Question: What is the best thing a philosopher can do to further mankind

[Frediano]

You have no hesitation to assert what is good for every person, and not merely for yourself, when it suits your purpose.

I clearly have not done that. In my worldview, you are free to give up your freedom, and go live in a totalitarian commune, if that is what is good for you. Or even, wax Amish. Feel free for as long as you want. And yes, I have no hesitation at all in asserting that, because it places no obligation on you to accept my worldview. None.

It is not a symmetric claim by others that I must also join their totalitarian commune, that what is good for them and theirs is that I give up my freedom. That isn't a mere vanilla/chocolate polite disagreement between us as peers. My advocacy of my own freedom is not subject to public debate. You advocacy of your own is none of my business or concern. That sophistry might sell well in some Freshmen Philo 101 courses, but not with everybody.

The practical realpolitick of that worldview is, it wasn't possible to build the walls high enough in East Germany. There weren't enough guard towers and barbed wire to compel folks to buy the 'universal' wisdom of those truths. A proud moment, when a 'superior intellectual paradigm' must resort to thuggery to even try to fly.

One free nation could yet survive with 191 totalitarian pissholes on earth. More power to them. But, 191 totalitarian pissholes could not exist as long as there was still 1 free nation on earth. It would not be possible to build the walls high enough. Such is the proud legacy of totalitarian ideas.

And a corollary to that is, the capable do not easily surrender the average, no matter how the game is constructivistly rigged. (As in, see 'child-only' health insurance plans, RIP.) In the current many decade long class war, waged now for almost a hundred years in this nation, only one side has showed up to the battlefield.

But hey, if the class warriors are happy with the results, I'm happy.

Now, excuse me while I go meet with my employees...wait a minute, I've been neither an employee nor employer for over 25 years. What was I thinking? I'd lost it there for a second. In America, since 1992, "It's the economy, stupid!" We live in a centrally planned, command/control 'the' economy these days. And, sure enough, for the last several decades, I've been doing nothing but patiently waiting for instructions from 'The Economy' runners.

Sure I have.

But, OK. Let's all wait. Shoelaces or Green Potatoes tomorrow?

Forget 'Green.' Welcome to the Grey Economies of Waiting...

regards,

Fred

[sjw]

How on earth did you come up the godawful metaphor of "one skin, one driver"? I googled the expression, thinking it might be from an obscure movie or book, but all I found were more repetitions of it by you. I would say that the metaphor is too clever by half, but that would be an unwarranted compliment.

Ghs

Where I live, people who come up with metaphors like that are usually preachers of some kind of another looking to sound like they have a "nuts and bolts" understanding, when really they are just nuts.

Oh, I hate to do this because it reminds me of Ninth, but here goes:

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

You have no hesitation to assert what is good for every person, and not merely for yourself, when it suits your purpose.

I clearly have not done that. In my worldview, you are free to give up your freedom, and go live in a totalitarian commune, if that is what is good for you. Or even, wax Amish. Feel free for as long as you want. And yes, I have no hesitation at all in asserting that, because it places no obligation on you to accept my worldview. None.

Do you honestly not understand the point here? If a person voluntarily joins a commune and is free to leave at any time, then there is nothing "totalitarian" about that arrangement. It is merely one form of voluntary association among many.

In claiming that all human associations should be voluntary, you are clearly saying that third parties are obligated not to forcibly interfere with such voluntary associations. You are doing far more than expressing a personal preference here. You are setting down a universal rule that all people should follow.

This is very basic stuff. And I don't disagree with it in the least. But, unlike you, I understand when I am defending universal moral judgments.

Ghs

[Frediano]

I claim that all human associations should be freely entered into, and sleep like a baby advocating that. Exactly.

Fine. Then you don't really believe that universal, one-size-fits-all value judgments are somehow totalitarian. This leaves me wondering what the point was to all your blustering about Shayne's original question. If ever a mountain was made out of a molehill, this was it.

There is a clear moral axiom -- violation of 'one skin, one driver' -- that I can personally apply to justify the use of state force.

How on earth did you come up the godawful metaphor of "one skin, one driver"? I googled the expression, thinking it might be from an obscure movie or book, but all I found were more repetitions of it by you. I would say that the metaphor is too clever by half, but that would be an unwarranted compliment.

Ghs

Re: One skin, one driver: They are well understood words, readily bolted together. Original, but not 'patentable.' When I find a more personally usable moral axiom, I will readily trash it. So far, nada.

If 'one' is too few drivers, than how many others should we involuntarily surrender the driving of our skins to?

Most skins uber alles? One skin uber alles? Some skins uber alles? I have, over the years, noticed a tsunami of leg lifting arguments trying to convince me to surrender my one and only life to implement the worldview of others, but have never understood that as anything other than carny hucksterism. Sometimes, its in the name of God. Other times, its in the name of 'S'ociety, or some other unseen Magic Spirit in the Sky. Always, it is obvious and clumsy leg lifting, high priests borrowing unseen authority safely far away and unseen, and unseeable. It is exactly what happens when you go to some carnivals, and lose your wallet. Like, what goes on at those over-run playgrounds of subsidy and indoctrination, from our salad days. But, many of us move on from college.

I'd love to hear your non-godawful pithy alternatives to the godawful "one skin, one driver." And, if you mustered sufficient political argument for your alternatives, I might even be convinced to throw 'one skin, one driver' onto the trash heap, and replace it with your superior vision and argument, so far nowhere in evidence.

You 'googled' to find the authority to interpret 'one skin, one driver?' To find someone to tell you what to think of those three words, with 'one' repeated twice?

Wouldn't it be better to have 'grokked' instead of googled?

Perhaps you disagree with the sentiment. I can live with that, and do. Quite well. Especially since there's been exactly no argument to convince me otherwise. None, zero, nada, zilch. Childish hostility in lieu of actual debate. Another day ending in 'y' on the in-ter-net.

regards,

Fred

Edited September 26, 2010 by Frediano

[Frediano]

You have no hesitation to assert what is good for every person, and not merely for yourself, when it suits your purpose.

I clearly have not done that. In my worldview, you are free to give up your freedom, and go live in a totalitarian commune, if that is what is good for you. Or even, wax Amish. Feel free for as long as you want. And yes, I have no hesitation at all in asserting that, because it places no obligation on you to accept my worldview. None.

Do you honestly not understand the point here? If a person voluntarily joins a commune and is free to leave at any time, then there is nothing "totalitarian" about that arrangement. It is merely one form of voluntary association among many.

Ghs

And do you honestly not understand, that is exactly why I condone that voluntary arrangement, because there is nothing 'totalitarian' about that arrangement, that it is merely one form of voluntary association among many?

??? That is exactly what I said. What did you think I said?

regards,

Fred