I guess the way I'd put it is that critical thinking is a normative enterprise, and therefore to teach critical thinking is to indoctrinate people to those particular methods and values of critical thinking, 1, and 2 -- all classrooms have social norms which allow them to function, and these are the subtler forms of indoctrination (in whatever norms we happen to choose, though the discipline of the workplace is not hard to see in our schools, given that we literally follow bells going off and have specified times for travel, lunch, study, etc.)

I did think, after writing the post, that perhaps this dilutes the notion of "indoctrination" to some extent -- but it's worth noting, I think, because there is no such thing as a neutral school which just gives students the three R's, given that even a so called "neutral" school must, in order to function as a school, establish and enforce norms which people become accustomed to.

Having said that, I favor indoctrinating people towards critical thinking, self-reliance, and empathy -- but I have a hard time saying that the methods of schooling are not at least similar to traditional indoctrination. It's just preferable to do them rather than to not (as people without said indoctrination don't fare very well in our society)

Indoctrination is, so I'd say, an inevitable aspect of education. Since classes establish norms for their own functioning, people follow those norms by participating in the class. And action, even if done resentfully, is a way of indoctrinating people. The important thing is to acknowledge that this is so, and to ask, if it is necessary, which norms are appropriate for a proper education?

Here's a list of four that seems to fit to me, but I'm open to amending: Rationality, work-ethic, respect for authority, and creativity in various degrees or emphases. Some would prefer to phrase things differently (i.e. it's not indoctrination, it's normalizing), but I'd say these four aspects hit on at least what is significantly agreed upon and actually (attempted to be) taught in American schools, at least.

But norms are different from goals.

One goal often stated is "making good citizens" -- so the standard response to the student (or, sometimes, parent) who would say "When are they ever going to use this in the real world?" would be to point out that good citizens who vote and participate in society need to know things like history, or basic arithmetic, or familiarity with the humanities, or the basic laws which the physical world seems to obey.

These days, though -- at least to judge by what is coming out of the government, whether that be liberal or conservative -- it seems to me that national greatness is a stronger proclivity. So the goal is to make great citizens who are good at science and math so that we have a crop of brilliant scientists who we can get to invent good weapons and goods for military and economic dominance -- and for those who don't make it, who are compliant and able to fit into a hierarchic economy under capitalist discipline. All the rest can come along for the ride if budgets allow, but these are the goals which are prioritized.

In many ways, to get back a bit to the themes of the previous thread, it seems to me that the students and those who work within the schools are all treated like objects which produce commodities (good citizens, strong nations, or correct beliefs) for the state, or for various interests utilizing the state. The people with the least amount of say -- at least officially -- are the people doing the educating, whether that be the students, the teachers, or their communities. Hence they are objectified in the sense that they are denied autonomy, 1, and treated like machines which produce goods, 2.

“At that greatest of all spectacles, that last and eternal judgment how shall I admire, how laugh, how rejoice, how exult, when I behold so many proud monarchs groaning in the lowest abyss of darkness; so many magistrates liquefying in fiercer flames than they ever kindled against the Christians; so many sages philosophers blushing in red-hot fires with their deluded pupils; so many tragedians more tuneful in the expression of their own sufferings; so many dancers tripping more nimbly from anguish then ever before from applause." — Tertullian

I think that Tertullian perfectly captures Nietzsche's notion of ressentiment.

And I'd say Tertullian is not alone.

You know that the rise of psychological science allowed the mentally ill to be looked at non-judgmentally and therefore more compassionately. — Mongrel

I think this is only one contemporary attitude towards the mentally ill. But I would express uncertainty, at least, that this attitude -- though contemporary expression is often in the linguistic terms of psychology --was due to experimental psychology (itself something different, in my mind at least, from psychology simpliciter). The reason I say this is because psychology, as a whole, is equally responsible for even worse treatment of the mentally ill in many cases, at least if we use the presence of psychological language as our measure, and just to gauge by the 20th century. Because the mentally ill were deprived of agency they were also subject to rather horrible "cures" administered by experts.

So I would posit that psychological science isn't exactly the cause, but rather just how we express ourselves these days -- and some people take a compassionate approach and realize that the mentally ill are literally unable to perform some of the functions of modern living, and some take the "reformist" approach and subject the mentally ill to cures they couldn't understand anyway. (which is also to say it depends on in whose company you are in, when you admit your mental illness, whether you will be treated well or not)

Sort of similar to animal treatment, actually -- some take pity on animals, and others think of animals as objects, but neither treats animals as an equal. (a bit off the cuff, there -- just an association I made at the end)


Granted, this is only based on my personal experiences. Nothing terribly scientific in it.

