(Granted, the notion of the injustice of nature does seem to arise at times via theism, but I am leaving this to the side.) — Leontiskos

In the context that we are speaking, the claim is that it is unjust to put someone in the compulsory situation in the first place.

Much nicer than what I came up with but did not say because I am pretending to be nice.

:grin:

I hope TPF Effect can be used and reused such that there is a causal connection back to its dubbing and can thus refer always to this effect.

In the context that we are speaking, the claim is that it is unjust to put someone in the compulsory situation in the first place. — schopenhauer1

Okay, but isn't it true that government puts people in compulsory situations whereas nature does not? The key here is that the government is a responsible agent, capable of injustice, whereas nature is not. Nature "gives rise" to compulsory situations, but it does not "put" people into them, because it does not will this or that.

I’m fully aware that we use modal reasoning, but when I ask the question “what in the world is schopenhauer1 referring to”, I can see you are only reporting on your thoughts. You aren’t referring to actual persons, but to your notions, the movements of your brain, in short, yourself. It just so happens myself and my own thoughts differ.

The point is we do not comply with existence because it has no wishes or commands. There is no game of life, and when it comes to survival you only have yourself to answer to. If you’re hungry and must work to feed yourself, it’s you, not existence, telling you to do this. Hunger is your dictate. And you don’t have to comply. You can deny yourself if you choose and can make any efforts towards your own liberation.

I suspect its not a coincidence you bring up antinatalism, and then blame me for rehashing old arguments. Am I supposed to come up with new arguments while you repeat the same old ones? I dub it the schopenhauer1 effect.

Okay, but isn't it true that government puts people in compulsory situations whereas nature does not? The key here is that the government is a responsible agent, capable of injustice, whereas nature is not. Nature "gives rise" to compulsory situations, but it does not "put" people into them, because it does not will this or that. — Leontiskos

I am not referring to government but the people procreating the person... I was saying to NOS that we had the same heuristic but applied to completely different realms (I am against forcing life onto someone, he is against forcing government onto someone). However, now he has decided to rope me into a full-fledged antinatalism debate (which I have had with him I am sure many times circling the same things.. hence my new term the "TPF Effect".

This is just an attempt to repackage your same old argument. In your attempt to defend your desire to benefit from society without taking any responsibility you introduce a "metaphysics" which is nothing more than an abuse of terminology that is already problematic enough.

I’m afraid your mind-reading skills are as poor as your arguments. If you can’t argue a point regarding the topic, why do you bother? Is it some little power trip? An effort at propaganda?

I was saying to NOS that we had the same heuristic but applied to completely different realms (I am against forcing life onto someone, he is against forcing government onto someone). — schopenhauer1

Ah, fair enough. I was not familiar with this history. I was talking past you. :up:

I’m fully aware that we use modal reasoning, but when I ask the question “what in the world is schopenhauer1 referring to”, I can see you are only reporting on your thoughts. You aren’t referring to actual persons, but to your notions, the movements of your brain, in short, yourself. It just so happens myself and my own thoughts differ. — NOS4A2

Baloney. You didn't address the gun analogy, for example. Should you not give a shit if you see someone making a gun, and they have the intent to use it? For surely, the possibility and high likelihood should not matter here?? Nonsense.

The point is we do not comply with existence because it has no wishes or commands. There is no game of life, and when it comes to survival you only have yourself to answer to. If you’re hungry and must work to feed yourself, it’s you, not existence, telling you to do this. Hunger is your dictate. And you don’t have to comply. You can deny yourself if you choose and can make any efforts towards your own liberation. — NOS4A2

I love it how you arbitrarily just divide the line to make such that only "libertarian" values make sense, but yet nothing else that falls under the logic does... For example in this, it is definitely the case that now someone has to "deal" with things they don't want to deal with, exactly your complaint about compulsory government. It's just all too convenient and cherry picking.

I suspect its not a coincidence you bring up antinatalism, and then blame me for rehashing old arguments. Am I supposed to come up with new arguments while you repeat the same old ones? I dub it the schopenhauer1 effect. — NOS4A2

No I don't mind discussing antinatalism obviously, I just don't like when arguments were not acknowledged for that topic as if this particular line of reasoning had not taken place and I already addressed these issues (even if you disagreed with them). In my case here, I was applying a new line of argument (in this case what counts as an injustice). I did acknowledge though from the start that we are using similar logic but in different realms. I never claimed that you agreed with how I am applying it. So you were the one who made a biggy deal of it it seems.

I was applying a new line of argument (in this case what counts as an injustice) — schopenhauer1

Looking back it was about whether the locus should be at the individual or aggregate level. I was saying it applies in ethics but not as much politics. Then you went on that there is no actual person. or whatnot. I was just making a comment about how I had a similar view but used in a completely different way, that's all.

Baloney. You didn't address the gun analogy, for example. Should you not give a shit if you see someone making a gun, and they have the intent to use it? For surely, the possibility and high likelihood should not matter here?? Nonsense.

