Total Posts:38|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Proudhon Property and the Dialectic

Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2010 8:44:14 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
"Communism--the first expression of the social nature--is the first term of social development,--the THESIS; property, the reverse of communism, is the second term,--the ANTITHESIS. When we have discovered the third term, the SYNTHESIS, we shall have the required solution. Now, this synthesis necessarily results from the correction of the thesis by the antithesis. Therefore it is necessary, by a final examination of their characteristics, to eliminate those features which are hostile to sociability. The union of the two remainders will give us the true form of human association." - Pierre-Joseph Proudhon

The synthesis is anarchistic mutualism.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2010 8:51:49 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Reality is all the way-- Someone else Reasoning likes to quote.

Make up your damn mind n00b. You can't have property and non-optional communism. You can't have "Dialectic" when what is meant by dialectic is a radical rejection of the law of non-contradiction, and take the name Reasoning (unless the "Synthesis" is called dishonesty).
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2010 8:55:14 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/20/2010 8:51:49 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Reality is all the way-- Someone else Reasoning likes to quote.

"Reality knows no moderation; it is — all the way." - SEK3

Make up your damn mind n00b. You can't have property and non-optional communism. You can't have "Dialectic" when what is meant by dialectic is a radical rejection of the law of non-contradiction, and take the name Reasoning (unless the "Synthesis" is called dishonesty).

"The objects of communism and property are good--their results are bad. And why? Because both are exclusive, and each disregards two elements of society. Communism rejects independence and proportionality; property does not satisfy equality and law." - Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2010 8:59:14 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/20/2010 8:55:14 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 10/20/2010 8:51:49 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Reality is all the way-- Someone else Reasoning likes to quote.

"Reality knows no moderation; it is — all the way." - SEK3
A is A.


Make up your damn mind n00b. You can't have property and non-optional communism. You can't have "Dialectic" when what is meant by dialectic is a radical rejection of the law of non-contradiction, and take the name Reasoning (unless the "Synthesis" is called dishonesty).

"The objects of communism and property are good--their results are bad.
The results of property are awesome, the object of communism is evil-- equality, which in reality (where things are "all the way," knowing no moderation) can only occur in death.

Because both are exclusive, and each disregards two elements of society. Communism rejects independence and proportionality; property does not satisfy equality and law."
Property can have laws built around it like anything else. Equality is evil. What is this "proportionality?"
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2010 9:40:23 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/20/2010 8:59:14 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 10/20/2010 8:55:14 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 10/20/2010 8:51:49 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Reality is all the way-- Someone else Reasoning likes to quote.

"Reality knows no moderation; it is — all the way." - SEK3
A is A.

2 + 2 = 4

Make up your damn mind n00b. You can't have property and non-optional communism. You can't have "Dialectic" when what is meant by dialectic is a radical rejection of the law of non-contradiction, and take the name Reasoning (unless the "Synthesis" is called dishonesty).

I've heard arguments that the Hegelian Dialectic is not a contradiction of the law of non-contradiction.

"The objects of communism and property are good--their results are bad.
The results of property are awesome, the object of communism is evil-- equality, which in reality (where things are "all the way," knowing no moderation) can only occur in death.

Because both are exclusive, and each disregards two elements of society. Communism rejects independence and proportionality; property does not satisfy equality and law."
Property can have laws built around it like anything else.

Property is the product of law.

Equality is evil.

Lol.

What is this "proportionality?"

I'm not entirely sure. I'll get clarification.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2010 10:26:55 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/20/2010 9:40:23 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 10/20/2010 8:59:14 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 10/20/2010 8:55:14 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 10/20/2010 8:51:49 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Reality is all the way-- Someone else Reasoning likes to quote.

"Reality knows no moderation; it is — all the way." - SEK3
A is A.

2 + 2 = 4
Precisely, and you can't magically synthesize that with 2+2=/=4 into DISREGARDMATH.


Make up your damn mind n00b. You can't have property and non-optional communism. You can't have "Dialectic" when what is meant by dialectic is a radical rejection of the law of non-contradiction, and take the name Reasoning (unless the "Synthesis" is called dishonesty).