If that be the case then I'd say that yes, indeed, the practice of operating on people -- whether it be operating on ourselves or others -- is quite pervasive.

I'd almost go so far as to say that this might be unavoidable to some extent. Educational institutions, for instance, like parenting, don't treat students or children as equals, at least, and the establishment of any hierarchy is prone to objectifying those who are lower in the hierarchy, even with good intentions.

But perhaps it's better to say, rather than unavoidable (thereby reifying what is into what is necessary), to say that it occurs, and I'm uncertain, in some circumstances, what else to do -- even though I'd be interested in trying something else. (being, in principle at least, against hierarchy)

No worries. I often speak off the cuff myself :).

Do you mean, then, to disown the first if/then that you wrote? I'm only asking because it seems what you say here would mean that since you don't take a pre/post fall view -- there is no idyllic past we have lost -- the world as we know it now is better than the world before. But that doesn't seem to square away with the notion that everything is advertising all the way down in the event that we don't believe in this idyllic past (since I would take it as a negative if everything is advertising all the way down, at least)

But the thing I want to emphasise from your post as a particular modern twist on the dehumanising process is exactly that it becomes self-referrential. Whereas we have commonly objectifiedthem (Jews, Blacks, Women, peasants, etc) psychology leads us inexorably to objectifyourselves. Human nature dissolves into nature with the death of god, and we ourselves are mere phenomena to be studied and manipulated and exploited along with all the other collections of atoms. — unenlightened

That rings true for me. In particular, though I am prejudiced to think in this manner, at the workplace -- there are roles one wishes to fit into in order to obtain the material and social goods they desire (whatever those happen to be -- from daily subsistence to social glory and influence). In order to do so one has to operate on themselves to gain these goods. And the language of self-improvement is quite pervasive in the workplace not merely as a way of justifying position, but as a kind of ethic of the self which people in all positions at the workplace -- though not all people do this, just noting that there is no unique position in the hierarchy -- express belief in and practice.


Actually, oddly enough considering his real life associations, but Heidegger also comes to mind in relation to the OP since one reading of his philosophy -- though as with all things H. it can be contested, I don't mean this as a hermeneutics but just one reading I've seen presented -- is to see it as an attempt to dig out of the domination of a naturalistic picture. Not that naturalism is wrong as far as it goes, but rather that technology has come to dominate man's authentic being -- hence the phenomenology into Greek terminology to attempt to recover the very question from naturalistic interp.

One consequence of this, so I would say, is that those inspired by H -- such as Derrida and Levinas -- would also prove fruitful to read, I think.


Actually, Foucault's history of sexuality part 2 is also a fruitful book because it deals with techniques and practices of the self -- in particular our self-relation. I'm still in the middle of reading that right now, but it seems apropos.

Sorry for the name-dump. They all seem really relevant though.

If you don't take a pre/post Fall view, then it's advertising and manipulation all the way down - just replace advertising with social organization based around shame. — csalisbury

Would you mind expanding on that? I don't think I understand what a pre/post Fall view is, or how that relates to the consequent in the above.

One of my initial attractions to Kantian ethics -- as with many folks who set out to defend deontology -- is his second formulation of the CI:

Act in such a way as to treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of anyone else, always as an end and never merely as a means

Which, I think, is a good way for thinking about psychology. One of the question's Kant sort of "waffled" on was the question of anthropology (at least, philosophically speaking -- he was also a man of his times) -- you can find tensions within his philosophy between whether or not man himself can be the subject of knowledge, or if the nature humanity is one of the questions which reason is destined to both ask and never answer.

In relation to the OP, while usually we are other-focused on ethics, one thing that's interesting about the 2nd CI is that it is the humanity within all of us, including ourselves, which we are to treat as an end -- one common way of interpreting this is to say that we should respect both others and ourselves.

Which would mean thinking of us and others in some way other than how we think of objects, and relating to them in that way.

Or, at the very least, we should recognize -- ala the CI at least -- that we are already valuable as human beings, and deserve respect regardless of what our "empirical psychology" might be telling us about us or others.

Hello!

