View Poll Results: Mmm?

Voters
2. You may not vote on this poll
  • I'm a liberal, liberals are coherentists.

    0 0%
  • I'm a liberal, liberals are foundationalists.

    1 50.00%
  • I'm not a liberal, liberals are coherentists.

    0 0%
  • I'm not a liberal, liberals are foundationalists.

    1 50.00%
Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 71

Thread: Are Liberals Coherentists or Foundationalists?

  1. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    09-18-12 @ 08:07 AM
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    3,245

    Re: Are Liberals Coherentists or Foundationalists?

    Quote Originally Posted by RGacky3 View Post
    Its justified by the fact that children without parents would probably die and not be able to develop.
    That's like saying as a hostage taker, I'm entitled to take you hostage and make you do my bidding because if you don't, you'll starve.

    You still haven't referred to the beginning of a child's life. You're only referring to the continuation of it.

    Because we don't believe that Capitalism rewards merit and that it increases economic inequality without justification and to remedy that and to have a functioning economy you have to fix that.

    I don't advocate redistributive justice, I advocate changing the entire economic framework.
    You're talking about socialists here. This thread was about liberals. Let's try to stay on track by talking about the redistribution of wealth throughout the working class.

    Even you would agree that members of the proletariat are compensated according to average socially necessary labor time, and that all workers are entitled to equal shares of the means of production?

    That still requires material equality being an axiom.

    Sure ... As I said, its not black and white.

    I would say that logic and reason are true axioms.
    OK.

    The "thing in nature" is reason ...

    What your arguing is essencially saying that science is impossible ... I deny that, I say that there are perfectly rational ways to show how things are related.

    Are these based on axiomatic foundations? Yeah ... Reason and logic ...

    The fact is your entire OP was a false dictomy and a strawman.
    Well yes, scientific instruments used for observations have to be calibrated. There's nothing in nature that tells us what the calibrated state is. It's only when we define equilibrium that it becomes apparent.

    (Coincidentally, this is why it's important to keep science in the private sector - calibration is subjective.)

  2. #22
    Basketball Nerd
    StillBallin75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Vilseck, Germany
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 07:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    21,896

    Re: Are Liberals Coherentists or Foundationalists?

    Quote Originally Posted by Daktoria View Post
    One of the problems I have a lot when debating with liberals is their very sense of justice seems to be backwards. They seem to believe that something is justified only if it's surrounded by compatible circumstances, ignoring the value of something itself.

    The first belief is called coherentism. The second belief is called foundationalism.

    Obviously, coherentism is circular because it begs to know why something coheres in the first place. You can't have a puzzle without puzzle pieces.

    A liberal response typically goes that it doesn't matter what the particular puzzle pieces are. It just matters that they fit together.

    The problem, of course, is that raises the question, "How do we know what fits in the first place?"

    Liberals typically claim that "what fits" spontaneously emerges among dynamic interactions between people.

    Unfortunately, liberals don't seem to care that spontaneous emergence doesn't necessarily yield compatible solutions. It's at this point that we see that liberals are tyrants. They don't care if slim minorities fall through the cracks of society. They just care about the big picture as long as the minority is too insignificant to be bothered. This is why liberals love free speech and democracy - they love how people can be intimidated from appeals to absurdity, and they love to employ mob justice in forsakening independents who don't conform. To boot, they can claim that they tried by giving people a shot to fit in, so they don't have anymore due diligence to be responsible for.

    Ironically, this appeal to democratic popular sovereignty is how liberals become elitists. For example, lets say liberals claim that 1% of society is a tolerable insignificant minority that can be allowed to fall through the cracks for any particular issue. Given a society which has multiple issues...

    99% * 99% = 98%
    98% * 99% = 97%
    97% * 99% = 96%

    If society multiplies 69 issues, this leads to only 50% of society being compatible across the board.

    If society multiplies 229 issues, this leads to only 10% of society being compatible across the board.

    If society multiplies 458 issues, this leads to 1% of society being compatible across the board.

    Issues don't have to be big matters here. We don't have to be talking about abortion, gay marriage, gun rights, income equality, environmental protection, or labor reform.

    They can be simple things. Things like, "When should people be allowed to play music into the night?" or "Where should a road be built?" or "Should we teach school curriculum this way or that way?"

    The point is liberal coherentism doesn't actually include all people. It just includes most people, and when "most people" gets repeated over and over, this leads to a very small minority actually being compatible with what society stands for.

    It also leads to social tyranny because those who are more compatible over more issues are treated as superior to those who are less compatible.
    Maybe if you made your posts more coherent we could actually understand what the hell you're saying.
    Nobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.

    Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.

    All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.
    - Colonel Paul Yingling

  3. #23
    Sage
    RGacky3's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Last Seen
    08-25-15 @ 05:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    9,570

    Re: Are Liberals Coherentists or Foundationalists?

    That's like saying as a hostage taker, I'm entitled to take you hostage and make you do my bidding because if you don't, you'll starve.

    You still haven't referred to the beginning of a child's life. You're only referring to the continuation of it.
    Your example is a rediculous one that can never happen in nature.

    As far as the begining of a childs life, I don't see how its relevant ...

    You're talking about socialists here. This thread was about liberals. Let's try to stay on track by talking about the redistribution of wealth throughout the working class.
    I can't say why they support capitalism but still want redistribution, I suppose the only difference is they don't think there is a viable alternative. In economics for example Keynes took a lot from Marx, the difference is that Keynes gave solutions inside capitalism.

    Even you would agree that members of the proletariat are compensated according to average socially necessary labor time, and that all workers are entitled to equal shares of the means of production?

    That still requires material equality being an axiom.
    errr, no not at all, your showing an ignorance of Marxism, its positive economics, no where does he say the workers are compensated according to socailly necessary labor time, nor does he say they should be.

    Well yes, scientific instruments used for observations have to be calibrated. There's nothing in nature that tells us what the calibrated state is. It's only when we define equilibrium that it becomes apparent.

    (Coincidentally, this is why it's important to keep science in the private sector - calibration is subjective.)
    Its not subjective, not at all, infact a rational callibration would be one that gives accurate results consistantly.

    As far as your parenthasis statement, I don't see why that would be the case at all, nor is it historically true.

  4. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    09-18-12 @ 08:07 AM
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    3,245

    Re: Are Liberals Coherentists or Foundationalists?

    Quote Originally Posted by RGacky3 View Post
    Your example is a rediculous one that can never happen in nature.
    People get kidnapped all the time.

    As far as the begining of a childs life, I don't see how its relevant ...
    What? How can children even exist without a beginning?

    I can't say why they support capitalism but still want redistribution, I suppose the only difference is they don't think there is a viable alternative. In economics for example Keynes took a lot from Marx, the difference is that Keynes gave solutions inside capitalism.

    errr, no not at all, your showing an ignorance of Marxism, its positive economics, no where does he say the workers are compensated according to socailly necessary labor time, nor does he say they should be.
    I don't like liars. Everyone who's studied Marxism know "socially necessary labor time" is central to his ideas.

    Economic Manuscripts: Capital Vol. I - Chapter One

    Some people might think that if the value of a commodity is determined by the quantity of labour spent on it, the more idle and unskilful the labourer, the more valuable would his commodity be, because more time would be required in its production. The labour, however, that forms the substance of value, is homogeneous human labour, expenditure of one uniform labour power. The total labour power of society, which is embodied in the sum total of the values of all commodities produced by that society, counts here as one homogeneous mass of human labour power, composed though it be of innumerable individual units. Each of these units is the same as any other, so far as it has the character of the average labour power of society, and takes effect as such; that is, so far as it requires for producing a commodity, no more time than is needed on an average, no more than is socially necessary. The labour time socially necessary is that required to produce an article under the normal conditions of production, and with the average degree of skill and intensity prevalent at the time. The introduction of power-looms into England probably reduced by one-half the labour required to weave a given quantity of yarn into cloth. The hand-loom weavers, as a matter of fact, continued to require the same time as before; but for all that, the product of one hour of their labour represented after the change only half an hourís social labour, and consequently fell to one-half its former value.

    We see then that that which determines the magnitude of the value of any article is the amount of labour socially necessary, or the labour time socially necessary for its production.[9] Each individual commodity, in this connexion, is to be considered as an average sample of its class.[10] Commodities, therefore, in which equal quantities of labour are embodied, or which can be produced in the same time, have the same value. The value of one commodity is to the value of any other, as the labour time necessary for the production of the one is to that necessary for the production of the other. ďAs values, all commodities are only definite masses of congealed labour time.Ē[11]

    Its not subjective, not at all, infact a rational callibration would be one that gives accurate results consistantly.

    As far as your parenthasis statement, I don't see why that would be the case at all, nor is it historically true.
    Any calibrated position will yield consistent results. You just have to use the same one over and over.

    Different people have different regiments for defining this however.

  5. #25
    Guru

    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    2,800

    Re: Are Liberals Coherentists or Foundationalists?