I fully endorse people making their own guns.

I love it how you arbitrarily just divide the line to make such that only "libertarian" values make sense, but yet nothing else that falls under the logic does... For example in this, it is definitely the case that now someone has to "deal" with things they don't want to deal with, exactly your complaint about compulsory government. It's just all too convenient and cherry picking.

Let me know when some other person or group of persons demand you comply with something and I’ll be there in support. Find some logic that is parallel with this and I’ll give it a shot.

I fully endorse people making their own guns. — NOS4A2

That's not the issue it is trying to illustrate. Rather, the gun didn't exist before, and then it will exist. Not only that, the gun will be used let's say in some nefarious way. Thus a worse state of affairs is likely to take place. But wait! You can prevent this... But you don't, you let it happen because you don't believe in future conditionals? I call bullshit.

Let me know when some other person or group of persons demand you comply with something and I’ll be there in support. Find some logic that is parallel with this and I’ll give it a shot. — NOS4A2

Well, that's fine. You can do whatever you want. Clearly you don't believe in future states, for example. But my point is "de facto" dictates are a thing. Just because you choose not to acknowledge them, doesn't mean they are not a thing.

I’m afraid your mind-reading skills are as poor as your arguments. — NOS4A2

No mind reading necessary. No matter how you attempt to dress it up your arguments fall under two related themes: defending Trump and radical individualist autonomy.

No mind reading necessary. No matter how you attempt to dress it up your arguments fall on under two related themes: defending Trump and radical individualist autonomy.

You described my intentions but completely missed the mark, I’m afraid. Here again you feign interest but immediately resort to ad hominem. It’s a pattern.

That's not the issue it is trying to illustrate. Rather, the gun didn't exist before, and then it will exist. Not only that, the gun will be used let's say in some nefarious way. Thus a worse state of affairs is likely to take place. But wait! You can prevent this... But you don't, you let it happen because you don't believe in future conditionals? I call bullshit.

I believe everything exists, but I question what they exist as. Future conditionals, for example, don’t describe or predict any actual future, no matter how likely. I let it happen because I do not trust your judgement.

Well, that's fine. You can do whatever you want. Clearly you don't believe in future states, for example. But my point is "de facto" dictates are a thing. Just because you choose not to acknowledge them, doesn't mean they are not a thing.

It doesn’t mean they are a thing either.

How are those two intentions connected in your mind?

I have asked this question a number of times and you have ignored it.

You described my intentions — NOS4A2

Actually, I have often wondered what your intentions are. What you attempt to do and whatever your intentions might be in doing so are two different things.

you feign interest but resort to ad hominem. — NOS4A2

You make this accusation in response, or rather instead of responding to what you quoted.

In what way does your rejection of such things as the common good and your not believing in law miss the mark? In what way is it something other than your theme of:

radical individualist autonomy.

Please explain how questioning your political claims is resorting to ad hominem.

Your focus is me and not the arguments. Why must you keep me in your mouth? Why can’t you criticize the arguments, or absent that, come up with a better one? My politics and beliefs are no secret, so pointing them out isn’t any sort of revelation or refutation.

Your focus is me and not the arguments — NOS4A2

This is exactly what @schopenhauer1 was talking about with his neologism the "TPF effect".

This is exactly what @schopenhauer1 was talking about with his neologism the "TPF effect".

You guys sure are consistent, but I’m not so sure one should be consistently fallacious.

I don’t understand the question, Paine.

You call for an individualist autonomy that would dismantle the State, as such.

You defend Trump as a victim of the Deep State.

A Trump administration will not give you the first condition. On the contrary, it will give certain groups more power to exert control over legislation and executive prerogative.

So, how do you harmonize the two projects?

You’d be surprised to hear I don’t believe in law either. — NOS4A2

Metaphysically speaking I am unable to reduce a marriage to anything between two people, especially when it appears there is nothing between them, connecting them, and bonding one to the other. It also appears they are not “in” anything of the sort. I would say each of them relate to one another, or at least I would recognize that one is speaking figuratively when using such language. That isn’t to say one should never use the word “marriage” or “relationship”—abstractions, generalizations, universals are necessary to speak and think about the world—it’s just that one ought not to include them in his ontology, metaphysically speaking. As such he should not apply his politics to them. — NOS4A2

They are not only nominally or proximally bonded, but have a history together. — NOS4A2

I think you've changed your position a little, then. You're allowing some aggregates to have real relations, and claiming that there are some times when a person claims there to be a real relation when there is not a real relation. Here the case of the family is a real relation because they have a history together rather than merely being named as together, like an abstract relationship.

At one end of a possible spectrum I'd say there are pure abstractions -- the set of all people such that they are in the set named "424", which may have real applications when discussing the tenants of a building but is a bit accidental about who the members of that set are.