I never understood the fascination with sex in the West despite being from the West myself. — Question

Society plays tricks with the individual in terms of showing the guys who have more sex/money/material wealth as the winners. Children are growing up oversexed and underfucked with all sorts of self-esteem issues due to the image society projects of a 'healthy' and 'successful' male. — Question

I think that "sex in the west" varies. Not overly surprising unto itself, but it should be noted because our views of sex -- especially when it comes to how we might see people behaving differently from us -- are not likely to match up even on the most basic of terms or desires.

My initial instinct to your OP was to say, yes, I agree that there is an oddity with sex in the west -- but I think this is more the result of the love/hate relationship which we (at least in the U.S. -- I don't like the term "west" too much) are ingratiated to. It's something which we should shun, but the very act of shunning increases our desire for it -- and so we want to have sex, but we also want to not have sex in order that our desire for sex is intensified, and the satisfaction of said desire is more intense (not necessarily pleasurable) than if we just followed and acted on a desire for sexual satisfaction.

This is something that I think is basic in the U.S. regardless of religious affiliation. Religious affiliation can even work against this sort of "teaching", though also integrate with it of course. But I think the obsession with sex in the U.S., at least, has much to do with this simultaneous push and pull intermixed with moral and religious sentiments.


In addition, your second comment I've quoted speaks to something specific to U.S. masculinity (not that it doesn't apply elsewhere, but I prefer to limit myself to what I am at least familiar with). There are healthier forms of masculinity, of course, but the one projected upon us is one which is impossible to live up to, causes people to make poor choices and commitments, and in general is sex-centric in a way which is (so i believe, at least) unhealthy.

I should note here that I have no problem with casual sex, at least in a moral sense. I don't think it's something to be avoided, though I don't think it's something to be pursued -- at least for everyone -- either. Just as some people enjoy playing cards, and others enjoy watching baseball, there are also people who enjoy having casual sex. Why not, right? If all precautions are taken, and everyone is in agreement, what is the difference in a pleasurable evening over drinks and canasta vs. a pleasurable evening over drinks and fucking, morally speaking? There are religious prohibitions, and there are superstitions about what this does to our ability to form bonds with others or our current bonds with present partners, but I don't think these are necessary by any means. I can see them as possible for some people, but not for everyone -- they are not imperatives.

But that being said, the kind of masculinity we are all taught -- and our parents and religions have no power over this -- is an unhealthy sex-centric objectifying masculinity that, in some very weird way, equates sexual relationships with sports, and thereby counts sexual partners as a measure of "winning".

And that sort of sex is something I have no desire to participate in, though sex proper is really quite wonderful by my estimation.

I think that what is most striking in difference between religion and philosophy is in the approach to faith. Faith, like the two aforementioned terms, cannot be easily defined without ignoring important shades of meaning which the word takes on. It's a practice, it's a type of belief, it's a state of mind, it's a value, it's many things.

But in a religion what it does is different from what it does in a philosophy -- in a religion faith is a justification. But in philosophy, while faith can play as motive, it can never be provided as a justification. It may be an (honest, admitted) reason for a stance to some interlocutor or audience, but the expectations of philosophy is that in addressing said audience you will not expect faith to compel said audience to whatever it is you are proposing.

I would maintain there is a distinction between beliefs and experiences. We are mistaken when we believe false statements. So if we believe a false statement which is about our own experiences then we would be mistaken about our own experiences.

That doesn't answer the question, but I think the answer to your question would be found in the relationship between belief and experience. And, as you note, there are types of experiences which seem more liable to be mistake-prone, and types of experiences which aren't. So perhaps it's not even the relationship between belief and experiences, but belief and types of experiences.

Fair enough.

I'm very fond of Epicurus. He's one of the philosophers I return to reading more and more literature about on a periodic basis to get a firmer grasp on the various interpretations offered and to gain deeper insight into his philosophy.

There is no problem opposing people with the words they choose to identify with.

I would also say it's not out of line to make historical comparisons. For instance, white supremacy is a much more widely shared value than the number of people who would call themselves white supremacists -- the frame is usually more along the lines of "we just want to be with our own people, with our own culture, and take pride in our European heritage" -- but when those words also lead to hate crimes, there's more going on than what's on the face.

There are always going to be points of comparison just as there is never going to be identical historical moments. So there will never be a perfect comparison and there will always be the possibility of comparison, both. It's more a matter of making out what's similar to hopefully have a better understanding of what is going on now. There's some judgment involved in determining whether such-and-such a comparison is a "significant" comparison, and that significance happens somewhere in the middle between those two extremes.