I've heard arguments that the Hegelian Dialectic is not a contradiction of the law of non-contradiction.
then spit the damn things out.


"The objects of communism and property are good--their results are bad.
The results of property are awesome, the object of communism is evil-- equality, which in reality (where things are "all the way," knowing no moderation) can only occur in death.

Because both are exclusive, and each disregards two elements of society. Communism rejects independence and proportionality; property does not satisfy equality and law."
Property can have laws built around it like anything else.

Property is the product of law.
So now you're contradicting yourself.

What is this "proportionality?"

I'm not entirely sure. I'll get clarification.
Lol. Guess i shouldn't expect ya to understand yer dogmaquotes.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2010 10:30:12 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/20/2010 10:26:55 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 10/20/2010 9:40:23 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 10/20/2010 8:59:14 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 10/20/2010 8:55:14 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 10/20/2010 8:51:49 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Reality is all the way-- Someone else Reasoning likes to quote.

"Reality knows no moderation; it is — all the way." - SEK3
A is A.

2 + 2 = 4
Precisely, and you can't magically synthesize that with 2+2=/=4 into DISREGARDMATH.

Agreed.

Make up your damn mind n00b. You can't have property and non-optional communism. You can't have "Dialectic" when what is meant by dialectic is a radical rejection of the law of non-contradiction, and take the name Reasoning (unless the "Synthesis" is called dishonesty).

I've heard arguments that the Hegelian Dialectic is not a contradiction of the law of non-contradiction.
then spit the damn things out.

What?

"The objects of communism and property are good--their results are bad.
The results of property are awesome, the object of communism is evil-- equality, which in reality (where things are "all the way," knowing no moderation) can only occur in death.

Because both are exclusive, and each disregards two elements of society. Communism rejects independence and proportionality; property does not satisfy equality and law."
Property can have laws built around it like anything else.

Property is the product of law.
So now you're contradicting yourself.

Nope. It's a different sense of the term "law".

What is this "proportionality?"

I'm not entirely sure. I'll get clarification.
Lol. Guess i shouldn't expect ya to understand yer dogmaquotes.

I'm told it means that communism does not give the labourer a reward proportional to his sacrifice.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2010 10:33:17 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/20/2010 10:30:12 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 10/20/2010 10:26:55 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 10/20/2010 9:40:23 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 10/20/2010 8:59:14 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 10/20/2010 8:55:14 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 10/20/2010 8:51:49 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Reality is all the way-- Someone else Reasoning likes to quote.

"Reality knows no moderation; it is — all the way." - SEK3
A is A.

2 + 2 = 4
Precisely, and you can't magically synthesize that with 2+2=/=4 into DISREGARDMATH.

Agreed.

Make up your damn mind n00b. You can't have property and non-optional communism. You can't have "Dialectic" when what is meant by dialectic is a radical rejection of the law of non-contradiction, and take the name Reasoning (unless the "Synthesis" is called dishonesty).

I've heard arguments that the Hegelian Dialectic is not a contradiction of the law of non-contradiction.
then spit the damn things out.

What?
the arguments.
if you think they're true.

if you think.

"The objects of communism and property are good--their results are bad.
The results of property are awesome, the object of communism is evil-- equality, which in reality (where things are "all the way," knowing no moderation) can only occur in death.

Because both are exclusive, and each disregards two elements of society. Communism rejects independence and proportionality; property does not satisfy equality and law."
Property can have laws built around it like anything else.

Property is the product of law.
So now you're contradicting yourself.

Nope. It's a different sense of the term "law".
Which senses are those? One is fairyland law, the other is real law? :P

What is this "proportionality?"

I'm not entirely sure. I'll get clarification.
Lol. Guess i shouldn't expect ya to understand yer dogmaquotes.

I'm told it means that communism does not give the labourer a reward proportional to his sacrifice.
So why not say incentivization?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2010 10:49:26 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/20/2010 10:33:17 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
What?
the arguments.
if you think they're true.

if you think.

