Rorty's Liberal Ironist
-
- Posts: 5
- Joined: May 31st, 2021, 10:02 am
Rorty's Liberal Ironist
How does this figure represent the balancing of these two strands of thought?
Rorty goes on to say that the liberal ironist both believes cruelty is the worst thing and understands the contingency of their beliefs, which both seem to align with the community/ justice strand of historicism?
Thanks for all the help in advance,
Sophie
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7091
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: Rorty's Liberal Ironist
The Libertarian is happy to exploit the blue collar worker, but is pissed off when there are too few of them educated enough to run his factory for him.
The libertarian is all too happy to vote against the taxes that would help create a educated healthy work force, roads, police and army then he is pissed off when a country willing to build these things comes and invades his land and beggers him.
Such are the paradoxes of capitalism- a great ideas of only people were not so greedy.
-
- Posts: 4696
- Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am
Re: Rorty's Liberal Ironist
Egads. To effectively attack a view with which you disagree, the first prerequisite is accurately outlining that view. So you might want to discard the above comments, learn something about libertarian view, then start over.Sculptor1 wrote: ↑December 19th, 2021, 3:25 pm The libertarian resents paying taxes but is the first to call the police when a poor person excerts his "self creation" by burglering the rich mans house.
The Libertarian is happy to exploit the blue collar worker, but is pissed off when there are too few of them educated enough to run his factory for him.
The libertarian is all too happy to vote against the taxes that would help create a educated healthy work force, roads, police and army then he is pissed off when a country willing to build these things comes and invades his land and beggers him.
Such are the paradoxes of capitalism- a great ideas of only people were not so greedy.
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8268
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Rorty's Liberal Ironist
Libertarianism is a misnomer. It should be called 'anti-socialism', although the hyphenation needs to be changed to properly convey the intended meaning, to 'antisocial-ism'. It is an individualist (political) philosophy which not only champions the interests of the individual, but also opposes - and seeks to suppress - any co-operative action.GE Morton wrote: ↑December 20th, 2021, 12:06 amEgads. To effectively attack a view with which you disagree, the first prerequisite is accurately outlining that view. So you might want to discard the above comments, learn something about libertarian view, then start over.Sculptor1 wrote: ↑December 19th, 2021, 3:25 pm The libertarian resents paying taxes but is the first to call the police when a poor person excerts his "self creation" by burglering the rich mans house.
The Libertarian is happy to exploit the blue collar worker, but is pissed off when there are too few of them educated enough to run his factory for him.
The libertarian is all too happy to vote against the taxes that would help create a educated healthy work force, roads, police and army then he is pissed off when a country willing to build these things comes and invades his land and beggers him.
Such are the paradoxes of capitalism- a great ideas of only people were not so greedy.
"Who cares, wins"
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 6105
- Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm
Re: Rorty's Liberal Ironist
-
- Posts: 4696
- Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am
Re: Rorty's Liberal Ironist
You make some of the most nonsensical, even bizarre, claims, PC.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑December 22nd, 2021, 7:26 am
Libertarianism is a misnomer. It should be called 'anti-socialism', although the hyphenation needs to be changed to properly convey the intended meaning, to 'antisocial-ism'. It is an individualist (political) philosophy which not only champions the interests of the individual, but also opposes - and seeks to suppress - any co-operative action.
Libertarians " . . . oppose and seek to suppress any cooperative action"?
Really? Libertarians oppose, say, corporations? Football teams? Jazz bands? Dance troupes? Business partnerships? Gardening, model railroad, or athletic clubs? The Kiwanis? Flea markets? Charities? Marriages?
Cooperative actions all. No libertarian I know of opposes any of them.
Libertarians have no objections to any cooperative action --- as long as it's voluntary. What they oppose is "cooperation" secured at the point of a gun (which is usually understood to be, not "cooperation," but slavery). Perhaps you'd like to re-visit your claim and insert that qualifier, or else defend the coercion you apparently find acceptable.
-
- Posts: 4696
- Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am
Re: Rorty's Liberal Ironist
That term has been used to persuade and hector since it first began to appear in the liberal tradition, Belindi. Indeed, that has been its chief role in modern political history:
"Liberty, Fraternity, Equality!"
