I would just like to take a moment to thank everyone who reads and comments here at the Holler.
All three (so far, hopefully others will join in) of the interlocutors in the comment threads of this post provide a delightful experience for me and hopefully for other readers.
I was surprised the other day when a person I follow mentioned how much trolling and combative comments he is getting. From my perspective, he does not really write on what you would usually take to be highly controversial subjects but is more meditative in his writing.
There has been next to none of that here so far (knock on wood).
Here folks seem to be serious. Maybe they comment more along what you might call 'academic' lines or maybe it's more along the lines of people genuinely seeking to live good and wise lives. Maybe it's to agree and add more ideas to the conversation or maybe it's to challenge. But it all seems good, forthright, and authentic to me and I'm thankful.
"The concept of a person's "rights," for example, is basic to legalism. It is one of the most powerful formulations in gaining and sustaining popular support for the operation of the legal system.
"The common understanding of this concept is that law takes the side of the people against governmental or other systematic injustice. This uncritical view is elaborated upon in law school and throughout the legal system. Actually, however, once one understands that the central concern of legalism is with the maintenance of its own power system, one sees that the law only appears to take the side of the people. In fact, the real concern of legalism in its recognition of popular claims of right (civil rights, etc.) is to preserve the basicgovernmentalframework in which the claims arise.
"The concept of civil rights has meaning only in the context of an over-arching system of legal power against which the civil rights are supposed to protect. Ending the system of power would also end the need for civil rights. But it is precisely here that one sees the impossibility of ending the oppression by means of civil rights law. In the end, this analysis points to the concept of personal "rights" as being a technique for depersonalizing people. We are taught to respect the rights of others, and in doing so we focus on the abstract bundle of rules and regulations which have been set up by judges and other officials to govern the behavior of people. In this focus, we miss the actual reality of the others as whole, real individuals. We end up, in short, respecting the law rather than people; and this, for legalism, is the essential aim."
" all associations come into being for the sake of some good—for all men do all their acts with a view to achieving something which is, in their view, a good...."
See: James Gordley. The Philosophical Origins of Modern Contract Doctrine (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991); he displays the 'crisis' in contract law when its original basis in the 'good' was no longer believable to modern people making contracts, with the result that contract interpretation became a matter of discerning the 'will' of the parties... rather than a 'good' aimed for in the agreement.
"They even call the attempt to keep them together the ‘naturalistic fallacy.’ They pithily admonish ‘you cannot derive an ought from an is.’ Well, with the premoderns, I would give the rejoinder ‘if you cannot derive an ought from an is, you probably just can’t get an ought, or any ought you put forth will probably appear rather arbitrary.’ If morality is not rooted in nature, in reality, where the heck is it supposed to come from?"
—I have been saying this exact thing, in strikingly similar words, since shortly after I encountered the Hume's Guillotine objection. Makes me crazy! I think I have written these exact words: "If we cannot derive oughts from what is, where the heck are oughts supposed to come from—from what ISN'T?" I like the fact that we are so much on the same page there that we came up with the same way to express it.
Steven, welcome to the Holler! I hope you can kick back and stay a spell.
Thanks for the link. That is one elegantly constructed and argued piece. I hope others will check it out.
Those ideas of our crumbling narratives and the recovery, or entering into, the spiritual wisdom by which thinking of the liberation of all of nature and the recognition of kith and kin could make sense are profound notions.
Could be. It's not calling a specific quote to mind though. The whole Hegelian dialectic of self-consciousness with the Other, mediation, the Absolute, negation, etc. thrown in still taxes my brain most of the time. It seems like it could be Hegel though. The idea that even 'person' is something of an abstraction would fit. In the struggle for recognition (per Hegel) I believe perceiving the personhood of the other is still not the final resolution of the dialectic that allows both the self and the other to exist as full subjects (beings for themselves).
I prefer Plato's thinking more! The American system was never realized due to the influence of empirical Anglo-Dutch influence even today as the great reset unfolds and destroys us. Thinker like Hamilton, Franklin, Lincoln, Rosvelt, Kennedy, Larouche had to be silenced because they knew that there was no limit to growth and that the universe was not a closed system that was doomed to heat and die. Read Larouche and see why they could not allow him to remain free, Jack.
"MacIntyre insists this is true of Marx’s understanding as well."
—It is true that no man is (or ought to be) an island. The problem comes from what the left (especially, though not exclusively) says next: No man is an island, and therefore… he is a mere cell in a larger body; that body has a claim upon him and his property; etc.
I would just like to take a moment to thank everyone who reads and comments here at the Holler.
All three (so far, hopefully others will join in) of the interlocutors in the comment threads of this post provide a delightful experience for me and hopefully for other readers.
I was surprised the other day when a person I follow mentioned how much trolling and combative comments he is getting. From my perspective, he does not really write on what you would usually take to be highly controversial subjects but is more meditative in his writing.
There has been next to none of that here so far (knock on wood).
Here folks seem to be serious. Maybe they comment more along what you might call 'academic' lines or maybe it's more along the lines of people genuinely seeking to live good and wise lives. Maybe it's to agree and add more ideas to the conversation or maybe it's to challenge. But it all seems good, forthright, and authentic to me and I'm thankful.
