Disqus - Latest Comments for Resnikoff

Re: Test

Ned Resnikoff — Thu, 31 May 2012 15:51:56 -0000

Test

Re: http://resnikoff.tumblr.com/post/1981779678

Ned Resnikoff — Mon, 29 Nov 2010 21:50:56 -0000

I think Kant is right to be skeptical regarding Descartes' attempts to draw further inferences about the nature of the self from "I think, therefore I am." To crudely paraphrase Wittgenstein, nothing in the visual field necessarily tells you that it is being seen by an eye.

Re: http://resnikoff.tumblr.com/post/1242583508

Ned Resnikoff — Tue, 19 Oct 2010 06:44:02 -0000

My recent reading has convinced me that that question is incoherent as well. I've been blogging about the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus here recently, and one of the claims Wittgenstein puts forward in that work is that nearly the whole discipline of metaphysics exists largely because of confusion over the limits of language. Language can represent pictures of the world and logical constructs; it can't very well accurately depict what you're describing, and my inclination is to say that's because nominal "spiritual truths" don't actually have a truth value, positive or negative.

Re: http://resnikoff.tumblr.com/post/1313920580

Ned Resnikoff — Thu, 14 Oct 2010 13:35:54 -0000

Yeah, I think the reason why it's so highly praised has a lot to do with its accessibility relative to his stronger novels.

Re: http://resnikoff.tumblr.com/post/1269655385

Ned Resnikoff — Sat, 09 Oct 2010 15:37:44 -0000

Dylan, not all people of faith see their religion as something with no mind-independent truth value -- in fact, I think you might be in the minority there. I'm just trying to get a sense of how faith works for those who do think that way.

Re: http://resnikoff.tumblr.com/post/1269655385

Ned Resnikoff — Sat, 09 Oct 2010 15:31:15 -0000

I hadn't heard of St. Anselm's ontological argument until you mentioned it. Based on my subsequent intensive research on the topic (I skimmed the Wikipedia page), this sounds a lot like the "clear and distinct perception" argument that Descartes puts forth earlier in the Meditations. And yeah, both of those are pretty problematic.

Re: http://resnikoff.tumblr.com/post/1193015914

Ned Resnikoff — Sun, 26 Sep 2010 19:39:05 -0000

Bloomingdale!

Re: http://resnikoff.tumblr.com/post/1133788281

Ned Resnikoff — Fri, 17 Sep 2010 00:34:19 -0000

Hah! True enough.

Re: http://resnikoff.tumblr.com/post/1077483726

Ned Resnikoff — Wed, 08 Sep 2010 12:33:01 -0000

Sorry! I try to ignore him most of the time, but I thought he provided a good example here of how Nietzsche can be misinterpreted to dangerous effect. The good news is I skipped ahead, and I'm about 30 pages away from where he gave up on the book entirely.

Re: http://resnikoff.tumblr.com/post/1077483726

Ned Resnikoff — Mon, 06 Sep 2010 21:51:58 -0000

Maybe I wasn't clear enough in my objection. I agree with your analysis, but I still think my MLK counterexample holds up. And the portion of this post dedicated to talk about "any doctrine of equality espoused by an oppressed minority" had nothing to do with Nietzsche's theory, but with Pritchard's misreading of it.

Re: http://resnikoff.tumblr.com/post/1049414569

Ned Resnikoff — Thu, 02 Sep 2010 02:23:16 -0000

And I agree with you that there don't seem to be many activists on the right who we can engage with in that way. So why don't we take the entry point we DO have into some sort of reasonable exchange with the right and run with it?

Even if it doesn't do anything to change the political landscape--and I'm not so sure that's true in the long run--it's good for us to be challenged by smart, good faith dissenters outside of the liberal bubble. It keeps us honest and it helps us reaffirm that we're pointed in the right direction.

Re: http://resnikoff.tumblr.com/post/1049414569

Ned Resnikoff — Thu, 02 Sep 2010 02:01:30 -0000

To be clear, I wasn't saying it didn't matter whether or not women's voices were being heard--just that I don't see what it has to do with the point of dispute. But then again, I'm not exactly sure what the point of dispute is anymore.

Re: http://resnikoff.tumblr.com/post/1049414569

Ned Resnikoff — Thu, 02 Sep 2010 01:43:52 -0000

It's not only men who are in that camp--Kathleen Parker is in there too, for example--but I don't really see how it's relevant either way. The point is that these is the faction in the conservative movement that is interested in a good faith debate with liberals, and that should be rewarded and encouraged. If we can help people like that accrue more influence within the Republican Party, than fantastic. In the meantime, I don't see what the problem is with treating them like adults prepared to have a constructive dialogue and treating John Boehner, Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin like the opposite of that.

