NationStates Jolt Archive

I am sick and tired of so many people justifying their beliefs with a mindless appeal to authority to a group of dead european philosphers/economists/leaders. Just because Marx or Mises or some other dead authority figure doesn't make it so. I think all ideologies are guilty of it.

However ideologies that are based around a single person's cult of personality (Objectivism *cough*) or legacy (Marxism *cough*) are the guiltiest of all.

I think it's very important to preserve the ideologies of great thinkers, but yes it is foolish to mindlessly adhere to one dead person's view of the world, because we really will never know if they would approve of it.

Dead men tell no tales

Says the guy named "Trotskylvania".

Says the guy named "Trotskylvania".

How many times do I have to explain that my whole nation started out as a joke that went too far?

I am sick and tired of so many people justifying their beliefs with a mindless appeal to authority to a group of dead european philosphers/economists/leaders. Just because Marx or Mises or some other dead authority figure doesn't make it so. I think all ideologies are guilty of it.

However ideologies that are based around a single person's cult of personality (Objectivism *cough*) or legacy (Marxism *cough*) are the guiltiest of all.

I agree. All these Randites, Nietzchites and Byronites piss me off.

Whatever happened to realism? "Life is good, but hey! Sometimes shit happens!

How many times do I have to explain that my whole nation started out as a joke that went too far?
Its not "a joke that went too far" until you've got at least one body on your hands, and even then you should throw in some flashbacks or a montage, just so that people know you're serious.

Justifying your beliefs by quoting a philosopher is not wrong as long as it is the wisdom of their words and not the existence of their words that you are appealing to.

I agree. All these Randites, Nietzchites and Byronites piss me off.

Anybody who adheres to a strict -ism is pretty irritating; honestly, a lot of them come across as humorless, boring assholes who act as if they're the arbiters of truth and anyone who disagrees is wrong.

And then there are the people like me, and most others on this board, who draw from a variety of ideas to construct their positions.

Whatever happened to realism? "Life is good, but hey! Sometimes shit happens!

It's still here, but we're just too laid back to point out the obvious.

Anybody who adheres to a strict -ism is pretty irritating; honestly, a lot of them come across as humorless, boring assholes who act as if they're the arbiters of truth and anyone who disagrees is wrong.

Humor is reactionary.

Justifying your beliefs by quoting a philosopher is not wrong as long as it is the wisdom of their words and not the existence of their words that you are appealing to.

You should be able to justify your beliefs on your own.

Quoting other people is only legitimate when they say things better than you do, or when you intend to prove a point regarding their position.

Quoting other people is only legitimate when they say things better than you do Which, being famous for their words, they are often able to.

It's all very well to say belief's ought to be self-justified, but so many beliefs are informed by outside influences.

Its not "a joke that went too far" until you've got at least one body on your hands, and even then you should throw in some flashbacks or a montage, just so that people know you're serious.

.... uh, actually....

I don't wanna talk about it. :(

Anybody who adheres to a strict -ism is pretty irritating; honestly, a lot of them come across as humorless, boring assholes who act as if they're the arbiters of truth and anyone who disagrees is wrong.

And then there are the people like me, and most others on this board, who draw from a variety of ideas to construct their positions.

Not to mention the fact that alot of the ideas are kind of dumb to begin with. Romanticism: "Oh life is lovely! The look of the moon so symbolizes my love of my cat! The only bad thing that has happened to me is when my car died. It took a week of cutting to erase those feelings, but I'm all better now!"...and then Nihilism: "Life sucks, life is pointless, we're all just delaying the inevitable anyway...why haven't I shot myself yet?"

And then there's existentialism...which I STILL don't understand!

Which, being famous for their words, they are often able to.

True.

It's all very well to say belief's ought to be self-justified, but so many beliefs are informed by outside influences.

Of course, but if those outside influences have actually influenced you, you should be able to explain why yourself.

*notes the "European" in the title*

Why the hell do leftists always try to make everything about race?

*flops down on desk, dead*

I am sick and tired of so many people justifying their beliefs with a mindless appeal to authority to a group of dead european philosphers/economists/leaders. Just because Marx or Mises or some other dead authority figure doesn't make it so. I think all ideologies are guilty of it.

However ideologies that are based around a single person's cult of personality (Objectivism *cough*) or legacy (Marxism *cough*) are the guiltiest of all.

*notes the "European" in the title*

Why the hell do leftists always try to make everything about race?

?

The...the time warp...

*flops down on desk, dead*

?

Why the hell do leftists always try to make everything about race?

I don't think it's racist so much as an admission of fact that most of our political and philosophical positions and debates hinge on the ideas of European philosophers. You very rarely find a person who uses non-Western philosophy in the way that Trotskylvania was criticizing.

I don't think it's racist, either, but still, why the hell is their race or nationality an issue?

