Do not think that I am jesting or speaking figuratively when I regard the almost the whole world of men, as veritable fools, fools in a madhouse, who only seem to go about free because the madhouse in which they walk takes in so broad a space.
People have all sorts of crazy nonsense in their heads, particularly with respect to morality and politics, as Stirner pointed out. If you want to conclude that I just don’t understand their perfectly sensible views, feel free. If you want to conclude that you just don’t understand them when they seem to be talking nonsense to you, knock yourself out. I have a lifetime of experience to the contrary, and am not persuaded by your say so.
and there’s nothing about the structure of the subject that seems to license gibberish
The subject doesn’t license gibberish, though people often take such license in politics, morality, religion, etc. Nowhere is there more nonsense, and political belief is the subject matter under discussion.
If you want to conclude that I just don’t understand their perfectly sensible views, feel free. If you want to conclude that you just don’t understand them when they seem to be talking nonsense to you, knock yourself out. I have a lifetime of experience to the contrary, and am not persuaded by your say so.
Ok… so, as long as we’re in a community developed specifically for such things—tell me, what kind of evidence would it take to change your mind about Those Evil Meddling People, and in what regard?
The point on crazy nonsense applies to meddlers and non meddlers alike.
What would it take for me to change my views with respect to how much crazy I estimate in other people’s heads? It would help, if upon examination, they could routinely provide sensible explanations for what seems to me nonsense.
I have confidence that I could take the ideological Turing test and pass myself off as being quite sensible to most of them. Few of them could do it to me.
I have confidence that I could take the ideological Turing test and pass myself off as being quite sensible to most of them.
Well, honestly, I doubt it—take e.g. your methodological individualism. From what I’ve read of it, (a few blog posts by Austrian economists) it basically appears as a crazy nonsensical fairytale, to be invoked as ideological justification for a “libertarian” narrative of society.
I claim that the historical dynamics of actually existing societies can’t be usefully explained by it—that a massive amount of historical… stuff is deterministic, intersubjective and not easily pinpointed but far from “abstract”/”ghostly”, and shapes individual wills first, even when it is in turn shaped by them. So, could you make a strong and unequivocal argument against methodological individualism, from whatever position?
shapes individual wills first, even when it is in turn shaped by them
This seems not only intuitively obvious, but a prerequisite for (e.g.) advertising and propaganda techniques actually working well enough for anyone to bother spending much money on them.
Methodological individualism doesn’t preclude someone from passing an ideological Turing test for someone who doesn’t use it, just as sanity doesn’t prevent someone from pretending to be insane.
Ok, go ahead, then. Hit me with your best shot. If you give me a halfway serious effort, I promise I’ll return the favour with a defense of MI. (From what I’ve heard, Popper is the best known non-Austrian champion of MI; need to read up on him.)
“It’s not fair! You’re so hateful! The government is us. It takes a village. It depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is. What difference at this point does it make?”
How’d I do?
But I don’t think this is the way the Turing test is supposed to work. I don’t just pontificate, you’re supposed to be an interrogator, and there’s supposed to be another blinded participant who is an average run of the mill American liberal. I think we lack the facilities, but it could be good fun.
Multiheaded would be the judge, and the US liberal would be the comparison who would have to be more convincingly liberal than me by Multiheaded’s estimation.
Why American? Because I’m American, and I wasn’t claiming to be able to impersonate every crazy on the globe.
As for why liberal, it’s a crazy I’m familiar with a large population here, and he said “Evil Meddling People”, so the shoe fit.
I don’t claim that I can impersonate every crazy in the world, only ones I’m familiar with.
Though Multiheaded really shouldn’t be the judge. It should be another run of the mill American liberal. The relevant Turing test is whether I can pass myself off as one of the tribe.
To take some liberties with Stirner:
People have all sorts of crazy nonsense in their heads, particularly with respect to morality and politics, as Stirner pointed out. If you want to conclude that I just don’t understand their perfectly sensible views, feel free. If you want to conclude that you just don’t understand them when they seem to be talking nonsense to you, knock yourself out. I have a lifetime of experience to the contrary, and am not persuaded by your say so.
The subject doesn’t license gibberish, though people often take such license in politics, morality, religion, etc. Nowhere is there more nonsense, and political belief is the subject matter under discussion.
Ok… so, as long as we’re in a community developed specifically for such things—tell me, what kind of evidence would it take to change your mind about Those Evil Meddling People, and in what regard?
The point on crazy nonsense applies to meddlers and non meddlers alike.
What would it take for me to change my views with respect to how much crazy I estimate in other people’s heads? It would help, if upon examination, they could routinely provide sensible explanations for what seems to me nonsense.
I have confidence that I could take the ideological Turing test and pass myself off as being quite sensible to most of them. Few of them could do it to me.
Well, honestly, I doubt it—take e.g. your methodological individualism. From what I’ve read of it, (a few blog posts by Austrian economists) it basically appears as a crazy nonsensical fairytale, to be invoked as ideological justification for a “libertarian” narrative of society.
I claim that the historical dynamics of actually existing societies can’t be usefully explained by it—that a massive amount of historical… stuff is deterministic, intersubjective and not easily pinpointed but far from “abstract”/”ghostly”, and shapes individual wills first, even when it is in turn shaped by them. So, could you make a strong and unequivocal argument against methodological individualism, from whatever position?
This seems not only intuitively obvious, but a prerequisite for (e.g.) advertising and propaganda techniques actually working well enough for anyone to bother spending much money on them.
Methodological individualism doesn’t preclude someone from passing an ideological Turing test for someone who doesn’t use it, just as sanity doesn’t prevent someone from pretending to be insane.
Ok, go ahead, then. Hit me with your best shot. If you give me a halfway serious effort, I promise I’ll return the favour with a defense of MI. (From what I’ve heard, Popper is the best known non-Austrian champion of MI; need to read up on him.)
“It’s not fair! You’re so hateful! The government is us. It takes a village. It depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is. What difference at this point does it make?”
How’d I do?
But I don’t think this is the way the Turing test is supposed to work. I don’t just pontificate, you’re supposed to be an interrogator, and there’s supposed to be another blinded participant who is an average run of the mill American liberal. I think we lack the facilities, but it could be good fun.
Multiheaded isn’t American, so why would you want the judge to be?
Multiheaded would be the judge, and the US liberal would be the comparison who would have to be more convincingly liberal than me by Multiheaded’s estimation.
Why American? Because I’m American, and I wasn’t claiming to be able to impersonate every crazy on the globe.
As for why liberal, it’s a crazy I’m familiar with a large population here, and he said “Evil Meddling People”, so the shoe fit.
I don’t claim that I can impersonate every crazy in the world, only ones I’m familiar with.
Though Multiheaded really shouldn’t be the judge. It should be another run of the mill American liberal. The relevant Turing test is whether I can pass myself off as one of the tribe.