I'd really like to hear the GTTA crew engage with Modern Monetary Theory.

You should get Lance S Bush on to talk about his anti-realist position on morality.

Hayek explained that morality, like language, is something which evolves and is selected for at the group rather than individual level. Groups where a certain, 'contingent' morality happens to appear, tend to do better than groups lacking it. This group selection - while much faster than biological evolution - is much slower than intentional human design. Now being aware obviously of the human capacity for design - and seeing the presence of design in a particular morality without a corresponding individual author - people tended to ascribe morality to a supernatural being capable of design. In this sense God is a marker, a placeholder, for the emergent, unintentional, complex, collative processes driving the production not just of morality but of an entire class of 'emergent' institutions including language, money, markets, law and so on. Since Descartes, philosophy has 'elided' this phenomenon, reducing all institutional formation to intentional individual creation. Thus in science the stubborn insistence that a particular discovery must be attributed to a particular author. In fact knowledge is produced by collective, distributed, group processes even though in the West 'discovery' in science is always attributed to the 'eccentric' individual who has somehow positioned himself ahead of, and to the side, of the consensus.

@serversurfer6169

8 күн бұрын

She's still pretty hot too. 👍

@robertcarpenter8077

7 күн бұрын

@@serversurfer6169 Yes.

I would love to see the guys colabed with fellow philosopher Michael Burns from wisecrack.

I'm inflating my crown ben! - Notgod crowning Bertram midstream. Now that's a based take!

@robertcarpenter8077

10 күн бұрын

Hi Eugen, nice to see an Austrian on here :)

@eugenvonbohm-bawerk9086

10 күн бұрын

@@robertcarpenter8077 Glad to be welcomed here, Austria in fact doesn't even want me on their legal tender anymore

No state, no war is the implied conclusion in Franz Oppenheimer's 1914 book 'The State'. Oppenheimer strongly rejected the Enlightenment concept of the social contract, convincingly arguing that the State imposes itself by force rather than by the voluntary consent of the ruled. Oppenheimer tells us that the state's concern is always and only its own survival, a survival it assures through para-military means deployed against its internal population - and through military means deployed against other states.

@serversurfer6169

7 күн бұрын

🤔 A state is merely a tool of the ruling class. If the state feels like your oppressor rather than your servant, that simply indicates that you are among the ruled. Currently, “the concerns of the state” are the concerns of capital.

“I’m not really sure why God hardens Pharaoh’s heart. 🤔” God tells Moses that it’s to justify His impending collective punishment of the Egyptians. 😜

Can't have objective morality without god? Wouldn't Aristotle, Kant and at the very least Putnam disagree?