    Quote Originally Posted by Daktoria View Post
    ...so why do leftists advocate redistributive justice?
    The fact that you call it "redistributive justice" plays on the fact that you believe that it itself is just. Perhaps i am just word picking though.
    One could argue that it was the republicans who first "redistributed"
    Men do what they have to when they want to, Great men do what they have to, even when they don't want to.

  6. #26
    Sage
    RGacky3's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Last Seen
    08-25-15 @ 05:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    9,570

    Re: Are Liberals Coherentists or Foundationalists?

    People get kidnapped all the time.
    Yeah, but are people in a situation where without getting kidnapped they would starve ...

    What? How can children even exist without a beginning?
    It can't its called sex ... relevance???

    I don't like liars. Everyone who's studied Marxism know "socially necessary labor time" is central to his ideas.
    Yes, but it wasn't what he thought peopel "should" get paid, nor was it what he thought people "were" paid .... It had to do with the analysis of value and price ....

    Again, it was POSITIVE economics, not normative ...

    Any calibrated position will yield consistent results. You just have to use the same one over and over.

    Different people have different regiments for defining this however.
    Explain that to me ... It also has to yeild results that fit with other results used by other methods of examination ...

  7. #27
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    09-18-12 @ 08:07 AM
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    3,245

    Re: Are Liberals Coherentists or Foundationalists?

    Quote Originally Posted by RGacky3 View Post
    Yeah, but are people in a situation where without getting kidnapped they would starve ...
    The reason they're hungry is because they're kidnapped.

    It can't its called sex ... relevance???
    Children don't have sex to create themselves.

    Yes, but it wasn't what he thought peopel "should" get paid, nor was it what he thought people "were" paid .... It had to do with the analysis of value and price ....

    Again, it was POSITIVE economics, not normative ...
    If the proletariat owns the means of production as a class, how else would workers get compensated?

    Explain that to me ... It also has to yeild results that fit with other results used by other methods of examination ...
    Yes, calibration has to be consistent.

    If you and I use the same instruments, but calibrate them differently, then fitting our results together won't make sense.

  8. #28
    Professor

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    MI and AZ
    Last Seen
    03-15-15 @ 01:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    1,581

    Re: Are Liberals Coherentists or Foundationalists?

    Quote Originally Posted by Daktoria View Post
    One of the problems I have a lot when debating with liberals is their very sense of justice seems to be backwards. They seem to believe that something is justified only if it's surrounded by compatible circumstances, ignoring the value of something itself.

    The first belief is called coherentism. The second belief is called foundationalism.

    Obviously, coherentism is circular because it begs to know why something coheres in the first place. You can't have a puzzle without puzzle pieces. ...
    I'm just a retired engineer, not quite up to what you're assuming about a typical persons knowledge and assumptions. Your interest is apparently is comparing coherentism to foundationalism. However, in your post you describe in detail only coherentism without giving a sufficient definition of the correct foundationalism. It seems possible to me that there could be many foundationalisms. Is this correct or not? Then is there a correct foundationalism and many incorrect ones?
    Last edited by OhIsee.Then; 07-09-12 at 12:18 PM.

  9. #29
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    09-18-12 @ 08:07 AM
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    3,245

    Re: Are Liberals Coherentists or Foundationalists?

    Quote Originally Posted by OhIsee.Then View Post
    I'm just a retired engineer, not quite up to what you're assuming about a typical persons knowledge and assumptions. Your interest is apparently is comparing coherentism to foundationalism. However, in your post you describe in detail only coherentism without giving a sufficient definition of the correct foundationalism. It seems possible to me that there could be many foundationalisms. Is this correct or not? Then is there a correct foundationalism and many incorrect ones?
    Yes, I didn't explain foundationalism much because I thought the post was long enough. The poll could also be worded, "Are liberals coherentists or not?"

    There are many foundationalist methods, but not all foundationalist methods are the same.

    For example, in Kantian ethics, you have hypothetical and categorical imperatives. Hypothetical imperatives depend on the hypothetical situation. Categorical imperatives apply across the category of situations.

  10. #30
    Professor

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    MI and AZ
    Last Seen
    03-15-15 @ 01:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    1,581

    Re: Are Liberals Coherentists or Foundationalists?

    Quote Originally Posted by Daktoria View Post
    Yes, I didn't explain foundationalism much because I thought the post was long enough. The poll could also be worded, "Are liberals coherentists or not?"

    There are many foundationalist methods, but not all foundationalist methods are the same.

    For example, in Kantian ethics, you have hypothetical and categorical imperatives. Hypothetical imperatives depend on the hypothetical situation. Categorical imperatives apply across the category of situations.
    Several methods? That's a bit confusing since the method is rather basic. Is there something consistant about a foundationalist method? How complex is it?

Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •