= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Konkvistador comments on LW Women- Minimizing the Inferential Distance - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (1254)
This is what I consider among his most important insights.
Probably yes, but I'm not that confident. Some strategies to weaken the loop if it is understood probably do exist and are probably similar to those of fighting the influence of a particular religion in society.
Think Dissolution of the Monasteries.
Not that confident of what? Something I said?
I agree that the positive feedback loop can weaken. I think it already has. There's a lot more media outside the official channels, and higher education is in the midst of a huge bubble. Maybe government too, with the unsustainable government debt levels throughout the western world.
Will the debt holders basically take control of governments and force them to run their tax farming businesses more efficiently? The IMF has been doing that to countries for years. That seems a more likely future than a Moldbug restoration.
Not that confident the media/academia belief pump cycle is a greater advantage than the hidden nature of their theocracy.
If the hidden nature of the theocracy is the main problem, we'll have to wait for a societal wide embrace of Stirner for relief. I'm not holding my breath on that one.
I had hoped that Hitchens might someday turn on his fellow "atheists", and bring the fight to moral theocracies as he had to supernatural theocracies. Guess not.
Can you think of any moderately prominent person or group who might make the case, and might be listened? I can't.
EDIT: On further review of Moldbug, he has a short series of Anti-Idealism blog posts that makes some of the same basic points that Stirner does. He even makes a similar point to what I have above about the New Atheists.
http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2007/04/why-do-atheists-believe-in-religion.html http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2007/05/our-planet-is-infested-with-pseudo.html http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2007/05/idealism-is-not-great.html
http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2007/05/unlikely-appeal-of-nonidealism.html
If not for said belief pump, would "theocracy" necessarily even be a boo light?
In what way does the existence or non-existence of a belief pump bear on whether "theocracy" is a boo light?
Why do people believe "theocracy" to be bad? The proximate cause is that it's what they've been taught.
If your brother tries to tell you why [your social theory is wrong], then do not debate him or set forth your own evidence; do not perform replicable experiments or examine history; but turn him in at once to the secret police.
Theocracy doesn't exactly have a self-correction mechanism to avoid that problem.
Is that a problem of theocracy per se? That's a problem in a lot of systems. And there's no reason one can't in principle have a theocracy with robust free speech rights. It may well be that that hasn't happened more because the ideas which are generally anti-theocratic are often clustered with ideas about open discourse. That said, it does seem plausible that a theocracy will be more likely to run into the sort of problems you discuss, purely because if one is thinking in religious terms, then the already high stakes involved in politics become even higher.
I've yet to hear an argument for free speech that didn't lean heavily on the risk that any particular policy or belief might be erroneous. My impression is that theocracy is defined as government based on the principal that there are some (divinely revealed?) facts for which there is no risk of error.
If we were sure (risk of error epsilon) of some set of facts and could unambiguously determine whether an assertion conflicted with those facts, why would we tolerate opposition?
As Eliezer noted in the piece I cited, this is a problem of most political systems.
So I was in the process of replying saying that there was potentially an issue here of definitions, but thinking about this more, other definitions I can think of seem about equivalent. So, operating under that definition, one could have a theocracy where for example people said "there's no risk of error, but the deity in charge likes free will a lot, to the point where as long as they aren't in the process of actively resisting the divine government, they are free to damn themselves" or something equivalent.
I personally think that theocracy is bad because it combines the worst features of a totalitarian dictatorship on the one hand, and uncritical thinking on the other. As such, it could potentially turn out much worse than even a run-of-the-mill totalitarian dictatorship; in the latter case, at least the dictator and his politburo have some sort of a real plan...
Which came first, that argument, or you believing that theocracy is bad?
Probably what came first were several examples of theocracies and other dictatorships in the real world; me realizing they were bad; then me looking for an explanation; which led to the conclusion above.