Nock's Remnant

Article: http://mises.org/daily/2892

Nock built (or rather discovered) this concept of the Remnant. In essence it is this: If one considers that the term 'the masses' (as in population) refers to a correct ontological category (as in: a correct category based on a set of real similarities, in the same way species or 'transition metals' is a category) and that category does not refer to the whole of the human population, then this logically leaves a second category: 'the remnant'.

Having identified this second ontological category, one immediately considers that, quite by accident, one was already aware of this distinction; that is, of the two basic types of people one tends to meet: The rare beacon of conscience and intellect, vs the average fool who has neither the character nor the intellect to further even his own primitive ends, much less anything beyond those.

Of course one should be mindful of the consequences of mis-apportioning ontological categories. When categories of human beings are incorrect (or rather when the importance attached to them is incorrect) many atrocities tend then to ensue. For example, the incorrect category of "country of origin" or the incorrect category of "beastly races" (as in the justification for slave ownership.) But of course these consequences cut both ways; that is: failing to separate categories is just as deadly as separating them wrongly. We would not for example want to claim that psychopathic human beings belong to the general masses and should be treated in the same fashion, for they are dangerous animals and will kill and maim without conscience.

Still, if we are to accept the concept of the masses, then so too should we accept the concept of the remnant; otherwise we should dispose of both.

 

[wombakage]

I find it utterly hilarious that you both would be the first posters on this thread. Kinda pretentious, since you are both subtly asserting that you both are in this "remnant". The last bastion of intelligence and reason.

It isn't relevant in my opinion, since it isn't real. Arguing about useless subjects, like invisible lines (borders) and invisible overlords (god and that shit).

If you are sorting people into categories, that places you yourself above these groups. The article was incredibly elitist. Anyway. I'm saying that everyone has the potential for brilliance, but many just continue being sheep. Who are you to call people fools, and others intellectuals?

INB4 being made to look like an idiot

 

[olweasel]

To say that everyone has unlimited potential is not only wrong (because it flies in the face of genetics; a man with Downs syndrome and no outstanding gifts cannot be brilliant), it's also a strawman argument. You're suggesting that the article ignores human potential, which it doesn't.

Would you agree then that all people are not born equal?

Egalitarian ideals have been thoroughly threaded into the American ethos.

From a young age, we've been taught that God created all people equal, and quite frankly, as they tell it, I find it to be one of the greatest lies ever told.

 

I find it utterly hilarious that you both would be the first posters on this thread. Kinda pretentious, since you are both subtly asserting that you both are in this "remnant". The last bastion of intelligence and reason.

Pretty insulting. It isn't even my idea, and all I am presenting here is the logical argument which Nock presents in the article, and his other works.

Further, being intelligent isn't a virtue, just as having a good singing voice isn't. It's something you're born with. Your argument is along the lines of "well I don't believe that you can have the category 'singer' because you have a great singing voice, and you are the one proposing that people have unequal singing voices." Frankly infantile, and unwilling to deal with the facts of the matter.

It isn't relevant in my opinion, since it isn't real. Arguing about useless subjects, like invisible lines (borders) and invisible overlords (god and that shit).

At least here we get to a real counterargument. You are quite correct, it's not concrete, it's an abstraction. It's not real in the same way 'a meter', or 'a minute', or 'a table', isn't real; Ontological categories are by definition abstract. If your argument against ontological categories is that they are abstract then I can't help you.

There exist a set of subtle fallacies around abstractions which must be taken into account. The most important of which is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_%28fallacy%29. However, the fact that people misuse abstraction and bastardize it to manipulate and control does invalidate it. In fact it remains a highly important part of epistemology.

If you are sorting people into categories, that places you yourself above these groups. The article was incredibly elitist. Anyway. I'm saying that everyone has the potential for brilliance, but many just continue being sheep. Who are you to call people fools, and others intellectuals?

Aside from implicitly agreeing with Nock's theory in posting your very own reference to the masses ('sheep'), I should point out that it doesn't matter at all who I am; The assignment of correct ontological categories depends only on the quality of the arguments presented for and against.

I believe Nock's response to this is simply that people are not assigned, but rather assign themselves into these categories. It is the emergent order of things.

 

Would you agree then that all people are not born equal?

Well shit, if I could get paid 200 million a year to play golf, I'd just go do that.

 

[wombakage]

Pretty insulting. It isn't even my idea, and all I am presenting here is the logical argument which Nock presents in the article, and his other works.

Further, being intelligent isn't a virtue, just as having a good singing voice isn't. It's something you're born with. Your argument is along the lines of "well I don't believe that you can have the category 'singer' because you have a great singing voice, and you are the one proposing that people have unequal singing voices." Frankly infantile, and unwilling to deal with the facts of the matter.

At least here we get to a real counterargument. You are quite correct, it's not concrete, it's an abstraction. It's not real in the same way 'a meter', or 'a minute', or 'a table', isn't real; Ontological categories are by definition abstract. If your argument against ontological categories is that they are abstract then I can't help you.