Since Gore Vidal said it, probably. People regularly compared GWBush to Hitler. There was nothing particularly fascist about him — Mongrel

Some Democrats did, yes. Not all, though, and those who didn't -- while they opposed Bush 2 -- thought it was silly to make said comparison, for the reason you note here.

He continued an American trend of bringing power to the executive, and helped kick off the surveillance state, but I wouldn't say he was a fascist, either.

The question is: what difference does it make? — Mongrel

To me, at least, it is worth to look to have some kind of expectation to either contradict or confirm. Rather than, say, believing that we just have some villages which have a need for people and so we are shipping such-and-such people there, I might view such an action with a deeper suspicion.

Also, it helps to understand what is likely to actually influence a person in political power. This is why categories like "Democrat" and "Republican" are used, no? Because there are some general tendencies which don't always apply, and may not even be in the majority of the cases, but which we can expect to find often enough to note and check for. This is true even for people who aren't deeply involved in politics.

And it helps to know when something is being tried which hasn't worked before in similar circumstances, or vice versa, or simply to know the way certain trends could go. This will help a person to make better political choices in line with their values. So, in this case, we might say that it is good for Trump to promise jobs to people. But we could note that those jobs only go to some people, and not everyone, and so it may not help us after all. Or, we could note that "jobs", as a catch-all category, isn't something the President has much power over, which is why most presidents say things along these lines in the first place, because it sounds good and they don't have to deliver much on it.

The difference here, I think, would depend a great deal on what level of involvement we are willing to partake in, and what our beliefs about the way things should be. I mean, clearly, a fascist would be happy that a proto-fascist is gaining power and legitimating what they believe in, no?

It's hard for me to think of a scenario where the US crashes into a fascist ditch. But whatever it is, it's not something to be glib about. It's horrendous. — Mongrel

Eh, I figure it has happened before, so insofar that people's motivations and circumstances are similar then there's a possibility of it happening again. No country is immune to morphing into something it didn't begin as, at least.

I agree that it's nothing to be glib about.

Have all Democrats called every Republican candidate a fascist since Bush?

Some have. I would say that most did not, though. And guess which one's might be reticent to use the epithet? Probably those Democrats which didn't call Bush or Romney a fascist. These sorts of statements are not so easily ruled true or false simply because they can apply to people who do different things from one another. I'm willing to accept that this is your perception of Democrats -- it's not like I live where you do, or interact with the same people. But it is also the case that Democrats resist the 'fascist' epithet simply because it sounds ridiculous.

And, it's still worth noting that the parallels I've lain out here are still independent of what Democrats have called who in the past. The standard I'm using is not what Democrats say, but Mussolini's essay and Robert Paxton.

I just want to highlight that these things aren't separate, in that the narrative that Trump is a fascist is inseparable from the Democrats, because it is they who drafted that narrative, and so the narrative makes little sense except with respect to Democrat propaganda. Whether you believe that propaganda is another story. The point is that chances are you literally have these thoughts in your head because a Democrat said them and you heard them, even if you don't subjectively experience it that way. — The Great Whatever

Eh, to get all hipster about it, I've been saying this since before that line began running on the liberal rags. I've argued these same points with liberals, especially when they thought Trump's loss was a foregone conclusion, and also prior to Trump as a phenomena (the base has been growing and building before they had a Trump, and liberals were especially reticent then to discuss the parallels to fascism particularly because they thought it made them look silly and out of touch due to the overuse of 'fascist' as an insult). Trump is just a manifestation of a base which has been growing, plus, as I noted before, a poor candidate and campaign from his opposition.

Maybe. I would just add that I disagree with the Democrats in thinking white people are Satan, etc. and think that throwing a tantrum when they stand up for themselves is probably not a good idea, until you've destroyed their demographics, which they will have done in a couple generations. At which point white people may form just another minority voting block and be subsumed into broader liberal identity politics. — The Great Whatever

Insofar that a Democrat believes white people are Satan then, sure. But I don't think that most Democrats believe this. I think this goes in hand with the perception of persecution and humiliation I was talking about, though.

In what way is it fair to have this description of Trump, but not of Obama? Did Obama not have a cult of personality surrounding him at his election? Was he not a charismatic up-and-comer billed as an outsider (against Hillary Clinton, no less!)? Did he not base his campaign using the word of an emotion, 'hope?' — The Great Whatever

Obama also had policies which he campaigned on along with his sloganeering. Obama certainly had a cult of personality surrounding him. That I don't deny. But he also had a political history, one which is clearly in line with classical liberalism.

