tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post6654965336348161538..comments2024-03-29T03:19:09.227-04:00Comments on The Philosopher's Stone: CREDORobert Paul Wolffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11970360952872431856noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-33923518081709727542014-02-24T16:58:07.393-05:002014-02-24T16:58:07.393-05:00Perhaps the most inspiring piece I have read this ...Perhaps the most inspiring piece I have read this year.<br /><br />And indeed, recognition that the work you set out cannot be completed in any one person's lifetime should not detract from the collective effort to move forward. "It is not incumbent upon you to complete the work, but neither are you at liberty to desist from it" (Avot 2:21) attributed to Mishnaic sage רבי טרפון (70-135 CE).Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08730715674657331449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-19816904900582194782010-12-02T18:37:31.100-05:002010-12-02T18:37:31.100-05:00@Mike. I don't see how a 'self-made horsem...@Mike. I don't see how a 'self-made horseman' is remotely possible in the real world - that's the crux when one comes down from the ivory tower of thought experiments. Horses have been bred from wild ancestors by countless generations of horse-breeders; they need training and breaking in - skills that have been honed by the same nameless generations; not to mention the riding skills that the 'self-made' horseman was unlikely to learn all by himself. It is these kinds of unspoken and unacknowledged communal foundations of individuality and individual achievement that Wolff is pointing to I believe. As even J S Mill put it (I think) - 'no one is autonomous autonomously'.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14087686538224984049noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-15580368183160369862010-12-02T16:17:04.515-05:002010-12-02T16:17:04.515-05:00I already mentioned it before on this blog but I&#...I already mentioned it before on this blog but I'll explain it again. Market abolitionism is the idea that all market functions should be replaced by planning. The most famous proponent of this view is Michael Albert and you can read him here: http://books.google.es/books?id=JfNi7V9WnhYC&printsec=frontcover&dq=michael+albert+parecon&source=bl&ots=KRRhOF5iAu&sig=Y5gNn97YOmeygff2462auqqLmRA&hl=es&ei=1Av4TPvpHceHhQeMy_jFDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false<br /><br />I think that a marketless world based entirely on planning would turn society into a Brazil-type dungeon of bureaucracy and oppression. This is why I keep asking people on the left what exactly their views are of the marketplace. Seeing as how I generally hear nothing but hostility towards them can I really unreasonably assume that the logical conclusion of their views would be supplanting all market functions with planning?Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02563179015787569536noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-25249023107213491102010-12-02T15:34:15.265-05:002010-12-02T15:34:15.265-05:00What in God's name is market abolitionism?What in God's name is market abolitionism?Robert Paul Wolffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11970360952872431856noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-6557010745599755552010-12-02T14:52:37.950-05:002010-12-02T14:52:37.950-05:00But you're not advocating market abolitionism ...But you're not advocating market abolitionism are you? That's just throwing out the baby with the bathwater.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02563179015787569536noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-22233997229232039292010-12-01T10:17:56.316-05:002010-12-01T10:17:56.316-05:00I simply love your modernisation of that classic s...I simply love your modernisation of that classic statement Professor<br />"According to his or her needs"..beautiful! Regardless of input to society(through infirmity etc)then we still ought to provide. But for the grace of god(who existence is not yet proven) go INotHobbeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09443644930695303411noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-17614347287155906552010-11-30T12:03:19.274-05:002010-11-30T12:03:19.274-05:00Chris,
Yes, there's that. But even setting ...Chris, <br /><br />Yes, there's that. But even setting Hume aside I don't see how you get the kind of morality Wolff is after, where each person has an obligation to every other person, merely out of interdependence. After all, we depend on some people more than we do on others, and some people don't provide us with anything upon which we depend. The most you'll get out of Wolff's system, I think, is a kind of tribalism wherein you have moral obligations only to those upon whom you depend. You don't get a universal prescription like "from each according to his ability to each according his need." <br /><br />To put it differently, the fundamental problem with Wolff's credo is not a gap between fact and value. Rather, it's that the wrong fact is being highlighted. If Bill desperately needs my help, and I am in a position to help him, I ought to do so. But if we ask why I ought to do so, I don't think the best answer is that I depend on Bill in some way. After all, whether I depend on him is a contingent matter. I may or may not do so. And even if I did, why should that matter?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12930176108418351127noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-36602714585602007732010-11-30T08:04:25.206-05:002010-11-30T08:04:25.206-05:00Hume's is-ought problem perhaps Mike?Hume's is-ought problem perhaps Mike?Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08250295324149056708noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-77748684356351430862010-11-29T19:57:17.910-05:002010-11-29T19:57:17.910-05:00It's all very poetic, but what does it mean? ...It's all very poetic, but what does it mean? Suppose we were self-made horsemen on the plains. Would we then have no moral obligations to each other? Could we be justifiably indifferent to each other's needs? <br /><br />Suppose one such self-made horseman offered another his services in exchange for water. Would he thereby acquire not only the obligation to perform the service in question but also an obligation to attend to water-provider's needs, whatever they may be?<br /><br />Now assume interdependence, and suppose that, because of his infirmities, Craig contributes nothing to our community. It would seem to follow on your view that we would owe him nothing, as we have obligations only to those upon whom we depend.<br /><br />In all, while I found your speech passionate and poetic, I just don't see how the mere fact of interdependence gets you anything like the kind of morality you're after (or any kind of morality, for that matter).Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12930176108418351127noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-45389866089715363692010-11-29T02:07:20.930-05:002010-11-29T02:07:20.930-05:00Absolutely eloquent, evocative and noble, both as ...Absolutely eloquent, evocative and noble, both as essay and as belief.GTChristiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14390368105725901371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-24764568240280223692010-11-28T16:44:35.268-05:002010-11-28T16:44:35.268-05:00Dear Mr. Professor, I wonder if Your credo represe...Dear Mr. Professor, I wonder if Your credo represents rather pessimistic or rather optimistic View of Human Condition? On the one hand, we like to think about ourselves as free and independent beings (“self-made men”), but on the other, we like to think about ourselves as a part of a bigger whole. I am afraid, a beautiful (??) dream about self-made men isn’t true. But I hope we are free enough to bear responsibility for our acts.<br />Best regards after long break,<br />MaciekMaciekhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08159534099097926776noreply@blogger.com