clarify the definition given and prevent possible misinterpretations. But the definition itself is adequate and does not need complement of commentary."[1]

I don't see how even discoveries of the "tip of the iceberg" nature of consciousness render this much less effective. In fact, insomuch as we can see that even unconscious behavior maybe goal or end oriented, this does not give much fodder for dispute.

I think more information allows us to constantly refine. Such as dispensing with terms like "the ego", or being overly concerned with conscious action. But we cannot be consciously unconscious, or unconsciously conscious, etc. Consciousness is our portal.

Freedom-in-itself doesn't exist! I'm saying that the Austrians think it does, that's the whole point. I'll repeat that I think it's time to move beyond arguments of freedom.

I would venture to guess that the argument would go something like since we cannot possibly have no limitations (the need to breath is a limitation for example), that freedom in itself must necessarily be something else, and so economic freedom for the economic man would be it, freedom limited only itself, ie by the freedom of others *is* freedom in itself. I don't see the need to wrangle over in-itself-ness though.

The free market is what allows someone to have "their man in." There will always be a "man in"; the free market is the secular means to political control. Regulation isn't the problem because it doesn't come first; money does. But neither one is really a problem because, freedom aside, it's becoming quite clear that technology and capital pursue their own course, regardless of us.

Since there has never been a free market, how can it allow someone to have a man in? But I know what you mean. But it'sonly the individual but collectivized ignorance that allows "a man" to matter. All the corporate influence in the world can't buy a system that doesn't exist: The armor of decentralization is itself. Centralization vs decentralization, or authoritarianism vs anarchy, etc. Decentralization is, apparently counterintuitively, superior in the long run. The opportunity costs associated with centralization eventually overwhelm it's perceived benefits.

Money is merely an exchange tool/technology. It frees flows better than a barter economy.

 

[Einherjar86]

I would venture to guess that the argument would go something like since we cannot possibly have no limitations (the need to breath is a limitation for example), that freedom in itself must necessarily be something else, and so economic freedom for the economic man would be it, freedom limited only itself, ie by the freedom of others *is* freedom in itself. I don't see the need to wrangle over in-itself-ness though.

This might seem to make sense, but I disagree that what you've identified is freedom. According to this definition, my freedom is limited only by your freedom, which I cannot infringe upon, and this constitutes the basis for a libertarian (for the sake of argument, let's just call it that) understanding of freedom.

This takes me back to my initial issue, which was that Austrian thought simply doesn't go far enough. True philosophical rigor would realize that freedom, defined as such, is never itself, paradoxically. Freedom is also the freedom of the other. Freedom is actually the antithesis of itself, in that it's what prevents itself from being itself.

This, to me, is a poor definition of freedom. Either we need a better definition, or we need to realize that it's an illusion posited afterwards.

 

[Dak]

Well I'm not against a better definition. Going down that road: How many other things can be the antithesis of themselves though, philosophically? Is this actually a broad category of things?

On the other hand, why is the phenomenon of the paradox even of great concern?

 

[Einherjar86]

It's of great concern to me, currently, because I think the common conception of freedom in these circles of economic thought is incorrect and simply illusory. So I'm trying to suggest that the kind of pure freedom - whether abstract or manifested in action - that brands of Austrian thought argue for doesn't actually exist.

And yes, a structural view of reality can be quite reductive and unhelpful if pursued to an extreme. Here I think it's useful since common libertarian thought often posits a definition of freedom while at the same time encouraging action that undermines that freedom as defined.

But I also have a tendency to believe that philosophy should sweep the ground right out from underneath our feet. As Nick Land succinctly summarizes a certain line of philosophical thought from Freud through Deleuze and beyond: "The reality of identity is death, which is why the organism cannot coexist with what it is."

 

[Cythraul]

Why do you say this? I don't see how philosophy is better on average. Most philosophy grad students I've met were either neck-deep in Marx and the Frankfurt School, libertarian socialist Chomsky-ites, or descendants of the Russell-Keynes union.

I don't know about the Russell-Keynes union, but the other stuff you mentioned seems like stuff that Continental philosophers get into. Continental philosophy is not the mainstream in contemporary English-speaking philosophy departments, which is what I was referring to. I'm not aware of a time when wack-a-doodle Marxian stuff was ever a thing in mainstream English-speaking philosophy.

I think it's unfair to say that philosophy is better on average when all the sources of left-leaning thought are to be found in the history of philosophy.