Trump has no such history, nor any policies, and he contradicts himself. His emotional appeals have no rational backing, and they even use scapegoat imagery.

What are they? — The Great Whatever

That's what the rest of the post was laying out. This was kind of the "thesis statement" -- the paragraphs following were the examples in which they are similar.

So are we against populist leaders on grounds that they're proto-fascist? Is populism fascist? Is appealing to the working class fascist? — The Great Whatever

All fascists are populists, but not all populists are fascists. In fact that's the general argument I've read from the academy against Trump being a proto-fascist is that they would describe him as a right wing populist, but not a fascist. But I'd say that no historical circumstance is like any other, and we can always isolate any moment in history by requiring our comparisons to approach identity to one another. I'd say that there is something generalizable about fascism which can carry on in other localities, differ, but maintain the core.

And appealing to the working class is not necessarily fascist. Obviously so, given how fascists hate Marxists and vice-versa. I bring up the working-class appeal because it's something that is really particular to the evolution of fascism that marks it as fairly distinct from just a general right wing populism. Fascism is anti-capitalist and claims to move beyond class antagonisms by fusing the classes together into the state. The right-wing populism which Trump has brandished makes it's appeal to traditional left-wing base. It's one of the reasons fascism is actually hard to classify on the left-right dichotomy -- as it has evolved it begins with left-wing sounding ideas but then develops into something else. Trump is even a business elite and yet appeals to working class voters -- so it's something that's really distinctly fascist.

I'm trying to wrap my head around this. My general impression is that the tables have turned somewhat due to a real resentment that white Democrats have for the working class, except insofar as the working class in non-white (in which case their lack of whiteness 'balances out' their unfortunate lack of education).

I think the working class just feels abandoned, mostly because they are abandoned -- whether that be because they should just work harder and fuck you I got mine or because, hey, who else are you going to vote for?

I'd like to reiterate, though, that Trump stands out as a proto-fascist on his own. The Democrats are fucked in so many ways, and I have no problem saying so. I've never had a problem saying so. But my thoughts on Trump are not fueled by my thoughts on the Democrats -- by saying Trump is a proto-fascist I am not, in turn, saying the Democrats are good.

I'm just going to go ahead and say I don't believe this at all, and believing it shows a profound lack of memory or knowledge of how political slogans are used. Just take a look through political slogans used by past U.S. presidential candidates, or politicians at other levels. We know, for example, that Bill Clinton used the very phrase 'make America great agin' when he campaigned in the early 90's; whether or not this statement is 'reactionary' or ;racist' or whatever has nothing to do with reality, but when it;s convenient to label your opponent as racist or reactionary. There's no memory or consistency in any of this, just propaganda. — The Great Whatever

It's not just the phrase, though, it's everything that's attending -- it's a summation of R-wing radio talking points and their blogo-social-sphere.

When Trump says "Make America Great Again", he is appealing to white culture. That's why white nationalists were in support of Trump. It's not just convenient, it's who is being mobilized as his base, and the reasons why it is a mobilizing phrase. And the who is white people, at least by the demographic data. It is reactionary because it taps into the founding father's myth which is told and retold in the propaganda machine that even predated Trump. But he managed to fuse these two impulses into one slogan -- America is a white nation, and we can make it the way it was.

I'm not repeating propaganda or writing propaganda here. And I'm familiar with political slogans, how they are used, and have used and written political slogans so it's not just ignorance or a lack of memory on my part. I may be in error, or we may just end up disagreeing too, but that's different from propaganda or ignorance.

Also, it's worth noting that we are all ignorant, to some degree, on these things. Not one person in the world, even the staffers at various departments with access to pertinent and restricted information, knows how all the pieces fit together. The political machine is huge. There may be gross ignorance, which is the only thing I'm pleading against, but surely there is no point in saying that I know enough. I, as are we all, am largely ignorant on the many details that comprise the political machine. But I am not grossly ignorant in the sense that I am totally unfamiliar with the topic or naive on how the basics work.

Racial tensions are deep; presidential campaigns reflect them rather than creating them. I don't believe the story that left alone we'd all be buddy buddy and it's just mean old fearmongers saying mean old things that make people hate each other. The Democratic party has a lot at stake that revolves around, in its own way, hating white people. Different racial blocks want different things, and you simply cannot please all of them coherently. I think it's utterly naive not to recognize this, and utterly naive to think white people, when pushed to a point, will not start to protect their own interests, which historically they have refrained from doing (never forming a coherent voting 'block'). This may happen in the future as effectively the Republicans become the white, and the Democrats the anti-white, parties. — The Great Whatever

I don't believe that story, either, but I do believe that there's something common to people deeper than their race. Black interests and white interests are a product of history, but there isn't a racial desire as much as there are human desires -- we are separated by race by circumstance and history, and so it is possible to come together on common ground as people.

