Previous 11 - 20 Next
In response to:

A Racial Revolution?

Bob4419 Wrote: May 19, 2012 3:18 PM
Most of them were about the limitations of empiricism-- not to refute it, but merely to recognize its limited scope. A small example concerns gravity. Newton refered to gravity alternately as an invisible force and as a property of matter, and by the usual criteria for properties of things, it qualifies as a property of matter-- it's always and only present in the presence of matter, and its location is closely associated with the location of matter, etc. But gravity extends to infinity (diminishing in "density" with distance), and it makes for a messy universe if every material thing, with respect to "its" gravity, extends to infinity and in a sense "occupies" the same space as other material things. Newton's genius was to stipulate that
In response to:

A Racial Revolution?

Bob4419 Wrote: May 19, 2012 3:11 PM
I believe that we're at the point of diminishing returns of the modern intellectual paradigm, and that so-called "post"-modernism is an emperor's-new-clothes intellectual movement that merely highlights the skeptical baggage that empiricism conteined from the start (Descartes' subjectivism, Locke's moderate skepticism on which he based his argument for toleration, Hume's more radical skepticism). Empiricism is an intellectual power tool, and does not yield "neutral" descriptions of reality, but means to ends. It's time for a broader perspective that subsumes empiricism, one that's persuasive enough to motivate an abandonment of modern, collectivizing trends. The rest is too complicated for this forum.
In response to:

A Racial Revolution?

Bob4419 Wrote: May 19, 2012 2:26 PM
-- Though it may seem quaint today, the architecture of ancient morality and religion intuitively embodied a quantum-like understanding of human freedom, self-determination, spontaneity, and creativity. Freedom and spontaneity are presupposed in the notion that a person CAN be viewed as "owning" enough of his own behavior to call him responsible for it. Objectification and stereotyping efface freedom and spontaneity in rendering inherently finite and quantifiable objects. The notion of personal reesponsiblity is founded on what is, to empirical methods, an absurdity and a self-contradiction. Basing policy decisions solely on the empirical perspectives of social science is how modernity nudges human society toward socialism and communism.
In response to:

A Racial Revolution?

Bob4419 Wrote: May 19, 2012 2:16 PM
Not only are their depictions of human persons inaccurate, their practices also entail a methodological elitism. Empirical knowledge is the knowledge that is power, and social science theorists and implementers of their theory are empowered over the sheep-like masses they objectify. This empowerment is further enhanced by the negative self-fulfilling prophecies engendered by convincing the people to view themselves as they are defined by those theories-- mechanistically passive, amoral, collectivized, and ruled by passions, sensations, and conditionings.
In response to:

A Racial Revolution?

Bob4419 Wrote: May 19, 2012 2:12 PM
The social-science depiction of a human person is objectified, rendered stable, predictable, finite, and quantifiable. It is also a stereotype of a person. We have these quantum computers between our ears, yet in human behavior as in quantum physics, the spontaneity and indeterminacy of individual quantum phenomena cancel out in the aggregate. This is why the macroscopic material world is relatively stable, despite the wildness at the sub-atomic scale. This is also human populations are more predictable than human individuals. -- Yet the theorizing activity of the social scientists themselves violates their decapitated portraits of human persons, in the creativity and freedom they employ in the process.
In response to:

A Racial Revolution?

Bob4419 Wrote: May 19, 2012 2:06 PM
The view that demography or biology is destiny is a part of late-modern conventional wisdom that informed the work of Karl Marx and behaviorist psychologists, among others, and is a cornerstone of collectivist, farm-animal ideologies. It stems from a misunderstanding of empirical method, which necessarily objectifies, aggregates, and averages what they observe. These methods are great for generating knowledge about rocks and molecules, and rocks and molecules aren't much diminished by being objectified and stereotyped. When applied to humans, though, the result is a decapitated depiction.
In response to:

Gay Marriage and the Definition of Words

Bob4419 Wrote: May 13, 2012 11:14 AM
What the left has done to "toleration" is also appalling. Authentic toleration applies to what one finds repugnant, and depends, like forgiveness, on an emotional counter-intuitiveness. It makes no sense to talk about "tolerating" what one endorses, except collectively, when something tolerated is repugnant generally. The left is all about collectivizing moral concepts, but a side-effect is a lot of people preaching tolerance who are personally intolerant of those with differing views. The left is destroying authentic toleration.
In response to:

Gay Marriage and the Definition of Words

Bob4419 Wrote: May 13, 2012 10:57 AM
Whatever word lefties use to describe homosexuals doesn't matter so much to me as when they monkey around with concepts that have strong moral content. "Marriage" is one of these, "Human rights" is another. Eleanor Roosevelt included "rights" to physical goods and services in the U.N. Declaration of Universal Human Rights, but this misunderstands the relationship between the material world and the expansiveness of human desire and effort. Among other consequences, the notion of material "rights" would make any poor government, no matter how honest, efficient, and transparent, a criminal government. It's untenable, even aside from the way that material "rights" compel people in some industries to supply the fruits of their labor to others.
In response to:

Is Medical Care A Right?

Bob4419 Wrote: May 03, 2012 3:09 AM
-- Another problem with third party payment is that patients have no incentive to scrutinize their bills. All those motivated eyes go to waste. -- Prior to broad coverage insurance, medical care in the 70s cost half as much as now as a %-age of GDP, and our GDP is three times as large. -- Broad coverage medical insurance isn't the solution-- it's the problem.
In response to:

Is Medical Care A Right?

Bob4419 Wrote: May 03, 2012 3:02 AM
requiring a huge parasitic bureaucratic diaspora at providers' offices to handle the local paperwork, buffering providers and secondary providers from market forces and encouraging fee increases, changing the medical culture from service-providers to corporations. The above is before insurance company profits, and applies to public programs as well as private.. -- It's a lot easier to justify huge fee increases when you're taking money from a deep-pocketed third-party payer than from your neighbors. Of course, it comes back to the neighbors eventually, as premiums or taxes. Face to face payment involves human contact. Third-party cost-control requires arbitrary, inflexible policies and adversarial relations with patients and providers.
In response to:

Is Medical Care A Right?

Bob4419 Wrote: May 03, 2012 2:13 AM
Material rights would render any poor government, no matter how transparent or well-run, a violator of human rights, and thus criminal. -- Good government has a responsibility to promote the well-being of its people. This doesn't necessarily involve providing services, except for national security & police protection. It does involve things like reasonable regulations and laws to shape the setting in which relevant sectors of the economy provide goods and services. -- I believe we need a much freer market in medicine. Catastrophic insurance coverage is a good thing, but broad-coverage insurance that dominates the medical sector distorts the crap out of the market, inviting fraud, instituting huge parasitic bureaucracies,
Previous 11 - 20 Next