Because otherwise the thread title wouldn't make much sense.

I don't think it's racist so much as an admission of fact that most of our political and philosophical positions and debates hinge on the ideas of European philosophers. You very rarely find a person who uses non-Western philosophy in the way that Trotskylvania was criticizing.

I don't think it's racist, either, but still, why the hell is their race or nationality an issue?

You should be able to justify your beliefs on your own.

Quoting other people is only legitimate when they say things better than you do, or when you intend to prove a point regarding their position.
I agree with the above. In fact, most of the time one should avoid quotation altogether and focus solely on transmiting whatever points they have to make. Throwing in names and out-of-context quotes may end up causing nothing other than confusion. If I agree with much of what an author I read has to say though I will not feel guilty in describing myself as an adherent of their ideology.

It is so because the Dead Thracians said so. <Giggle.>

Was this thread started because of a rash of people on here doing this, or because of some other reason?

I agree with the above. In fact, most of the time one should avoid quotation altogether and focus solely on transmiting whatever points they have to make. Throwing in names and out-of-context quotes may end up causing nothing other than confusion. If I agree with much of what an author I read has to say though I will not feel guilty in describing myself as an adherent of their ideology.

exactly.

its OK to be a marxist or to quote marx as a shortcut to having to explain the entire idea from scratch.

its stupid to treat marx as if he were a prophet whose every utterance is relevant, inerrant and true.

...and then Nihilism: "Life sucks, life is pointless, we're all just delaying the inevitable anyway...why haven't I shot myself yet?"

Why not? Because nihilism doesn't recognise the existence of a value system by which one is able to condemn all of life as 'sucky', or to give value to self-extinction. That's why not.

You should be able to justify your beliefs on your own.

...and what, pray tell, is the criterion for justification?

...and what, pray tell, is the criterion for justification?

Reason?

I don't think it's racist so much as an admission of fact that most of our political and philosophical positions and debates hinge on the ideas of European philosophers. You very rarely find a person who uses non-Western philosophy in the way that Trotskylvania was criticizing.

Confucius say, man can always find party in USA, in Soviet Russia, the Party can always find man.

*flees thread in shame*

Reason?

Are you claiming that the truths of epistemology are self-evident and a priori?

In other words, I'm asking you to justify your belief in reason as a means of justifying belief.

Are you claiming that the truths of epistemology are self-evident and a priori?

In other words, I'm asking you to justify your belief in reason as a means of justifying belief.

This raises an interesting point. As one philosopher said "you cannot deduce and ought from an is", and if reason can only explain and describe what is, how can reason logically justify an ought?

This raises an interesting point. As one philosopher said "you cannot deduce and ought from an is", and if reason can only esplain and describe what is, how can reason logically justify an ought?

There is no necessary "ought" here. The justification here is merely of a truth claim, not necessarily of a moral truth claim.

In other words, I'm asking you to justify your belief in reason as a means of justifying belief.

Lack of an alternative is not a justification, but it's more or less the reason.

There is no necessary "ought" here. The justification here is merely of a truth claim, not necessarily of a moral truth claim.


But in the end, politics is mostly about what you ought to do.

But in the end, politics is mostly about what you ought to do.

"I believe society should be organized to maximize the well-being of its members, and thus I support socialism."

"I believe society should be organized to maximize the well-being of its members, and thus I support capitalism."

An argument between two such people can be resolved without a demand for rational justification of "oughts."

Not to mention the fact that even if the foundations of morality are subjective and not subject to rational justification (a questionable premise), the implications of those foundations can still be discussed rationally.

I am sick and tired of so many people justifying their beliefs with a mindless appeal to authority to a group of dead european philosphers/economists/leaders. Just because Marx or Mises or some other dead authority figure doesn't make it so. I think all ideologies are guilty of it.

However ideologies that are based around a single person's cult of personality (Objectivism *cough*) or legacy (Marxism *cough*) are the guiltiest of all.

I always wonder about how many Americans seem to hang everything about what the founding fathers meant/intended/etc when they wrote the constitution and so forth.

wait what?

I think it's very important to preserve the ideologies of great thinkers.What makes a thinker great? The number of followers? Or the accuracy of their thoughts?

Lack of an alternative is not a justification, but it's more or less the reason.

Nothing to say on how justification by reason works then?

Nothing to say on how justification by reason works then?

By examining the validity of conclusions from the evidence.

because we really will never know if they would approve of it.

Or, you know, if they were full of shit to begin with.

Or, you know, if they were full of shit to begin with.

Marx, when hearing about the Soviet Union: "They WHAT? I was joking, dammit!"

I might actually be guilty of this if only I could read some guys political rants without wondering off and doing something fun and/or realistic

I think it all rest upon if the person saying so is your misses :p