I don't know the subject well enough. But it doesn't matter because, "M. Proudhon has of the dialectic of Hegel nothing but the language." - Karl Marx[1]

Property is the product of law.
So now you're contradicting yourself.

Nope. It's a different sense of the term "law".
Which senses are those? One is fairyland law, the other is real law? :P

One, the law of justice. The other, the law of the proprietor.

What is this "proportionality?"

I'm not entirely sure. I'll get clarification.
Lol. Guess i shouldn't expect ya to understand yer dogmaquotes.

I'm told it means that communism does not give the labourer a reward proportional to his sacrifice.
So why not say incentivization?

Because he isn't talking about incentives.

1 http://books.google.com...
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2010 11:02:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/20/2010 10:49:26 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 10/20/2010 10:33:17 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
What?
the arguments.
if you think they're true.

if you think.

I don't know the subject well enough. But it doesn't matter because, "M. Proudhon has of the dialectic of Hegel nothing but the language." - Karl Marx[1]
So why ya quoting him and babbling about dialectic?


Property is the product of law.
So now you're contradicting yourself.

Nope. It's a different sense of the term "law".
Which senses are those? One is fairyland law, the other is real law? :P

One, the law of justice. The other, the law of the proprietor.
Property is part of the law of justice. It's not the law of the proprietor that gets in the way. It's the law of the thief-- the anti-proprietor.

So why not say incentivization?

Because he isn't talking about incentives.

1 http://books.google.com...
I'd prefer to argue here, not there.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2010 11:07:01 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/20/2010 11:02:05 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 10/20/2010 10:49:26 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 10/20/2010 10:33:17 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
What?
the arguments.
if you think they're true.

if you think.

I don't know the subject well enough. But it doesn't matter because, "M. Proudhon has of the dialectic of Hegel nothing but the language." - Karl Marx[1]
So why ya quoting him and babbling about dialectic?

Why am I quoting whom?

Property is the product of law.
So now you're contradicting yourself.

Nope. It's a different sense of the term "law".
Which senses are those? One is fairyland law, the other is real law? :P

One, the law of justice. The other, the law of the proprietor.
Property is part of the law of justice. It's not the law of the proprietor that gets in the way. It's the law of the thief-- the anti-proprietor.

Property is liberty!

So why not say incentivization?

Because he isn't talking about incentives.

1 http://books.google.com...
I'd prefer to argue here, not there.

What?
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2010 11:19:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/20/2010 11:07:01 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 10/20/2010 11:02:05 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 10/20/2010 10:49:26 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 10/20/2010 10:33:17 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
What?
the arguments.
if you think they're true.

if you think.

I don't know the subject well enough. But it doesn't matter because, "M. Proudhon has of the dialectic of Hegel nothing but the language." - Karl Marx[1]
So why ya quoting him and babbling about dialectic?

Why am I quoting whom?
Proudhon
Property is the product of law.
So now you're contradicting yourself.

Nope. It's a different sense of the term "law".
Which senses are those? One is fairyland law, the other is real law? :P

One, the law of justice. The other, the law of the proprietor.
Property is part of the law of justice. It's not the law of the proprietor that gets in the way. It's the law of the thief-- the anti-proprietor.

Property is liberty!
Property is a condition of liberty, yes. One cannot be free with one's life unless one is free to make one's living, without someone forcing one's living back in its pre- "one's living" form.

So why not say incentivization?

Because he isn't talking about incentives.

1 http://books.google.com...
I'd prefer to argue here, not there.

What?
No need to have links argue for you.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2010 5:52:49 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/20/2010 11:19:07 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 10/20/2010 11:07:01 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 10/20/2010 11:02:05 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 10/20/2010 10:49:26 PM, Reasoning wrote:
I don't know the subject well enough. But it doesn't matter because, "M. Proudhon has of the dialectic of Hegel nothing but the language." - Karl Marx[1]
So why ya quoting him and babbling about dialectic?

Why am I quoting whom?
Proudhon

Because he's right?