Doesn't matter. I'm talking about contemporary, mainstream academic philosophy. It's somewhat less left-leaning than the disciplines I mentioned, at least as far as I can tell. But it's still quite left-leaning on the whole. Or maybe a better way to put it would be to say that it's somewhat less hostile to "right-wing" political thought than those other disciplines. You can't really get away with teaching a survey course in political philosophy without assigning Anarchy, State, and Utopia and taking it seriously.

mainly because I don't find economic liberalism to be very philosophically stimulating.

I don't know what you mean by "philosophically stimulating."

Sure, but not popularly, which is what I'm referencing. You can't expect the masses to define "Philosophy" in the same manner as academia. People espouse "life philosophies", which are nothing but a "shadow" of actual philosophy.

That doesn't matter. The point was that the guy has a Master's in philosophy, which means he was involved with academic philosophy.

 

[jakethedog]

This might seem to make sense, but I disagree that what you've identified is freedom. According to this definition, my freedom is limited only by your freedom, which I cannot infringe upon, and this constitutes the basis for a libertarian (for the sake of argument, let's just call it that) understanding of freedom.

This takes me back to my initial issue, which was that Austrian thought simply doesn't go far enough. True philosophical rigor would realize that freedom, defined as such, is never itself, paradoxically. Freedom is also the freedom of the other. Freedom is actually the antithesis of itself, in that it's what prevents itself from being itself.

This, to me, is a poor definition of freedom. Either we need a better definition, or we need to realize that it's an illusion posited afterwards.

Freedom can only be defined by what it it is not. For example, it is the deviance from any reigning religion/political ideology/thought process... to the point where said deviances are tolerated and, to a certain point, accepted. No matter where you are, unless you're presiding over some kind of cult, not everyone is going to agree with your views. True freedom excludes a lack of an accepted "norm" and includes varying viewpoints of all kinds.

Even those views that include 100% scientific/humanistic views, I have to admit, I cannot completely adhere towards. I would need to analyze said views for quite a while before I actually accepted them.

 

[Einherjar86]

I don't know about the Russell-Keynes union, but the other stuff you mentioned seems like stuff that Continental philosophers get into. Continental philosophy is not the mainstream in contemporary English-speaking philosophy departments, which is what I was referring to. I'm not aware of a time when wack-a-doodle Marxian stuff was ever a thing in mainstream English-speaking philosophy.

Chomsky is actually quite dismissed if not loathed by many in Continental circles, as they perceive his emphasis on empiricism to be not only unconditional (i.e. lacking criticism) but also inconsistent. He's far more influential among analytics.

Doesn't matter. I'm talking about contemporary, mainstream academic philosophy. It's somewhat less left-leaning than the disciplines I mentioned, at least as far as I can tell. But it's still quite left-leaning on the whole. Or maybe a better way to put it would be to say that it's somewhat less hostile to "right-wing" political thought than those other disciplines. You can't really get away with teaching a survey course in political philosophy without assigning Anarchy, State, and Utopia and taking it seriously.

Well, I guess I can't say because I'm not in philosophy; but I just know that many students of contemporary philosophy whom I'm friends with are what I would consider very left-leaning. Perhaps there has been a recent movement in the past couple decades, among Western analytics, that shies away from the left. I don't really know.

I don't know what you mean by "philosophically stimulating."

I just meant that I don't find many brands of economic thought to be self-reflective or self-critical. They stop before they really begin to expose the flaws in their own approach.

That doesn't matter. The point was that the guy has a Master's in philosophy, which means he was involved with academic philosophy.

Dak and I hashed out this same argument over gmail.

Freedom can only be defined by what it it is not. For example, it is the deviance from any reigning religion/political ideology/thought process... to the point where said deviances are tolerated and, to a certain point, accepted. No matter where you are, unless you're presiding over some kind of cult, not everyone is going to agree with your views. True freedom excludes a lack of an accepted "norm" and includes varying viewpoints of all kinds.

That's true; but in a kind of modern structuralist understanding of semiotics, everything is defined by what it is not. Words enter into a differential relationship with one another, and meaning arises from this differentiation (e.g. "cat" means "cat" because it isn't the word "bat," which means bat because it isn't "cat" and "mat," etc.).

I agree that I pushed the definition to a ridiculous point, but it was for a purpose. I was actually trying to demonstrate that by reducing freedom simply to "that which is only limited by the freedom of others," we have backed ourselves into this very structuralist approach that configures freedom not as something positive and essential, but as negative and referential. This may be the way that language works (although I'm hesitant to commit fully), but if we're trying to deal with actual freedom, then I think it's far too simplistic of a definition.

