MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Politics, The Final Frontier (Politics)
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 104, 105, 106  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

There is a mystery of omnipotence here in that you "know" that I don't know any capitalists

There is a simple AE trick that is used in these circumstances. You will recall something similar is used in the Evolution chapter of THOBR. People are always claiming vague authorities in argument to buttress some point or other, so one offers a thousand pounds for each name (at a dinner party one ceremonially and dramatically gets out one's chequebook).

So come on, Edwin, name some names. You can of course use people you haven't actually met but have observed on the telly. But not characters from The Beano with silk hats.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

There are some people who actually believe that it is the constant urge to curtail ultimately irresistible market forces that is at the root of many of the world's problems

Well, yes, this is a standard cry of the political classes generally who have to convey that they 'have a programme'. Notice though that Brian understands the situation better ("ultimately irresistible") than they do. Quite an economic wiz, our Bri.

(witness the increasingly desperate measures being invoked to prevent the market from dealing with the debt crisis, for example).

A very serious acusation. Brian. You seem to be suggesting that even though a lowly observer like one Brian Ambrose is in possession of the correct solution,"these people" are being deliberately obstructionist. Again a few names would be useful.

AE-ists by the way are the only people who admit they don't know what to do because they are the only people who believe that economic forces are truly chaotic. That is not to say that solutions should not be tried out since everybody (including AE-ists) are reassured when "something is being done".
Send private message
Grant



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick wrote:

Yes, this is a critical insight. It is essential that virtually everybody is either right-wing or left-wing in a modern society, just as in earlier times, when law'n'order was more tenuous, it was essential that everybody followed a single ideology, ie the same religion.


I disagree that we nowadays tolerate two ideologies. I think that just like in every period of history there is just one set of opinions which everyone who wishes to go about in polite society must hold. None of these beliefs are true in the sense that there is any actual evidence. These beliefs evolve over the years to fit the current circumstances.

So, in 1500 we all believed that the Pope was God's representative on Earth. If you spoke out against him you would have been in deep do-da. But in 1600 the Pope was the anti-Christ. Speak out for him and you'd soon be roasting on a barbecue.

Similarly in 1900 if you had set up a gay bar you would be in prison. Nowadays if you protest against gay bars you'll be investigated by the police for potential hate crime.

But there is no evidence that gayness is harmless. In fact the 20,000,000 dead from AIDS indicate the opposite. There was also no evidence that we were better off without the Pope.

Opinions change because of fashion, technical innovations, decrees from the ruling class. 99.9% of people then fall into line.
Send private message
Brian Ambrose



View user's profile
Reply with quote

A very serious acusation. Brian


I am honoured. But I don't deserve such praise, I just read the occasional financial comic. This is simply a case in point, I do not offer a solution. I merely point out that an untramellist would let Mr. Market deal with the problem; that is, let banks and countries that can't affort to pay their debts go bust. Supply your own names - every single politician or top banker is wringing their hands over how best to obstruct the unstoppable force of Mr. Market. And how to protect their own positions.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Supply your own names

Ah, it was Everyman. It's everywhere and nowhere, baby, as Jeff Beck constantly reminds us.
Send private message
Brian Ambrose



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Yes, it is Everyman. Everyman wants people to like him, but even more he wants to retain the status quo, whilst making things better, especially for himself. Do you think Obama is going to tell the American people that actually we can no longer afford to spend 3 trillion a year on the military, and we are now closing down all of our imperial adventures? Or Sarkozy and Merkel that the Euro is unsustainable in its current form, that most of the union is bankrupt, let alone Greece, and that the grand European scheme is a failure? No, they'll all do anything in their power to kick the can further down the road. It's all they can do, but it just postpones the inevitable. Mr. Market cannot be denied.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

So now you know better than Obama, Sarkozy and Merkel. Truly we are in the presence of a wundermind.
Send private message
Brian Ambrose



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick, that is a ridiculous exaggeration. I only know better than Obama and Sarkozy.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
Brian. You seem to be suggesting that even though a lowly observer like one Brian Ambrose is in possession of the correct solution,"these people" are being deliberately obstructionist. Again a few names would be useful.

Brian, for his part, merely correctly outlined the nature of the two perspectives in conflict: One side believes market forces to be destructive and thus must always be "curtailed" to some degree (indeed, this is not a conclusion at which they arrive after investigating the matter but a "premise" upon which they construct their world-view); the other side holds that all attempts to "curtail" market forces ultimately create the greatest apparent problems popularly associated with the market.

As an "untramellist" myself, I am opposed to trying any "solutions", as these will only produce more problems. The current crisis stems in large part from the "solutions" imposed by previous generations to "curtail" market forces.

That is not to say that solutions should not be tried out since everybody (including AE-ists) are reassured when "something is being done".


Yes. When Obama was rolling out his stimulus, I thought in my humility (as I am well known for) that perhaps it might work -- perhaps -- contrary to my own beliefs in such matters -- the act of appearing to "do something" would have a reassuring impact upon the market. Yet events have not borne this out. Why?

One suspicion I have is that the populace itself is too economically literate in "untramellist" philosophy to be reassured by government intervention. Whether right or wrong, if a sufficient number of the market's participants believe stimulus to be destructive, then a stimulus loses whatever power it ever had to reassure. It may have the opposite effect,compounding the negative consequences "untramellists" already attribute to it.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Brian Ambrose wrote:
Mick, that is a ridiculous exaggeration. I only know better than Obama and Sarkozy.


Ha ha ha ha hah!!

Thread winner!
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I disagree that we nowadays tolerate two ideologies. I think that just like in every period of history there is just one set of opinions which everyone who wishes to go about in polite society must hold. None of these beliefs are true in the sense that there is any actual evidence. These beliefs evolve over the years to fit the current circumstances.