One, the law of justice. The other, the law of the proprietor.
Property is part of the law of justice. It's not the law of the proprietor that gets in the way. It's the law of the thief-- the anti-proprietor.

Property is liberty!
Property is a condition of liberty, yes. One cannot be free with one's life unless one is free to make one's living, without someone forcing one's living back in its pre- "one's living" form.

Yes.

Because he isn't talking about incentives.

1 http://books.google.com...
I'd prefer to argue here, not there.

What?
No need to have links argue for you.

And I'm not. I'm showing where I got by Marx quote.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2010 6:14:11 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/22/2010 6:11:33 PM, Sieben wrote:
Kinsella: Why do anarchists drink herbal tea?

Because property is theft.

That joke is much older than Kinsella. Though I also watched his recent lecture about how Intellectual Property and "Capitalism" aren't compatible.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2010 6:21:02 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/22/2010 6:17:19 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Reasoning: how can you argue for property if you don't subscribe to the notion that rights exist, even in an abstract form?

"What then is my property? Nothing but what is in my power! To what property am I entitled? To every property to which I—empower myself. I give myself the right of property in taking property to myself, or giving myself the proprietor's power, full power, empowerment. " - Max Stirner[1]

1 http://tmh.floonet.net...
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2010 6:31:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/22/2010 6:21:02 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 10/22/2010 6:17:19 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Reasoning: how can you argue for property if you don't subscribe to the notion that rights exist, even in an abstract form?

"What then is my property? Nothing but what is in my power! To what property am I entitled? To every property to which I—empower myself. I give myself the right of property in taking property to myself, or giving myself the proprietor's power, full power, empowerment. " - Max Stirner[1]

1 http://tmh.floonet.net...

That statement says "I'll take what I want because I can", not "property rights exist".
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2010 6:31:55 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/22/2010 6:21:02 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 10/22/2010 6:17:19 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Reasoning: how can you argue for property if you don't subscribe to the notion that rights exist, even in an abstract form?

"What then is my property? Nothing but what is in my power! To what property am I entitled? To every property to which I—empower myself. I give myself the right of property in taking property to myself, or giving myself the proprietor's power, full power, empowerment. " - Max Stirner[1]

1 http://tmh.floonet.net...

So in other words, you're not actually a nihilist, you just have a really effed up view of ethics.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2010 6:33:18 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/22/2010 6:31:39 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 10/22/2010 6:21:02 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 10/22/2010 6:17:19 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Reasoning: how can you argue for property if you don't subscribe to the notion that rights exist, even in an abstract form?

"What then is my property? Nothing but what is in my power! To what property am I entitled? To every property to which I—empower myself. I give myself the right of property in taking property to myself, or giving myself the proprietor's power, full power, empowerment. " - Max Stirner[1]

1 http://tmh.floonet.net...

That statement says "I'll take what I want because I can", not "property rights exist".

That's because property rights don't exist. Nor do any rights.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2010 6:34:33 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/22/2010 6:31:55 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 10/22/2010 6:21:02 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 10/22/2010 6:17:19 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Reasoning: how can you argue for property if you don't subscribe to the notion that rights exist, even in an abstract form?

"What then is my property? Nothing but what is in my power! To what property am I entitled? To every property to which I—empower myself. I give myself the right of property in taking property to myself, or giving myself the proprietor's power, full power, empowerment. " - Max Stirner[1]

1 http://tmh.floonet.net...

So in other words, you're not actually a nihilist, you just have a really effed up view of ethics.

You're misled by Stirner's brilliant style. We are actually nihilists.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2010 6:36:55 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/22/2010 6:33:18 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 10/22/2010 6:31:39 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 10/22/2010 6:21:02 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 10/22/2010 6:17:19 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Reasoning: how can you argue for property if you don't subscribe to the notion that rights exist, even in an abstract form?

"What then is my property? Nothing but what is in my power! To what property am I entitled? To every property to which I—empower myself. I give myself the right of property in taking property to myself, or giving myself the proprietor's power, full power, empowerment. " - Max Stirner[1]

1 http://tmh.floonet.net...