There exist a set of subtle fallacies around abstractions which must be taken into account. The most important of which is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_%28fallacy%29. However, the fact that people misuse abstraction and bastardize it to manipulate and control does invalidate it. In fact it remains a highly important part of epistemology.

Aside from implicitly agreeing with Nock's theory in posting your very own reference to the masses ('sheep'), I should point out that it doesn't matter at all who I am; The assignment of correct ontological categories depends only on the quality of the arguments presented for and against.

I believe Nock's response to this is simply that people are not assigned, but rather assign themselves into these categories. It is the emergent order of things.

Hah, I put the "sheep" in there for someone to agree with, so I could rage on them and call them facists or whatever.


But yeah I object to a few of your statements


#1 This isn't singing. Singing is a talent, thinking and debating is a skill. One that can develop from practice. The human brain is able to change and grow. Bar total idiots, most people with enough practice can become enlightened.

I overreacted a bit, and took this as a moral argument. For that I apologize.

 

[Angelmax]

Further, being intelligent isn't a virtue, just as having a good singing voice isn't. It's something you're born with. Your argument is along the lines of "well I don't believe that you can have the category 'singer' because you have a great singing voice, and you are the one proposing that people have unequal singing voices." Frankly infantile, and unwilling to deal with the facts of the matter.

Born with? You're suggesting that the only reason some have superior talents is because of their genes. Is that not the most ridiculous excuse you've ever heard? 'He's better than me, but I can't do anything about it because he was born like that.' Absurd.

 

[deadly serious]

Hah, I put the "sheep" in there for someone to agree with, so I could rage on them and call them facists or whatever.


But yeah I object to a few of your statements


#1 This isn't singing. Singing is a talent, thinking and debating is a skill. One that can develop from practice. The human brain is able to change and grow. Bar total idiots, most people with enough practice can become enlightened.

I overreacted a bit, and took this as a moral argument. For that I apologize.

Sounds like a nature vs nuture arguement. Scientists are still debating it to this day

 

Born with? You're suggesting that the only reason some have superior talents is because of their genes.

Are you saying this is not the case? Are you saying that everyone is genetically identical?

Let's take the height analogy.
Short people are bad at basketball. Why? Because tall people have a natural advantage.
Now a tall person who also trains and becomes expert in strategy and tactics will become a very good player.
A short person who trains can at best become an average player.

Height variations are almost purely genetic. I'd like you to come ahead and try to argue that intelligence is something you gain. The default skeptical position is that intelligence, like every other aspect of core nature (such as sex, build, height, emotional disposition, etc) is genetic. So you've got the burden of proof. Go.

 

[Angelmax]

Are you saying this is not the case? Are you saying that everyone is genetically identical?

No I'm not, I said it was ridiculous to cast off any superiority as genetic.

Let's take the height analogy.
Short people are bad at basketball. Why? Because tall people have a natural advantage.

Short people aren't necessarily bad at basketball, there are other aspects of the game in which height is not the be all and end all.

Now a tall person who also trains and becomes expert in strategy and tactics will become a very good player.
A short person who trains can at best become an average player.

That isn't necessarily true, but in any case it's not a particularly suitable analogy.

Height variations are almost purely genetic.

The predisposition to height is certainly genetic, but other factors, particularly poor or sparse diet, have a significant affect.

I'd like you to come ahead and try to argue that intelligence is something you gain. The default skeptical position is that intelligence, like every other aspect of core nature (such as sex, build, height, emotional disposition, etc) is genetic. So you've got the burden of proof. Go.

I'm not going to argue that 'intelligence', which so far has been very loosely defined, can he inherited. It's explicitly clear and understood that it can. However, as with all genetic predispositions, the main factor is the environment the person is placed in.
A child who is regularly read to and encouraged to learn will, on the whole, exhibit greater mental capacity than a genetically predispositioned child which is placed in an environment without these influences. While predisposition certainly exists, it is far from a free-ride, for want of a better term.

 

The predisposition to height is certainly genetic, but other factors, particularly poor or sparse diet, have a significant affect.

Let's cut to the chase.

We'll use the standard scientific measure for intelligence: IQ.

3 billion people in the world receive adequate or higher than adequate nutrition.

So if you are to explain intelligence in terms of environment, you are going to have to find another environmental factor to explain why these 3 billion have a normal distribution of IQs.

 

[Angelmax]

Let's cut to the chase.

We'll use the standard scientific measure for intelligence: IQ.

3 billion people in the world receive adequate or higher than adequate nutrition.

So if you are to explain intelligence in terms of environment, you are going to have to find another environmental factor to explain why these 3 billion have a normal distribution of IQs.

Ugh...

I'm not saying that people who are adequately or better fed will necessarily exhibit higher IQ (which is a fairly ineffective test). I'm saying that environmental factors (more likely to be upbringing than nutrition in this case) still have an affect on genetically predisposed people.

To put it simply, genetically predisposed subjects who are not read to and encouraged to learn in early childhood may not reach their full potential, while an unpredisposed person who benefits from their environmental factors is more likely to.


In any case, we've gone completely off topic.