Another famous libertarian tactic: "your taxes" is a completely normal use of the possessive. But libertarians love to pretend that when people speak the way 99% of everyone else does, they are using words "oddly"!
Gene, this reminds me of the meta-ethical theories of non-cognitivism. Non-cognitivism holds that when we speak of 'x is good', we are really just asserting a psychological emotion (this view is sometimes called 'emotivism') to a statement, akin to saying 'Hurrah for x!' or 'Boo on y!'
Unfortunately, this is not how people use evaluative language. The non-cognitivist, like the libertarian, uses a new response: calling evaluative statements correct because 'that is how people use these words' is begging the question.
This response does not work (for the non-cognitivist) for several reasons, but I think that libertarians are attempting to use a similar move: just because 'we use language that way' or 'we think of things being this way' does not mean that it is good, or justified, etc.
Gene, relax a bit, okay? I was just making an observation. I'm glad to know that I was wrong in characterizing what you have said, but there is no need to be so temperamental. Please be more gracious in your replies, or I will not post on your blog.
From what I understand, you are trying to ridicule the position of "Remove illegal immigration by removing borders" by flipping it back on libertarians. Yes or no?
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas -- unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose...
Odd use of the possessive. How does a government demand become "mine?"
ReplyDeleteI know libertarians hate acknowledging that they are citizens of this country. But nevertheless you are.
DeleteAnother famous libertarian tactic: "your taxes" is a completely normal use of the possessive. But libertarians love to pretend that when people speak the way 99% of everyone else does, they are using words "oddly"!
DeleteGene, this reminds me of the meta-ethical theories of non-cognitivism. Non-cognitivism holds that when we speak of 'x is good', we are really just asserting a psychological emotion (this view is sometimes called 'emotivism') to a statement, akin to saying 'Hurrah for x!' or 'Boo on y!'
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, this is not how people use evaluative language. The non-cognitivist, like the libertarian, uses a new response: calling evaluative statements correct because 'that is how people use these words' is begging the question.
This response does not work (for the non-cognitivist) for several reasons, but I think that libertarians are attempting to use a similar move: just because 'we use language that way' or 'we think of things being this way' does not mean that it is good, or justified, etc.
Who called something correct "because 'that is how people use these words'"?
DeleteNot me Alex. I said it was invalid to claim that how people use these words is an "odd use" of language.
Why would you turn that into a claim about something being "correct"?! Were you not paying any attention to what I actually wrote?
Gene, relax a bit, okay? I was just making an observation. I'm glad to know that I was wrong in characterizing what you have said, but there is no need to be so temperamental. Please be more gracious in your replies, or I will not post on your blog.
DeleteYou were delivering a lecture to me on a philosophical point I have understood for decades.
DeleteKids, how to stop your mom from forcing you to eat liver: start liking liver!
ReplyDeleteMore like: so you don't have to be forced to behave morally, do it voluntarily.
DeleteFrom what I understand, you are trying to ridicule the position of "Remove illegal immigration by removing borders" by flipping it back on libertarians. Yes or no?
ReplyDeleteI don't think this line of argument is a good one.
ReplyDelete