The liberal consensus (as it would be in Britain), you mean? I must cautiously dissent. In the olden days dissent was (to our latterday eyes) a similar business of disagreeing about trivia. But people actually revolted, assassinated the king etc etc on the basis of such trivia. So iron uniformity had to be enjoined. Nowadays we have the technology -- or the statism -- to be able to isolate and prevent the revolters and the assassins, so generally we can allow a hundred flowers to bloom.

So, in 1500 we all believed that the Pope was God's representative on Earth. If you spoke out against him you would have been in deep do-da. But in 1600 the Pope was the anti-Christ. Speak out for him and you'd soon be roasting on a barbecue.

You make my point. Catholics were illegal, then legal-but-penalised, then enfranchised by stages as the state found it could cope with 'the enemy within'. It is worth pointing out that millions of Britons believe that the Pope is God's representative on Earth today. Plus ca change....

Similarly in 1900 if you had set up a gay bar you would be in prison. Nowadays if you protest against gay bars you'l l be investigated by the police for potential hate crime.

Ditto. Gays used to be capable of God-knows-what. We didn't know so we made them crims just to be on the safe side. A rational policy I would have thought. The Greens call it the Precautionary Principle.

But there is no evidence that gayness is harmless. In fact the 20,000,000 dead from AIDS indicate the opposite.

Nobody says freedom doesn't have its price. If you'd have known about AIDS in the nineteen-sixties would you have opposed legalising homosexuality (assuming you are in favour of doing so now)? Only a small number of homosexuals died of AIDS in Britain. I should think they thought the exercise worthwhile.

There was also no evidence that we were better off without the Pope.

An absurd truism. We cannot begin to compute the effect of anything that happens in history.

Opinions change because of fashion, technical innovations, decrees from the ruling class. 99.9% of people then fall into line.

Ah, the ruling class. Yet another of these elusive bogeymen. Please name one of these "ruling classers" and state what fashion or technical innovations he or she decreed.
Send private message
Grant



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Please name one of these "ruling classers" and state what fashion or technical innovations he or she decreed


Henry the Eighth.

There is no evidence that there was any dissatisfaction with Catholicism from the point of view of the English masses. But Henry needed to free himself from papal authority and steal the church's property. At first many rebelled especially in the North, but eventually the grandchildren of the rebels enthusiastically adopted Protestantism.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I would be embarrassed to win that bet.
Send private message
GrouchoMarxthespot



View user's profile
Reply with quote

People believe things not because they are true but because they make them happy. Applied Epistemology is a range of techniques that ...well, one would have to say "attempts to make sure that the truth makes you happy".

This is an important point.

The house style of the AE library is something like AJ Ayer meets Oliver Cromwell - a zealous attempt to debunk sentimental and indulgently self serving concepts, especially when it comes to lazy academic thought.

Of course philosophy has been declared beyond the pale - so we can't learn anything from it: Except that we have been here before.

Every attempt to stamp out the fires of metaphysics, either in the traditional sense or the neo metaphysics identified by the AEs, (which seems to include plate tectonics, political ideologies of the left, oral traditions, together with speculative trains of thought, except when authorised), has to face up to the akward fact that as soon as you stamp them out and turn your back, then, whoosh, they flare up again.

Why? This is just about one of the most important questions that can be asked. Instead of policing popular thought, (and I mean exactly those words), should we not be analysing the propensity of popular thought, ranging from conventional wisdom, aka much of science, on the one hand to political opinions on the other, (and you don't know mine either by the way), to be largely sentimental in character?

Alarm bells should be ringing: AE is about to enter the world of OFSTED, VOSA the H&S Executive and, I would imagine the world of the Witchfinder General: A world where our work is never done

There will never, as the AE enterprise is currently construed, ever be a day when we can hang up our boots and say "That's it, truth has been established."
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Every attempt to stamp out the fires of metaphysics, either in the traditional sense or the neo metaphysics identified by the AEs, (which seems to include plate tectonics

No, all academic paradigms. I just used that as a for instance.

political ideologies of the left

No, all political ideologies. I just used that as a for instance (because whoever it was was a Leftie, he would have entirely agreed if I had used right-wing examples).

oral traditions

No idea what this refers to. Do tell.

together with speculative trains of thought

No, these are our raison d'etre. You may be confusing this with metaphysics which we abhor.

except when authorised

If you say what unauthorised trains of thought you are referring to I will give you the reason or promise to un-unauthorise them.

has to face up to the akward fact that as soon as you stamp them out and turn your back, then, whoosh, they flare up again.

Yes, we have to fight the same battles each time a new bunch of people come along but we don't mind because one learns an awful lot by going round the mulberry bush yet again. It is called the Groundhog Effect. God! I hope that wasn't too metaphysical.

Why? This is just about one of the most important questions that can be asked. Instead of policing popular thought, (and I mean exactly those words), should we not be analysing the propensity of popular thought, ranging from conventional wisdom, aka much of science, on the one hand to political opinions on the other, (and you don't know mine either by the way), to be largely sentimental in character?

That's the spirit!

Alarm bells should be ringing: AE is about to enter the world of OFSTED, VOSA the H&S Executive and, I would imagine the world of the Witchfinder General: A world where our work is never done

Lawks! I had no idea. Sounds exciting.

There will never, as the AE enterprise is currently construed, ever be a day when we can hang up our boots and say "That's it, truth has been established."

Nonsense. Our Revered Leader (even I have one) has told us that day will arrive on 11th June 2019.
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 104, 105, 106  Next

Jump to:  
Page 3 of 106

MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group