Does he even claim much in the way of originality? The only obviously new thing that comes to mind is Patchwork, which is indeed stupid. But it certainly seems like he’s mostly a convert to an intellectual tradition that is at best marginal but was once much more popular. Carlyle, Froude, de Maistre, Schmitt, he’s mostly not claiming to be the source of his big ideas. He’s a pretty decent sociologist or political scientist at times but mostly he’s just a man out of his time, which appears to be somewhere in the 1800s.
He’s such a terrible historian, so I can’t really see his sociology or political theory as worthwhile.
Regarding originality, I think he suffers the same problem as early Eliezer—failure to acknowledge sources. It’s not that big a problem for Eliezer because most of his sources (logical positivist philosophers, Dennett, etc.) would agree with, or at least respect, the new conclusions that are being drawn in the sequences.
Moldbug’s citation problem is much bigger because many of his interesting ideas are straight from thinkers who would disagree with his conclusions. Further, Moldbug’s core audience is very hostile to those thinkers.
Konkvistador cites previous discussion of Moldbug’s view that religion deserves to be treated like an ideology. I don’t disagree, but Marx’s “Religion is the Opium of the People” can plausibly be read as asserting a very similar point. And the Chomskist Po-Mos take this idea even further, asserting that just about everything is an ideology. Likewise, “everything is an ideology” is the basic justification / explanation for Paul Graham’s “Keep Your Identity Small.” or the local Politics is the MindKiller norm.
Konkvistador cites previous discussion of Moldbug’s view that religion deserves to be treated like an ideology. I don’t disagree, but Marx’s “Religion is the Opium of the People” can plausibly be read as asserting a very similar point. And the Chomskist Po-Mos take this idea even further, asserting that just about everything is an ideology. Likewise, “everything is an ideology” is the basic justification / explanation for Paul Graham’s “Keep Your Identity Small.” or the local Politics is the MindKiller norm.
Of these examples I see nothing that I would characterize myself as being hostile too. Except some of the more silly aspects of pomo.
What counts as silly post-modernism is exactly what is under dispute.
And weren’t you asserting a few months ago that one should aim to be apolitical? Both Moldbug and post-modernism say that’s essentially impossible for an active member of society.
I kind of failed at that pretty badly, though while it lasted it was a great exercise. I’ll trying getting into it again. That it is impossible really isn’t under dispute at all, what is under dispute is if it is useful to strive for such a state of mind.
I don’t think that answer to our human flaws is to retreat from trying to implement our terminal values. In other words, Politics is the MindKiller is not a certainty, simply a failure mode that society and its members have spent essentially no effort trying to avoid. If one can develop a sufficient level of self-criticism, one can do far better than the statistical norm.
That’s been my strategy, anyway. Reject all false arguments, whether or not they lead to conclusions I like. If you think I’ve failed at that goal, I’d welcome your feedback. Crocker’s Rules—for you, on this topic.
Generally I have had a high opinion of your output despite our disagreements on some value issues (which may or may not be actually incompatible), I recall some very neat rationalist debates.
It is more or less only the recent difference on our interpretation of Moldbug and some other minor things that lead me to believe you may not be open to good arguments associated with that cluster. I think you can avoid most of the risk of that by steel manning reactionary positions more when debating.
This is the sort of conversation where being specific would be particularly helpful.
Regarding steelmanning, I generally decline to change someone’s position to the point where that someone would no longer endorse the argument. Given what I’ve read of Moldbug’s, I’m particularly uncertain of what changes I could make that I thought were improvements and that Moldbug would likely endorse.
Aside from my concerns with Moldbug’s grasp of historical or economic analysis, my basic understanding of his position is that he thinks governments should have the same ownership rights in property that private landowners have in property—which everyone with a brain should agree is not how any country is organized currently. My objections to that are two-fold:
(1) I’m unaware of that ever happening in a stable way anywhere in the last 2000 years, so I have essentially no useful evidence to figure out how it would work in practice.
(2) It’s hard for me to come to grips with what problems this solution is intended to solve. Specifically, there are many problems that “government” is understood to exist in order to solve. And increasing government power in the way Moldbug describes solves essentially none—except as the extreme “solution” of denying that they are problems.
