—“Violence represents both a conclusive refutation of argumentation ethics and — quite often — a cheaper means of accomplishing the same ends.”— Eli Harman
(Eli seems to frequently manage to reduce what takes me 750 words into twenty.)
Carolynn Smith, David Mondrus and 2 others like this.
“I didn’t have time to write you a short letter, so I wrote you a long one.” -Twain
Shorter is harder.
April 23 at 1:47pm
How is violence “a conclusive refutation of argumentation ethics”?
April 23 at 4:48pm
Curt Doolittle I won’t speak for Eli Harman. But this might help.
http://www.propertarianism.com/…/the-first-question-of…/The First Question Of Politics: Ternary Aristocratic Egalitarian Ethics Vs Binary Ghetto Ethics… You have made the error of Argumentation which is that because one must surrender violence to conduct a cooperative argument, that you assume the choice for participants is between cooperation and non cooperation, rather than to assume that the choice is between cooperation, non cooperation, and vio…
April 23 at 4:51pm
Arguments and ideas are not reality. They are useful to the extent that they help us navigate and make sense of reality. Objectively, AE does not do this, as evidenced by the fact that the use of violence — even aggressive violence — can be adaptive; as evidenced by its ubiquity. Kill the adherents of AE and the argument is refuted. Reality doesn’t care about your arguments. But your arguments should probably take note of reality.
April 23 at 5:08pm