"Give me liberty or give me death!"
"Disobedience is the true foundation of liberty. The obedient must be slaves." (Henry David Thoreau)
"It was we, the people; not we, the white male citizens; nor yet we, the male citizens; but we, the whole people, who formed the Union. And we formed it, not to give the blessings of liberty, but to secure them; not to the half of ourselves and the half of our posterity, but to the whole people - women as well as men." (Susan B. Anthony).
Etc.
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 6105
- Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm
Re: Rorty's Liberal Ironist
I 'd rather Madame Roland "Oh liberty, liberty, what crimes are committed in your name".GE Morton wrote: ↑December 22nd, 2021, 12:25 pmThat term has been used to persuade and hector since it first began to appear in the liberal tradition, Belindi. Indeed, that has been its chief role in modern political history:
"Liberty, Fraternity, Equality!"
"Give me liberty or give me death!"
"Disobedience is the true foundation of liberty. The obedient must be slaves." (Henry David Thoreau)
"It was we, the people; not we, the white male citizens; nor yet we, the male citizens; but we, the whole people, who formed the Union. And we formed it, not to give the blessings of liberty, but to secure them; not to the half of ourselves and the half of our posterity, but to the whole people - women as well as men." (Susan B. Anthony).
Etc.
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8268
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Rorty's Liberal Ironist
Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑December 22nd, 2021, 7:26 am
Libertarianism is a misnomer. It should be called 'anti-socialism', although the hyphenation needs to be changed to properly convey the intended meaning, to 'antisocial-ism'. It is an individualist (political) philosophy which not only champions the interests of the individual, but also opposes - and seeks to suppress - any co-operative action.
With you as a contributor, there is little point in offering a balanced perspective. If we did, then the result would average out as a Libertarian festival.
Yes, libertarians only co-operate if it suits them, taking no notice at all of how valuable and necessary (to the family/tribe/community/etc) that co-operation might be. And their childish response to such necessary and valuable actions is to complain about coercion and slavery! I feel a more mature attitude is appropriate, and this is where I differ from libertarians.GE Morton wrote: ↑December 22nd, 2021, 11:52 am Libertarians have no objections to any cooperative action --- as long as it's voluntary. What they oppose is "cooperation" secured at the point of a gun (which is usually understood to be, not "cooperation," but slavery). Perhaps you'd like to re-visit your claim and insert that qualifier, or else defend the coercion you apparently find acceptable.
"Who cares, wins"
-
- Posts: 4696
- Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am
-
- Posts: 2138
- Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm
Re: Rorty's Liberal Ironist
Guillotining all those counter-revolutionaries wasn't a crime. It was all legal, I suppose.
-
- Posts: 4696
- Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am
Re: Rorty's Liberal Ironist
Families, tribes, communities and any other groups have no interests other than the interests of the individuals who constitute them. Nothing has value to them that does not have value to the individuals who constitute them. And of course, those interests and values will differ from individual to individual, regardless of any groups to which they may belong (or be defined into).Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑December 23rd, 2021, 9:14 am
Yes, libertarians only co-operate if it suits them, taking no notice at all of how valuable and necessary (to the family/tribe/community/etc) that co-operation might be. And their childish response to such necessary and valuable actions is to complain about coercion and slavery! I feel a more mature attitude is appropriate, and this is where I differ from libertarians.
And, yes, if some individuals are forced to pursue the interests of other individuals, at the cost of or in disregard of their own, that constitutes slavery.
You can't defend such slavery by arguing that "group interests" outweigh the interests of individuals, because groups are nothing but individuals. Nor can you argue that the "collective interest" outweighs individual interests, because modern societies are not collectives; they're only collections, i.e., groups. There is no "collective interest."
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8268
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Rorty's Liberal Ironist
Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑December 23rd, 2021, 9:14 am Yes, libertarians only co-operate if it suits them, taking no notice at all of how valuable and necessary (to the family/tribe/community/etc) that co-operation might be. And their childish response to such necessary and valuable actions is to complain about coercion and slavery! I feel a more mature attitude is appropriate, and this is where I differ from libertarians.