More generally, it’s hard for me to see Moldbug as more than an advocate for far less social unrest. I’m not sure he has a good plan for getting to that goal, but even so, the core argument to be made is about the optimal level of social unrest. Moldbug’s provocative writing just assumes one agrees with his understanding on that point, and so those who don’t agree have very little to grapple with in any productive fashion.
Does he even claim much in the way of originality? The only obviously new thing that comes to mind is Patchwork, which is indeed stupid. But it certainly seems like he’s mostly a convert to an intellectual tradition that is at best marginal but was once much more popular. Carlyle, Froude, de Maistre, Schmitt, he’s mostly not claiming to be the source of his big ideas. He’s a pretty decent sociologist or political scientist at times but mostly he’s just a man out of his time, which appears to be somewhere in the 1800s.
He’s such a terrible historian, so I can’t really see his sociology or political theory as worthwhile.
Regarding originality, I think he suffers the same problem as early Eliezer—failure to acknowledge sources. It’s not that big a problem for Eliezer because most of his sources (logical positivist philosophers, Dennett, etc.) would agree with, or at least respect, the new conclusions that are being drawn in the sequences.
Moldbug’s citation problem is much bigger because many of his interesting ideas are straight from thinkers who would disagree with his conclusions. Further, Moldbug’s core audience is very hostile to those thinkers.
Konkvistador cites previous discussion of Moldbug’s view that religion deserves to be treated like an ideology. I don’t disagree, but Marx’s “Religion is the Opium of the People” can plausibly be read as asserting a very similar point. And the Chomskist Po-Mos take this idea even further, asserting that just about everything is an ideology. Likewise, “everything is an ideology” is the basic justification / explanation for Paul Graham’s “Keep Your Identity Small.” or the local Politics is the MindKiller norm.
Of these examples I see nothing that I would characterize myself as being hostile too. Except some of the more silly aspects of pomo.
What counts as silly post-modernism is exactly what is under dispute.
And weren’t you asserting a few months ago that one should aim to be apolitical? Both Moldbug and post-modernism say that’s essentially impossible for an active member of society.
I kind of failed at that pretty badly, though while it lasted it was a great exercise. I’ll trying getting into it again. That it is impossible really isn’t under dispute at all, what is under dispute is if it is useful to strive for such a state of mind.
Same can be said of human rationalism.
I don’t think that answer to our human flaws is to retreat from trying to implement our terminal values. In other words, Politics is the MindKiller is not a certainty, simply a failure mode that society and its members have spent essentially no effort trying to avoid. If one can develop a sufficient level of self-criticism, one can do far better than the statistical norm.
That’s been my strategy, anyway. Reject all false arguments, whether or not they lead to conclusions I like. If you think I’ve failed at that goal, I’d welcome your feedback. Crocker’s Rules—for you, on this topic.
Generally I have had a high opinion of your output despite our disagreements on some value issues (which may or may not be actually incompatible), I recall some very neat rationalist debates.
It is more or less only the recent difference on our interpretation of Moldbug and some other minor things that lead me to believe you may not be open to good arguments associated with that cluster. I think you can avoid most of the risk of that by steel manning reactionary positions more when debating.
This is the sort of conversation where being specific would be particularly helpful.
Regarding steelmanning, I generally decline to change someone’s position to the point where that someone would no longer endorse the argument. Given what I’ve read of Moldbug’s, I’m particularly uncertain of what changes I could make that I thought were improvements and that Moldbug would likely endorse.
Aside from my concerns with Moldbug’s grasp of historical or economic analysis, my basic understanding of his position is that he thinks governments should have the same ownership rights in property that private landowners have in property—which everyone with a brain should agree is not how any country is organized currently. My objections to that are two-fold:
(1) I’m unaware of that ever happening in a stable way anywhere in the last 2000 years, so I have essentially no useful evidence to figure out how it would work in practice.
(2) It’s hard for me to come to grips with what problems this solution is intended to solve. Specifically, there are many problems that “government” is understood to exist in order to solve. And increasing government power in the way Moldbug describes solves essentially none—except as the extreme “solution” of denying that they are problems.
More generally, it’s hard for me to see Moldbug as more than an advocate for far less social unrest. I’m not sure he has a good plan for getting to that goal, but even so, the core argument to be made is about the optimal level of social unrest. Moldbug’s provocative writing just assumes one agrees with his understanding on that point, and so those who don’t agree have very little to grapple with in any productive fashion.