"the boundary protected by ‘rights’ and liberalism is the establishment of neutral procedures to police the boundaries of individual rights."
See my 1975 paper: "Law Is Terror Put Into Words - A Humanist's Analysis of the Increasing Separation Between Concerns of Law and Concerns of Justice" — https://www.academia.edu/316481/Law_Is_Terror_Put_Into_Words_A_Humanists_Analysis_of_the_Increasing_Separation_Between_Concerns_of_Law_and_Concerns_of_Justice
I wrote:
"The concept of a person's "rights," for example, is basic to legalism. It is one of the most powerful formulations in gaining and sustaining popular support for the operation of the legal system.
"The common understanding of this concept is that law takes the side of the people against governmental or other systematic injustice. This uncritical view is elaborated upon in law school and throughout the legal system. Actually, however, once one understands that the central concern of legalism is with the maintenance of its own power system, one sees that the law only appears to take the side of the people. In fact, the real concern of legalism in its recognition of popular claims of right (civil rights, etc.) is to preserve the basicgovernmentalframework in which the claims arise.
"The concept of civil rights has meaning only in the context of an over-arching system of legal power against which the civil rights are supposed to protect. Ending the system of power would also end the need for civil rights. But it is precisely here that one sees the impossibility of ending the oppression by means of civil rights law. In the end, this analysis points to the concept of personal "rights" as being a technique for depersonalizing people. We are taught to respect the rights of others, and in doing so we focus on the abstract bundle of rules and regulations which have been set up by judges and other officials to govern the behavior of people. In this focus, we miss the actual reality of the others as whole, real individuals. We end up, in short, respecting the law rather than people; and this, for legalism, is the essential aim."
I'm probably going to have to steal the phrase 'law is terror put into words.' That is great. I'll credit you of course.
" all associations come into being for the sake of some good—for all men do all their acts with a view to achieving something which is, in their view, a good...."
See: James Gordley. The Philosophical Origins of Modern Contract Doctrine (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991); he displays the 'crisis' in contract law when its original basis in the 'good' was no longer believable to modern people making contracts, with the result that contract interpretation became a matter of discerning the 'will' of the parties... rather than a 'good' aimed for in the agreement.
Oh, man! That’s a powerful observation. How much of our modern conundrum is alluded to in the notion that we can’t discern or believe in the good!
I always look forward to your comments. Thanks so much!
"They even call the attempt to keep them together the ‘naturalistic fallacy.’ They pithily admonish ‘you cannot derive an ought from an is.’ Well, with the premoderns, I would give the rejoinder ‘if you cannot derive an ought from an is, you probably just can’t get an ought, or any ought you put forth will probably appear rather arbitrary.’ If morality is not rooted in nature, in reality, where the heck is it supposed to come from?"
—I have been saying this exact thing, in strikingly similar words, since shortly after I encountered the Hume's Guillotine objection. Makes me crazy! I think I have written these exact words: "If we cannot derive oughts from what is, where the heck are oughts supposed to come from—from what ISN'T?" I like the fact that we are so much on the same page there that we came up with the same way to express it.
Thanks for this. People may find this resonant: https://dissidentvoice.org/2024/03/reimagining-nationalism-and-democracy-with-the-view-from-the-shore/
Steven, welcome to the Holler! I hope you can kick back and stay a spell.
Thanks for the link. That is one elegantly constructed and argued piece. I hope others will check it out.
Those ideas of our crumbling narratives and the recovery, or entering into, the spiritual wisdom by which thinking of the liberation of all of nature and the recognition of kith and kin could make sense are profound notions.
Another kindred voice: https://open.substack.com/pub/davidbenjaminblower/p/allness?r=21x2h&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Very interesting. Now subscribed. Thanks!
Good to be here! Deeply appreciate the kind words and kindred thoughts…
"I’m not me with those abstracted."
I recall Hegel said something along the lines: "it is an epithet to call me a 'person'. I am not an abstraction." ??
Could be. It's not calling a specific quote to mind though. The whole Hegelian dialectic of self-consciousness with the Other, mediation, the Absolute, negation, etc. thrown in still taxes my brain most of the time. It seems like it could be Hegel though. The idea that even 'person' is something of an abstraction would fit. In the struggle for recognition (per Hegel) I believe perceiving the personhood of the other is still not the final resolution of the dialectic that allows both the self and the other to exist as full subjects (beings for themselves).
I prefer Plato's thinking more! The American system was never realized due to the influence of empirical Anglo-Dutch influence even today as the great reset unfolds and destroys us. Thinker like Hamilton, Franklin, Lincoln, Rosvelt, Kennedy, Larouche had to be silenced because they knew that there was no limit to growth and that the universe was not a closed system that was doomed to heat and die. Read Larouche and see why they could not allow him to remain free, Jack.
Hi Jack,
No disrespect for Plato on my end!
In fact, later in the year, I hope to look at Plato here.
"MacIntyre insists this is true of Marx’s understanding as well."
—It is true that no man is (or ought to be) an island. The problem comes from what the left (especially, though not exclusively) says next: No man is an island, and therefore… he is a mere cell in a larger body; that body has a claim upon him and his property; etc.