Actually, although I know Dak is resistant toward German idealism, Hegel would be a helpful guide here. His philosophy of antitheses and dialectics is exactly what is needed to overcome that kind of simple opposition.

 

[jakethedog]

That's true; but in a kind of modern structuralist understanding of semiotics, everything is defined by what it is not. Words enter into a differential relationship with one another, and meaning arises from this differentiation (e.g. "cat" means "cat" because it isn't the word "bat," which means bat because it isn't "cat" and "mat," etc.).

You're talking to a former English major here... well, former in that I flunked out, but that aside, I know damn well what you're talking about. And you're 100% right.

But I wasn't really referring to the linguistic part of it, I meant more that some people - particularly those of us in the US, say we are a country that was built entirely on "freedom" - yet when you think about it, there are things that we are still obligated to do. We have to balance freedom with our other values, most notably order (as conservatives do) and equality (as liberals do). I happen to fall into the latter category for the most part, so I'll admit - I DON'T live in a totally free country. Honestly, true freedom, democracy, equality etc. exists only in fantasy. Everyone wants to create a perfect world, but considering that my own nation is entirely composed of immigrants with different cultures and different lifestyles, there's never going to be real unity.

 

[Einherjar86]

You're talking to a former English major here... well, former in that I flunked out, but that aside, I know damn well what you're talking about. And you're 100% right.

I thought I smelled Saussure. Well, I'm a current English grad student, so welcome!

But I wasn't really referring to the linguistic part of it, I meant more that some people - particularly those of us in the US, say we are a country that was built entirely on "freedom" - yet when you think about it, there are things that we are still obligated to do. We have to balance freedom with our other values, most notably order (as conservatives do) and equality (as liberals do). I happen to fall into the latter category for the most part, so I'll admit - I DON'T live in a totally free country. Honestly, true freedom, democracy, equality etc. exists only in fantasy. Everyone wants to create a perfect world, but considering that my own nation is entirely composed of immigrants with different cultures and different lifestyles, there's never going to be real unity.

I am sympathetic toward this view, but Overwatch and I were arguing from a slightly different set of predetermined "axioms," you could say. And I'll warn you, he might come at you sideways with a crowbar (of words) over this sentiment.

 

[Dak]

I really don't bother correcting people about Americas quite non free origins anymore, unless they already are wanting to go into it.

 

[jakethedog]

I thought I smelled Saussure. Well, I'm a current English grad student, so welcome!

You are right, it was Saussure. I'm English/Film, so sounds like we got quite a bit in common. Pleased to e-meet you!

I am sympathetic toward this view, but Overwatch and I were arguing from a slightly different set of predetermined "axioms," you could say. And I'll warn you, he might come at you sideways with a crowbar (of words) over this sentiment.

I'm not quite sure what you mean here, explain more? But the general gist I get from this thread is that there is no "true" freedom - freedom of religion (in my case, from), freedom from money/taxes, freedom to not be constrained by traditional racist/sexist values... it all comes from your own viewpoint and what most affects your life circumstances.

 

[Einherjar86]

I'm not quite sure what you mean here, explain more? But the general gist I get from this thread is that there is no "true" freedom - freedom of religion (in my case, from), freedom from money/taxes, freedom to not be constrained by traditional racist/sexist values... it all comes from your own viewpoint and what most affects your life circumstances.

I think we're trying to avoid being that relativistic. So, to respond to some of the things you said in this post:

But I wasn't really referring to the linguistic part of it, I meant more that some people - particularly those of us in the US, say we are a country that was built entirely on "freedom" - yet when you think about it, there are things that we are still obligated to do. We have to balance freedom with our other values, most notably order (as conservatives do) and equality (as liberals do). I happen to fall into the latter category for the most part, so I'll admit - I DON'T live in a totally free country. Honestly, true freedom, democracy, equality etc. exists only in fantasy. Everyone wants to create a perfect world, but considering that my own nation is entirely composed of immigrants with different cultures and different lifestyles, there's never going to be real unity.

I don't think that Dak would say you have to balance freedom with other values, such as order or equality, because I think he sees freedom (in this case, freedom of economic action) as naturally leading to order and equality. In this sense, I don't think freedom is a value although it can function as a value. In the sense that we were discussing it, freedom is simply a form or state of action. We weren't assess it from within its typical democratic framework. I would tend to agree with this approach, except that I think there are problems with the way it's discussed in traditional Austrian circles (which is what we were originally talking about).

