Podcast: Download (0.0KB)
Subscribe: iTunes | Android | RSS
Richard Hauser work our way up through the branches of philosophy, starting with epistemology. We have some disagreements, but we agree on the most part.
Filed under Interviews, Philosophy
Thanks Richard for taking the time to recap. Nick, a written recap helps when there is a rather complex discussion.
This was very interesting to me and a good review of terms. A review of terms should be done periodically for people like me that do not often deal with them and for new listeners. Who is Richard Hauser? Some background on him would be good.
I plan on doing more foundational and term reviewing shows.
All I gave, is all I have on Richard. I should have asked him the “Why should we listen to you?”
I wandered a bit in the discussion and made one notable mistake, so I wanted to post a view of my philosophy to gather the pieces together. Though Nick disagrees, I consider the first two unassailable though I guess it gets more shaky as the structure gets taller.
1. Descarte’s (not Kant’s, sorry) – I think therefore I am
2. I am a being that is experiencing something
3. That experience is good, as if that experience is something and something is better than nothing. This experience we call “life”. So life is good.
4. That experience is true if we understand the context that the experience is experienced inside. i.e. I am an imperfect being, so any experience will only show a small part of the truth because only a small part is part of my experience. We are all like the people in Plato’s “Parable of the Cave”. They only saw shadows on the wall, and we see more, but there is so much more that we cannot experience we cannot hope to know the complete truth only facets that are part of our experience. This does not make the experience false, but incomplete.
5. Interacting with our experience is good. Life without any interactions would be like watching a movie which is not life, but watching someone else’s life. Life without free will and some means to act on that will is not life.
6. Our experiences show that humans are certainly weak at birth and generally in life in comparison to other animals. Our survival depends upon our ability to work as a community, so if you want to live then you need to support some community.
7. Community is made up of other beings and those beings want to live.
8. This is the derivation of the “none aggression principle”. Aggression against another person removes their ability to live their own life, so it is immoral. This also shows how kidnapping or confinement is aggression as it removes the ability of the other to live their own life.
9. The need for a community to support life requires “rational self interest” to include non-short term goals. Even if an action is non-agressive, it is still immoral if it destroys community because that is anti-life.
10. This leads to discussions of politics, utilitarianism and “the most good for the most people”. A moral view of community has to include mobility between communities as blocking mobility is aggression and anti-life. We need community, but not any one community. This precludes the “tyranny of the majority” as it allows those victimized to switch communities. Moral communities would then only be inhabited by those whom benefited from the community. This does not necessarily lead to an anarchic system, as everyone could agree to appoint a single leader, but it certainly tempers the power of any leader in that ruling would only apply to those who continue the community. Members of the the community could temporarily choose to assign part of their free will to another, that is part of free will.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
The free TuneIn app is available on just about every phone platform. Grab the app here. Once it's installed, just search for Anarcho-Yakitalism!