Not that it is easy. Only that it is possible.


Regardless, it's the case that hate crimes surged post-Trump election. This evidences that the base which was mobilized by Trump was in fact racially motivated, hence why it is fair to compare Trump to fascists -- who also mobilized people through racial identity and hatred.

1) Do you agree that there has been a sudden increase in supposed tensions with Russia, — The Great Whatever

Yeah, that seems about right.

2) Do you believe that these tensions are largely manufactured by politicians and the media, and do not reflect the values of the public,

I am uncertain, to be honest. I don't find it out of the realm of possibility, but I'd have to see more evidence to believe that it was manufactured. More often than not the news cycle is less controlled than that. The focus on Russia could just be the result of recent events between the two countries. Ukraine, for instance.


I don't think it reflects the values of the public, but I'm rather uncertain what the values of the public are with respect to foreign policy. Insofar that war affects our families then people care, or insofar that patriotism or nationalism is a part of a person's identity then they also seem to care about foreign policy. But in general it seems that foreign policy is out of sight out of mind.

It is, from my perspective, utterly bizarre because it does read like a portal opened up to the cold war and decided to write our newspapers for us, though. I admit it strikes me as odd, but I wouldn't draw conclusions yet.

3) Do you agree that the Democrats are doing more to exacerbate this situation than the Republicans?

No, I don't. I don't think I'd agree with the converse either, though.

Obama, perhaps, and so by extension we might say Democrats. But that could just be Obama having access to information which neither Democrats or Republicans have access to, and acting on said information on the basis of national interest rather than party. It's really hard to say from my vantage.

My impression is almost that there is a contingent in the party that, for some reason, badly wants to start a war. I don't get that impression from Trump; I get the impression of blustery machismo, not of a disturbing attempt at rigging up a war. Maybe blustery machismo can start wars, but the Dems are far scarier to me right now. — The Great Whatever

I think both parties want war. It's good for business, it doesn't affect them on a personal level anyways (unless they choose it to), and it helps to project American power across the world. Also, if you're gonna build a toy, why not use it?

I don't see Trump as better in this light.

Of course it's worth noting we're sort of just sharing impressions here, too.

This one is interesting in particular because the narrative during the election was that the dems, not the repubs, were hotter on war (w/Russia). Do you think we are or will be on the verge of war with Trump's election? — The Great Whatever

Yes. It will be focused in the Middle East, I believe, but the Republican party has been beating the war drums for quite some time -- even during the Obama administration they were picking a fight with Iran.

Would said war have been avoided if Clinton had been elected?

I think we would have basically been continuing the Obama administration's foreign policy. Which is to say, no, war would not just go away with Clinton. Clinton has explicitly endorsed "humanitarian" military intervention.

But I don't think Iran would have been a potential enemy with her. Or China. There's something absolutely horrible about Obama's foreign policy -- in some way he's sanitized what is actually a gruesome affair that still kills innocent people across the world. He was just as much into projecting American power as, well, most American presidents have been since the end of WW2. (in truth, I think Obama's foreign policy, especially with respect to the war on terror, is the worst part of his presidential legacy. He expanded presidential powers like no other president -- Bush was an innocent, naive schoolboy by comparison)

But he didn't express a belief that Islam is somehow the enemy we need to defeat to ensure freedom will be granted to our posterity. That seems to be the story I get from the Republican party. Will they go through with it? I don't know. But I'd rather the people in power weren't saying these things to begin with.

Do politicians generally in your experience have rational political philosophies? — The Great Whatever

They at least ascribe themselves to rational traditions, yes. Of course being rational is a whole different thing, but Liberalism -- classical liberalism, I mean, which Democrats are just as much in said tradition as Republicans -- is generally considered a "rationalist" type political philosophy. Research Committees, studies, arguments, and so forth are part of the political currency because of this rationalist backbone. The fascist, on the other hand, feels in his heart what must be done and that the Leader is the human manifestation of the state guiding us all to greatness.