But along comes an organizer knocking on the doors of the old 424, and eventually the group of people decide to form a tenant union. Now they have a history together, in your terms -- they've voluntarily joined together into a group and have real relations. (and so are now at the other end of the spectrum from abstract to concrete)

From what I can see you're objecting to, say, the nation as a real relation because it's not individually voluntarily agreed upon. So the law, because it's not individually voluntarily agreed upon, is not a real relation, but an abstraction of some other real.

Whereas I'd say that the law is real, but it's an odd duck. (which is why social ontology is interesting -- it's full of odd ducks that are hard to deal with)

But you raise some good questions in regards to political subjects (the people, the nation, the workers, the race, society). What sort of bond or relationship can we infer between the aggregate parts of these sets? Are these bonds actual? Or are they assumed and imposed? If they are not there, is it the goal of the politician to create them? — NOS4A2

It seems to me that you're willing to accept some social bonds as real, and some as not-real -- a realist account. It's the criteria of real-ness that you're using which is at odds with... well, everyone who has posted so far :D

At least if I'm right about the criteria of a real relationship being having a history together, which in turn seems rely upon individual voluntary agreement. A basic individualistic libertarian norm. The problem with it being -- well, what about all the relationships which may be abstractions but still influence our life? Why bother calling them not-real while we still have to account for them, seeing as we don't live in the individualistic libertarian world? Are they illegitimate reals, in which case the problem isn't metaphysics, but ethics or politics?

I am homeless, the Government must house me!’ and so they are casting their problems on society and who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and there are families and no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first. — Margaret Thatcher

Government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem. — Reagan

The politics comes first; the plutocrat-selected “philosophy” comes later. Make no mistake.

It comes from the top and inevitably trickles down, until it eventually reaches the sad postings of little state apologists like Nos.

The notion of a “bond” or “connection” is strictly metaphorical. It isn’t real. There isn’t anything between us, holding us together, which we can confirm by looking. A real bond or connection would be an umbilical cord. So in that sense I am not a realist when it comes to these metaphors. I would rather say Individuals relate to one another, or interact with each other in various ways. I relate to the grocer when I go to the market, for example. This is what I meant by "history", I think, the culmination of our interactions with one another. That is the extent of our relationship.

Only these types of interactions, in combination with the accounts of those involved, can determine what kind of relationship we are looking at—and from this, the nature of the collective, if any. I would argue that in order to do this, one must be nominalist. He must consider only the concrete, particular things involved, what they themselves tell of their lives and relations with each other, and let go of the pre-conceived, realist account of collectives.

At any rate, I need to still need to figure it all out, so I appreciate your questions. I would argue the activities involved in this nominalist account of relationships are inherently social in the original sense of the term (from Latin, socialis, "of companionship, of allies; united, living with others; of marriage, conjugal,"). People interact with each other in volitional, voluntary, "real" ways, and this account of society is paramount to, and more accurate than, the collectivist account of society (as the struggle between classes and races, for example). Actual social interactions and connections aren't determined by the will and imagination of some platonist/collectivist, who thinks he can surmise what a community is and ought to be through pure reason alone, utilizing concepts such as class, race, nationality etc. to do so. Each time he refers to the idea before the flesh-and-blood individuals involved, he is putting himself above all. For that reason I would say collectivist doctrines such as socialism, fascism, and their father, republicanism, are anti-social and anti-society.

I relate to the grocer when I go to the market, for example. This is what I meant by "history", I think, the culmination of our interactions with one another. That is the extent of our relationship. — NOS4A2

There is the language you use to interact. Where does that fit into your theory?

I would argue that in order to do this, one must be nominalist. He must consider only the concrete, particular things involved, what they themselves tell of their lives and relations with each other, and let go of the pre-conceived, realist account of collectives. — NOS4A2

The dimensions of that concrete community are what I found problematic with your interpretation of a 'social contract' several months ago. Your man [url=http://Oppenheimer]Oppenheimer[/url] misrepresents Rousseau's view of the origin of civic society when he says:

The community, to use Toennies' term, changed into a "society." "Contract" seemed to be the only bond that held men together--the contract based on the purely rationalistic' relation of service for service the do ut des, the "Contraf Social" of Rousseau. — Oppenheimer

What Rousseau actually said:

The first man who, after enclosing a piece of land, got the idea of saying This is mine and found people simple enough to believe him was the true founder of civil society. — Rousseau

This view moves the beginning of "abstraction" to a period considerably antecedent to the one you propose.

I do not think people are connected or related because they use the same language.

Oppenheimer was referencing Rousseau’s “The Social Contract”, which is obvious because he mentions the title in your quote. So it’s odd you’d look for what he is referencing in a different, much earlier work.

Yes, it is obvious that Oppenheimer was referencing Rousseau's " The Social Contract." That is why I responded as I did.

I read the State because you recommended it in that discussion.

I do not think people are connected or related because they use the same language. — NOS4A2

How did the language come into existence?

How did the language come into existence?

A perennial question without any obvious answer. Do you have a theory?