Libertarianism is a moral philosophy, not a political one. It 'legitimises' immoral behaviour, offering absolution in advance, without contrition or guilt, similar to the corrupt 'indulgences' offered by the Christian Church in the Middle Ages. It takes the admirable Wiccan Rede - "And ye harm none, do what thou wilt" - and, like Crowley, removes the all-important constraint, so that it becomes "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law". It underlies and 'legitimises' (again) the too-common saying "It's nothing personal; it's just business".GE Morton wrote: ↑December 23rd, 2021, 2:33 pm Families, tribes, communities and any other groups have no interests other than the interests of the individuals who constitute them. Nothing has value to them that does not have value to the individuals who constitute them. And of course, those interests and values will differ from individual to individual, regardless of any groups to which they may belong (or be defined into).
And, yes, if some individuals are forced to pursue the interests of other individuals, at the cost of or in disregard of their own, that constitutes slavery.
You can't defend such slavery by arguing that "group interests" outweigh the interests of individuals, because groups are nothing but individuals. Nor can you argue that the "collective interest" outweighs individual interests, because modern societies are not collectives; they're only collections, i.e., groups. There is no "collective interest."
Libertarianism is the Sociopaths' Charter. It denies the necessity for co-operative behaviour when the Individual concerned would prefer not to comply. It's perhaps a little surprising (?) that it is most common in America, a strongly Christian State, as it directly contradicts some of the main principles of that faith. And it denies, too, the concept of "collective interest", as you describe so well above.
"Who cares, wins"
-
- Posts: 4696
- Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am
Re: Rorty's Liberal Ironist
Political philosophy is a sub-category of moral philosophy. Unlike political science, which is concerned with the structure and mechanisms of government, political philosophy is concerned with the morality of government --- with its moral justification and the morally justifiable scope of its powers, and with the duties it has to citizens and they to it. The latter are the central concerns of "libertarianism."Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑December 24th, 2021, 1:17 pm
Libertarianism is a moral philosophy, not a political one. It 'legitimises' immoral behaviour, offering absolution in advance, without contrition or guilt, similar to the corrupt 'indulgences' offered by the Christian Church in the Middle Ages.
Well, there is another of those bizarre claims of yours. I know of no libertarian who removes the "do not harm" constraint from his/her conception of the scope of freedom. Can you cite one, or did you just pluck that from thin air? I've certainly included it in every articulation of freedom I've given.It takes the admirable Wiccan Rede - "And ye harm none, do what thou wilt" - and, like Crowley, removes the all-important constraint, so that it becomes "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law". It underlies and 'legitimises' (again) the too-common saying "It's nothing personal; it's just business".
Of course. Cooperative behavior is only "necessary" for certain tasks in which all members of a group have an interest. It is not "necessary" at all for someone who has no interest in that task. So you have to address the issue raised previously, and which you ignore in this post. Per what principle does Alfie acquire an obligation to pursue Bruno's interests? Per what principle is Bruno justified in forcing Alfie to pursue his interest?Libertarianism is the Sociopaths' Charter. It denies the necessity for co-operative behaviour when the Individual concerned would prefer not to comply.
"Sociopaths' Charter"? Well, if libertarians did indeed reject the "do not harm" principle, as you asserted, that would be a fair characterization. But they don't; that assertion of yours is gratuitous and false.
Well, I'm not a Christian, and so not much concerned with Christian principles. But perhaps you can spell out which of those principles "libertarianism" contradicts.It's perhaps a little surprising (?) that it is most common in America, a strongly Christian State, as it directly contradicts some of the main principles of that faith.
You are ignoring the context. There is no collective interest of (modern, civilized) societies. Those societies are not collectives. But there are thousands of collectives, and thus collective interests, within societies. Baseball teams, orchestras, business partnerships, etc., etc., are all collectives whose members share some interest and work cooperatively in its pursuit.And it denies, too, the concept of "collective interest", as you describe so well above.
It would be helpful, PC, if you would directly address points made, specifically and one at a time, in the posts with which you disagree, instead of ignoring them all and responding with ad hominems ("Sociopath's Charter"), false or out-of-context attributions ("denies collective interest"), and gratuitous claims ("removes the do not harm constraint").
- foxermcbride
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 1
- Joined: December 26th, 2021, 12:27 am
Re: Rorty's Liberal Ironist
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023