That statement says "I'll take what I want because I can", not "property rights exist".

That's because property rights don't exist. Nor do any rights.

The notion of property, then, is bunk.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2010 6:42:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/22/2010 6:36:55 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
The notion of property, then, is bunk.

"Private property lives by grace of the law. Only in the law has it its warrant—for possession is not yet property, it becomes "mine" only by assent of the law; it is not a fact, not un fait as Proudhon thinks, but a fiction, a thought. This is legal property, legitimate property, guarantied property. It is mine not through me but through the—law." - Max Stirner[1]

1 http://tmh.floonet.net...
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2010 7:00:52 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/22/2010 6:34:33 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 10/22/2010 6:31:55 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
So in other words, you're not actually a nihilist, you just have a really effed up view of ethics.

You're misled by Stirner's brilliant style. We are actually nihilists.

Stirner was not a nihilist.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2010 7:05:56 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/22/2010 6:42:05 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 10/22/2010 6:36:55 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
The notion of property, then, is bunk.

"Private property lives by grace of the law. Only in the law has it its warrant—for possession is not yet property, it becomes "mine" only by assent of the law; it is not a fact, not un fait as Proudhon thinks, but a fiction, a thought. This is legal property, legitimate property, guarantied property. It is mine not through me but through the—law." - Max Stirner[1]

1 http://tmh.floonet.net...

So, property is de jure only, according to Stirner?
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2010 7:15:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/22/2010 7:00:52 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 10/22/2010 6:34:33 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 10/22/2010 6:31:55 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
So in other words, you're not actually a nihilist, you just have a really effed up view of ethics.

You're misled by Stirner's brilliant style. We are actually nihilists.

Stirner was not a nihilist.

Max Stirner was a nihilist.

There is no right and wrong. There is only the expedient and the inexpedient.

That's practically verbatim.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2010 7:17:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/22/2010 7:05:56 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
So, property is de jure only, according to Stirner?

"Nevertheless, property is the expression for unlimited dominion over somewhat (thing, beast, man) which "I can judge and dispose of as seems good to me." According to Roman law, indeed, jus utendi et abutendi re sua, quatenus juris ratio patitur, an exclusive and unlimited right; but property is conditioned by might. What I have in my power, that is my own. So long as I assert myself as holder, I am the proprietor of the thing; if it gets away from me again, no matter by what power, e. g. through my recognition of a title of others to the thing—then the property is extinct. Thus property and possession coincide. It is not a right lying outside my might that legitimizes me, but solely my might: if I no longer have this, the thing vanishes away from me." - Max Stirner
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2010 7:41:29 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/22/2010 7:15:03 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 10/22/2010 7:00:52 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 10/22/2010 6:34:33 PM, Reasoning wrote:
You're misled by Stirner's brilliant style. We are actually nihilists.

Stirner was not a nihilist.

Max Stirner was a nihilist.

There is no right and wrong. There is only the expedient and the inexpedient.

That's practically verbatim.

No, Stirner was not a nihilist. Stirner defined "morality" as a positive duty to other persons and rejected that particular conception of it.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2010 8:05:30 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/22/2010 7:41:29 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 10/22/2010 7:15:03 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 10/22/2010 7:00:52 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 10/22/2010 6:34:33 PM, Reasoning wrote:
You're misled by Stirner's brilliant style. We are actually nihilists.

Stirner was not a nihilist.

Max Stirner was a nihilist.

There is no right and wrong. There is only the expedient and the inexpedient.

That's practically verbatim.

No, Stirner was not a nihilist. Stirner defined "morality" as a positive duty to other persons and rejected that particular conception of it.

He was certainly a moral nihilist.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Chrysippus
Posts: 2,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2010 8:09:46 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/22/2010 7:15:03 PM, Reasoning wrote:

There is no right and wrong. There is only the expedient and the inexpedient.

This is the reasoning of a psychopath. I am somewhat surprised to find it seriously proposed here.
Cavete mea inexorabilis legiones mimus!