Re: http://resnikoff.tumblr.com/post/1049414569

Ned Resnikoff — Wed, 01 Sep 2010 20:20:27 -0000

You won't find many officeholders like that, but I'm not sure my point requires elected officials. Think of it like a "no true Scotsman" problem--there are lots of conservatives like Weigel, Daniel Larison, Reihan Salam, Conor Friedersdorf and so on who we should be reaching out to and constructively engaging with. Now you can argue that they aren't really conservatives because they'll never share a stage with Sarah Palin, but that's also what makes them worth constructively engaging with.

Re: http://resnikoff.tumblr.com/post/1049414569

Ned Resnikoff — Wed, 01 Sep 2010 19:01:21 -0000

I wasn't talking about the conservative mainstream. But what about someone like David Weigel?

Re: http://resnikoff.tumblr.com/post/923069097

Ned Resnikoff — Sat, 21 Aug 2010 21:10:12 -0000

To put it another way: I'm not disputing the value of talking about art through the prism of race, class, or gender. But to use ONLY those things to talk about art is to miss out on a really huge chunk of what makes good narrative art worthwhile.

Re: http://resnikoff.tumblr.com/post/923069097

Ned Resnikoff — Sat, 21 Aug 2010 21:01:44 -0000

My point wasn't that the left has a paucity of good cultural criticism, but rather that a lot of it is pretty bad. Note that I didn't say that there wasn't value to talking about art in the context of identity politics--my point is that, particularly in the case of Mad Men, this frequently overwhelms discussion of the sorts of qualities we normally associate with being unique to narrative art. And check out the critiques I link to in the first paragraph of the writers I'm specifically calling out--most of them seem to be criticizing Mad Men for being either nuanced or aesthetically and artistically coherent.

Re: http://resnikoff.tumblr.com/post/965265649

Ned Resnikoff — Sat, 21 Aug 2010 19:28:04 -0000

Just got there yesterday! It's near the very end of the book.

Re: Capitalism and Global Warming

Ned Resnikoff — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 10:28:37 -0000

I don't know whether capitalism is good or bad for climate change in the abstract, but under-regulated business interests certainly making things worse. And let's not forget that a large part of the reason why it's impossible to pass legislation that actually addresses the threat is because one party is so invested in energy corporations (the other party only half- is) that they won't even admit the presence of a threat in the first place.

Re: http://resnikoff.tumblr.com/post/842043047

Ned Resnikoff — Mon, 26 Jul 2010 22:31:46 -0000

Your flattering comment was like enough!

Re: http://resnikoff.tumblr.com/post/829010363

Ned Resnikoff — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 01:20:36 -0000

Rob, you're going to have a hard time convincing me that the impossibility of measuring utility, or even demonstrating that there's some sort of universally applicable standard of utility, isn't a significant problem for utilitarianism. The latter objection is the one I want to emphasize more, since I think that's the stronger one.

Anyway, if you neither of those concerns can be addressed, who's to say that a utility monster is impossible?

Re: http://resnikoff.tumblr.com/post/829010363

Ned Resnikoff — Sun, 18 Jul 2010 18:56:26 -0000

As long as we're talking about ideal theory, I think that as long as it can be conceived of, it can be admitted as evidence.

As to your point about rule utilitarianism, it sounds like the rule isn't necessary on the first place if you could reason that conclusion on purely utilitarian grounds. But then that leads us to a different problem for utilitarianism, about the endless complexity and unpredictability of the consequences of our actions.

Re: http://resnikoff.tumblr.com/post/804260697

Ned Resnikoff — Thu, 15 Jul 2010 15:04:30 -0000

Okay, so substitute "a broader, universal point" in my argument with "a point," full stop.

Re: http://resnikoff.tumblr.com/post/804260697

Ned Resnikoff — Wed, 14 Jul 2010 03:51:21 -0000

If I have a bias against overshare blogging, it's borne out through observation. I think I've been clear that I have nothing against personal, confessional writing, but the strongest work in the genre comes from a strong sense of perspective, and the immediacy of blogging doesn't necessarily work well with that. Not to say that it can't be done, but it's extremely rare.

What do you mean by local truth?

Re: http://resnikoff.tumblr.com/post/786601691

Ned Resnikoff — Wed, 14 Jul 2010 01:25:10 -0000

How does one choose to have empathy?

Anyway, if Daniels' objection to atheism is that his entire moral framework collapses without the existence of heaven and hell, I would say that's his problem. He's making a positive claim about certain metaphysical phenomena, and so the burden of proof lies with him--he can't just smear people those claims because he likes what he's built on top of them.

As for non-theistic ethical frameworks, there are plenty of them. Utilitarianism, naturalism, non-naturalist realism, constructivism, and so on. If you flip through the archives of this blog, I think you'll find that I repeatedly describe myself as a substantive metaphysical constructivist, and point to Simone de Beauvoir's Ethics of Ambiguity as providing the framework for my own ethical system.