What are the similarities? I agree there is resentment, but then, this seems like an easy rhetorical move, to be a garbage political party, and then when people rightly resent you, to cry fascism. It can't fail. — The Great Whatever

Right. I should note that I'm not defending Democrats here. I didn't vote for Clinton or Trump. Trump is a proto-fascist on his own account, not in relation to the Democratic party. So what I say of Trump here is not to also say, at the same time, that Democrats are automatically better. That being said I do think Clinton would have been better than Trump, just to be honest about that. But I don't think Clinton and Trump define one another is all that I mean (though to judge by the arguments which often pass muster as worth repeating I can understand wanting to frame Trump in those terms)

And I agree that it can be -- and has been -- an easy rhetorical move. A shame, really, because here we are seeing actual worthwhile parallels to consider and it gets drowned out in this history of using "fascist" as a kind of catch-all brush.

But, at least among the policies proposed, and in the environment we are in, the similarities are striking.


"Make America Great Again" was the perfect proto-fascist slogan in that it harks back to a mythological past which people feel has been lost. And, in particular, it was a racially coded message for white people -- because America is not great due to its PC culture, it's flamboyant acceptance of everything, it's relativism when America was strong, verile, frank, and knew right from wrong when the founders founded. In some sense America has been betrayed by the crypto-socialists (like Obama) and atheist/pagans. (On the former I'm assuming you've heard that bandied about among R-wing radio. On the latter, while there is a current of Christian fear of darkness corrupting us, I'm in particular thinking of the framing of the Podesta emails during this past election cycle)

This is very similar to the shame which fascists tapped into in the Weimar Republic. It was a common sentiment to believe that Germany itself had been humiliated and betrayed in World War 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stab-in-the-back_myth Further, the fascists harkened back to mythological aryan past -- our myth is just the founding fathers, which do achieve mythological proportions among the r-wing. They aren't historical figures understood in their own time as much as they are saints whose intentions we should live by.


The fascists of the past had many scapegoats. Trump's campaign was fueled by this, too -- we know you are suffering, we know that America has degenerated, but we are going to make it great again, and we are going to get rid of those who are stealing our jobs. The desire to build a wall to keep Mexicans out, and become harsher on deportation is very much along the same lines as the fascists desire to contain, deport, and otherwise make Germany clean again from degenerates. And Mexicans are not the only target of Trump's base -- the bathroom requirement story still gets fuel among r-wing blogo-social-sphere. "Black Lives Matter" is a controversial statement which can't just be accepted, but must be countered by, at first, "All Lives Matter", followed by "Blue Lives Matter". And even anti-semitism has become more pronounced since Trump's election, so perhaps there's more of the classical fascist base than I had initially thought. (I tend to think of Trump as a proto-fascist, but an American one -- there are ways in which he differs from fascists past because he's not Italian, for instance, but he really has a resemblance, in bombastic style and masculine projection, to Mussolini)

Which is to say that just as fascists prior had scapegoats for the ills of society, so too does Trump -- and they aren't the sort of usual political figures. It's not like he's just saying this or that politician or political program is bunk (though he is saying that too) -- it's that he also targets groups of people.


There's also the social conditions which are similar to the Weimar Republic, too -- just prior to the fascists winning power there was a fairly progressive administration in charge, and people were suffering economically and there was seemingly no end in sight. What the fascists did was tap into this economic despair, just as Trump did (and he did it better than Hillary), and really did offer some genuine basic benefits to the right kinds of people. They offered pensions, minimum wage, workplace safety, etc. They appealed to the laboring class. Trump also appeals to the laboring class, in his own particular way. I don't buy the White Working Class myth peddled by the liberal rags, mostly because the data doesn't support it. If anything the reason Trump won is because the Democratic candidate wasn't inspiring enough to her base to turn it out enough. But I also know many working class families who voted for Trump on the basis that he was not a political insider, and Hillary Clinton was. So he was seen more "underdog", and therefore appeals to the identity of working class families by that token. Further, Trump did at least appeal to jobs -- he didn't offer a plan, but he had a scapegoat and said that we are going to get people to work. So he has this sort of bread-and-butter appeal to working class and middle-class persons, which combined with right wing populism is exactly what brought the fascists to power in the past. Whereas the Democrats who have been in power for the past 8 years haven't delivered the goods (not as measured by econometric data, but in terms of feeling secure and having a job that gets you stuff), so why believe a Democratic insider when she says she's going to help the middle class? Especially when she quibbled a popular and concrete policy for working class people, the minimum wage?

This is just to say there are strong similarities to the sentiments of the two electorates and in their appeal and path to power.