Dak is Overwatch, by the way.

 

[jakethedog]

The only problem I see with that is that one person's freedom might infringe on another's. That's what politics are all about. What would be the one way where everyone has the maximum amount of freedom? Basically, everyone would have to leave everyone alone?

And I was wondering who Dak was, thanks for clarifying

 

[Einherjar86]

Right, and that's my point; if we actually conceive of freedom in that way, then it becomes useless to discuss it as "freedom," as the concept that signifies free action, since freedom becomes the very thing that limits itself. Put more simply, freedom makes itself not freedom.

I, personally, think there's a higher-order thought to this problem that might help us either redefine freedom, or move beyond it entirely.

 

[viewerfromnihil]

The only problem I see with that is that one person's freedom might infringe on another's. That's what politics are all about. What would be the one way where everyone has the maximum amount of freedom? Basically, everyone would have to leave everyone alone?

And I was wondering who Dak was, thanks for clarifying

Dak is Overwatch. His old username was Dakryn.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

- continuing from the book thread - I've recently talked to two Women (one with a Bach & another with a Masters) that are telling me that this commercial is disgusting, objectifies Women and preserves "rape culture". And this isn't a minority opinion, in my estimation, among the average female.

 

[Einherjar86]

- continuing from the book thread - I've recently talked to two Women (one with a Bach & another with a Masters) that are telling me that this commercial is disgusting, objectifies Women and preserves "rape culture". And this isn't a minority opinion, in my estimation, among the average female.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_e8DKVnrIY

The question over whether it objectifies women is almost not worth having; of course it objectifies women. The problem is over whether they find it offensive. I'm sure some women do, and some women probably don't. And the ones that do probably despise the ones that don't.

Advertising objectifies everything. It doesn't care about perpetuating rape culture; that isn't something that can be traced intentionally to the advertisement itself. It can, however, be detected. I'm not surprised that a commercial like this throws off such traces. I mean, if you look at the imagery, you can see that it's women in bikinis versus males who are all clothed. There's a clear dynamic.

Now, on to the larger issue ('cause you asked for it, Jimmy ):

I disagree. I think It's everywhere. This I feel is the problem. It's like when I hear black people talk about reparations or the use of the word my pals (who can or can't say it). I had nothing to to with it, it dies with the people and culture that perpetuated it (as far as the individual goes, socially it's a different story). You know the saying - two wrongs don't make a right - So Women were treated badly therefore I can't call a woman a cunt without possibly being hit (reverse this btw and I go to jail) and/or socially ostracized for using a "bad word", or make a joke about rape within the context of the joke itself without hearing how I'm a misogynist pig and condone "rape culture". This part of the culture wants to control your language and limit your freedom.

It doesn't matter whether or not you had anything to do with it. It's the difference between being intentionally guilty and socially responsible, and it doesn't die with the people who perpetuated it, and it particularly doesn't die with the culture that perpetuated it (primarily because the culture that perpetuated it is the culture we still have).

This, again, is a symptom of the individualist ideology, which feels a need to trace every emotional "affect" back to an originary source. So, if a black person claims that there's a racial element to the Trayvon Martin case, then there must be someone who acted in an intentionally racist manner; or, if a woman feels that a commercial perpetuates rape culture, it must be out to intentionally perpetuate that sentiment. The task lies in seeing these as problems of socio-symbolic inscription as opposed to problems of individual agency/intention.

We can't simply move past these problems by claiming that they die with those who more directly perpetuated them (which amounts to brushing them under the rug). The reason is because even while we (i.e. white, middle/lower-middle class, American males) may very be entirely intentionally innocent, we cannot possibly empathize with those on the receiving end of the issue (lower-class blacks, women, etc.). It is extremely easy for us to brush it under the rug, but it is difficult, if not impossible, for them to do so. They cannot help but feel the bigotry in the occurrence; not because someone is intentionally acting in a bigoted manner, but because bigotry is inscribed into the event.

 

[Dak]

I have little use for something present in the ether. We can argue about mystic feelings all day long and never be wrong or right. In the case where there isn't an individual origination external to the feeler, it originates purely in the subjective view of the feeler. Which is about as valid as hearing voices. Maybe you did, but so what?

 

[Einherjar86]

For you, something either has to be individual, or it must be mystical. Those aren't your only two options.

 

[Dak]

Says an individual.