Any living society is based on a shared way of life, a "public orthodoxy": once it abandons that and is "open to whatever," it is disintegrating, and will soon cease to exist.
Nope: we now simply enforce a new "public orthodoxy": see Brendan Eich's dismissal from Netscape. He was apparently a fine CEO. But he did not hold the "correct" opinion about SSM, so he lost his job.
It is not that "open societies" are not as good as "closed" societies: they do not, in fact, exist. They are an impossibility, given human nature.
Strange claim. Absent calamity of the military or natural disaster variety, does ANY society "cease to exist?" My perception is that societies change and evolve into other societies, which is not the same thing at all.
I suppose we can say ancient Egyptian culture did not cease to exist. Just like we can say "that tree did not cease to exist: it just turned into dirt."
But my "strange claim" is a very common way of speaking -- see Spengler and Toynbee -- and I think it works just fine, so long as one is not determined to read tendentiously.
Ancient Egypt would seem to be evidence for my claim rather than yours.
It was certainly modified -- Hellenization being the first big example -- by increasing travel and trade.
But even after major military calamity #1, its conquest by Alexander, the Ptolemies referred to themselves as, and comported themselves as, successors to the Pharaohs.
And after it was annexed by Rome in 30 BC -- major military calamity #2 -- the Romans for a long period of time mostly ratified the Ptolemaic system until Constantine began the process of forcible Christianization.
And then of course there was major military calamity #3, the Muslim conquest. The Egyptian language only persisted for a thousand years or so after that!
And Cleopatra is not really "dead": her corpse hung around for a while, and her name is still spoken frequently, and people put on plays about her, and every atom that was in her is still with us...
Oh, and by the way, there were not forced conversions under Constantine.
Ancaps often declare, "All rights are property rights." I was thinking about this the other day, in the context of running into libertarians online who insisted that libertarianism supports "the freedom of movement," and realized that this principle actually entails that people without property have no rights at all, let alone any right to "freedom of movement." Of course, immediately, any ancap readers still left here are going to say, "Wait a second! Everyone owns his own body! And so everyone at least has the right to not have his body interfered with." Well, that is true... except that in ancapistan, one has no right to any place to put that body, except if one owns property, or has the permission of at least one property owner to place that body on her land. So, if one is landless and penniless, one had sure better hope that there are kindly disposed property owners aligned in a corridor from wherever one happens to be to wherever the...
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...
Never one to allow a mistake to go uncompounded by a glaring error, Bob Murphy digs in deeper . He claims that "Taking money from people against their will is not akin to getting on the treadmill; it is akin to killing people against their will." Bob has introduced a largely irrelevant criterion here with his "against their will." Let us start with killing. (No, no, not killing Bob : we still love him despite his obstinacy.) The justice of a killing does not depend at all on whether the "victim" wants to be killed. If I shoot someone who is attempting to set off a nuclear weapon in Times Square, the fact that I killed him "against his will" does not make my killing immoral. And if a friend who is in despair asks me to shoot him in the head, the fact that he wants me to kill him would not make my action moral. Similarly, in taking money from people, the crucial question is whether you are taking it justly or unjustly, not whether they wan...
I think we've been an open society for a long time. Either this process takes a while or an "open society" is not self-destructive.
ReplyDeleteNope: we now simply enforce a new "public orthodoxy": see Brendan Eich's dismissal from Netscape. He was apparently a fine CEO. But he did not hold the "correct" opinion about SSM, so he lost his job.
DeleteIt is not that "open societies" are not as good as "closed" societies: they do not, in fact, exist. They are an impossibility, given human nature.
Then what do you mean by "once it abandons that and is 'open to whatever,' it is disintegrating, and will soon cease to exist."?
Delete"They are an impossibility, given human nature."
DeleteLogical impossibility is more like it. No need to invoke human nature.
Strange claim. Absent calamity of the military or natural disaster variety, does ANY society "cease to exist?" My perception is that societies change and evolve into other societies, which is not the same thing at all.
ReplyDeleteI suppose we can say ancient Egyptian culture did not cease to exist. Just like we can say "that tree did not cease to exist: it just turned into dirt."
DeleteBut my "strange claim" is a very common way of speaking -- see Spengler and Toynbee -- and I think it works just fine, so long as one is not determined to read tendentiously.
Ancient Egypt would seem to be evidence for my claim rather than yours.
DeleteIt was certainly modified -- Hellenization being the first big example -- by increasing travel and trade.
But even after major military calamity #1, its conquest by Alexander, the Ptolemies referred to themselves as, and comported themselves as, successors to the Pharaohs.
And after it was annexed by Rome in 30 BC -- major military calamity #2 -- the Romans for a long period of time mostly ratified the Ptolemaic system until Constantine began the process of forcible Christianization.
And then of course there was major military calamity #3, the Muslim conquest. The Egyptian language only persisted for a thousand years or so after that!
And Cleopatra is not really "dead": her corpse hung around for a while, and her name is still spoken frequently, and people put on plays about her, and every atom that was in her is still with us...
DeleteOh, and by the way, there were not forced conversions under Constantine.