Do we live by logic?

[janie48]

It is not quite the same thing. I argue from a Stirnerian perspective, which solely recognises the Self. If you accept ‘rule of law’ as a goal in itself (for whichever reason thats seems to suit your own preservation), you are denying Yourself its existence, in that you subjugate the Self to a phantom, for all concepts that do not from part of You are ghosts and phantoms.

It follows that any authority by which you organise your life shall be Your authority. If it is not, then it is not authority.

This is a fundamental difference with the subservience of any Burke aficionado. If you acknowledge authority, it shall be Your power to do so. As a matter of fact, recognising authority that is not in the Self is a betrayal of the Self.

What I mean to say, is, therefore: only Your law can be a law at all. Any principle you adopt must spring from Your power.

Indeed.

[*_ash_*]

This certainly is an odd thread now.

[cuttsie]

Those who meditate can block out the 'noise' and enjoy the experience of listening. It's quite profound. More people should do it.

 

I do believe it reveals our true selves and our true purpose, and has very little to do with 'logic.'

 

I agree with you about Cheryl's tattoo.

 

Cheryl's tattoo makes me think of the the new Market.

[Cyclone]

It is not quite the same thing. I argue from a Stirnerian perspective, which solely recognises the Self. If you accept ‘rule of law’ as a goal in itself (for whichever reason thats seems to suit your own preservation), you are denying Yourself its existence, in that you subjugate the Self to a phantom, for all concepts that do not from part of You are ghosts and phantoms.

It follows that any authority by which you organise your life shall be Your authority. If it is not, then it is not authority.

This is a fundamental difference with the subservience of any Burke aficionado. If you acknowledge authority, it shall be Your power to do so. As a matter of fact, recognising authority that is not in the Self is a betrayal of the Self.

What I mean to say, is, therefore: only Your law can be a law at all. Any principle you adopt must spring from Your power.

 

In practical terms it's wise to acknowledge external authority unless you want that authority to prove it exists by incarcerating you via the use of physical force.

Ultimately authority only exists if it can be enforced, but the rule of law which comes (basically) from the shared morality of society can be enforced through force by members of that society.

 

---------- Post added 31-08-2013 at 10:42 ----------

 

Good old Kant. He was so consequential, people literally set their watches to him. They knew it was exactly 6 o’ clock when he left his front door. That is the kind of life to lead.

 

Reason and logic don't lead you to (blindly) follow a pattern or to be predictable. Presumably if there was a logical reason for Kant to leave his house late, he would do.

[jfish1936]

Errant nonsense is any belief that knowledge can be obtained through any other means than reason. Knowledge is the very product of reason. To claim otherwise is highly inconsequential. I strongly suggest that you acquaint yourself with the English language before attempting — feebly — to pronounce judgement on its propriety.

 

Should Halibut's original post have referred to "arrant nonsense"?

Errant means wandering

[Eccentric]

I am all in favour of peripathetic, vicissitudinal peregrinations, even of a nonsensical character.

[janie48]

I am all in favour of peripathetic, vicissitudinal peregrinations, even of a nonsensical character.

Keep em coming.