So we have a mythological past which has been lost, a desire to make the state pure again, scapegoats who have made the state impure, humilitation due to this impurity, and similar social conditions to the Weimar republic in that working and middle class people feel economically insecure. And this sort of story is being launched through right-wing populism which does not have a high regard for argument or even consistency. Further there has been an outright increase in racial tensions concurrent with the Trump campaign.

There is a kind of reverance for violence among his base at least. And then there's the bizarro phenomena where the Christian right is deeply wed to the Republican party, introducing elements of spirituality into their statecraft. But, eh, that strikes me as distinctly American. There's a kind of analogy there, but the other stuff I'd say is stronger.


It's a bit too early to say whether or not the Trump administration is going to crack down on political freedoms, but it would actually be in line with many administrations past, and then taken up a notch by Bush, and further exacerbated by Obama. So given the other parallels, well -- all I mean to say is that it's not just a rhetorical move. There's a fair comparison to be made. They are not identical, but it's not just hot air.

Is fascism being used here as a term of political philosophy, or is it being used as a pejorative? If the former, what political positions are implied by the term, and if the latter, what is the pejorative – that the candidate is authoritarian, or that you don't like him? — The Great Whatever

The former.

Fascism is a political system which seeks to build a great nation. It is born out of humiliation, a desire for purity, a perceived ostracism from society, and a desire to return to a great past. It speaks to popular discontent and mobilizes said discontent against those who are impure (and also purportedly the cause of what many are discontent about). It's also an irrational political philosophy -- where other political philosophies we are familiar with tend to emphasize rationality, fascism is something which is more a spiritual political philosophy where man finds his purpose in the state, and is run more on emotions than on rational argument. Hence it often contradicts itself.

Umberto Eco's list is great. And I always go back to Mussolini's ghost-written essay The Doctrine of Fascism, as well as Robert Paxton's The Five Stages of Fascism

Policies which result from said philosophy include war, the stripping of Democratic institutions, the fusion of capital and labor within the state, and enacting laws which encourage racial purity.

I had hopes that these feelings and emotions which were evoked for the election of Trump were more cynical than anything, but the cabinet picks of his administration don't indicate that. I don't know how far these sentiments will go once the Trump administration actually begins interfacing with the state (and with a sizeable opposition, with democratic institutions still in power), but the sentiments which brought Trump to power are quite similar to what brought, say, Mussolini to power or Hitler to power so the comparison isn't just a rhetorical move in a game of painting the enemy in the worst light.

The analogies between Trump and fascism are not merely rhetorical. There are a large number of parallels between fascist parties past and Trump's path to power. And his cabinet picks seem to indicate that his campaign was not just rhetorical.

It depends on how things go from here -- there is still opposition, there are still institutions of democracy in place, and so forth -- but proto- or neo- fascist is a fair description of everything Trump's put out thus far.

Ah ok. my bad.

THEN -- I have grown to really enjoy the Republic. But I admit that the Phenomenology of Mind was a very close second. The only reason I pick the Republic over the latter is the appeal which Plato holds to other people -- which I value in a text regardless of how I may personally feel about it.

I initially disliked the Republic, but have grown to appreciate it with re-readings over time. I don't agree with it, of course, but I can find a basis of sympathy with it.

Martha Nussbaum is also one of my fave female philosophers, personally. Her work on late antiquity hit home for me.

I have to admit that I find the question a bit too presumptuous to answer. "classical" already selects among many works, and it would seem to me that classical would already include "important" -- and how does one select between important texts?

I mean, I am appreciative of the conversation starters that you are posting -- but the question is just so big.

They ask who is the village idiot, who is the easiest to pick on? Descartes! Great! Let's do it! They reply to him only in jest, only as a means of having an easy target against which to frame their own philosophy. — Agustino

I s'pose that seems a misreading to me. Descartes was certainly not a village idiot, and rejection of Descartes is characteristic of much of modern philosophy -- hence why I said he is so important to it.

Did major philosophers of the modern period respond to Descartes because he was easy to respond to due to his village idiot status? That's just a wrong opinion. No, of course they didn't. Even if he has so many bad ideas, as you note, philosophers don't respond to bad ideas because they are bad ideas to make a joke.

It is noteworthy that Kant -- who I think is one of the best responses to Descartes, for whatever that's worth -- is also frequently disagreed with by much of the philosophical cannon.

I picked Arendt. Certainly my favorite, though Judith Butler was a close second.

I tend to think philosophers who challenge my beliefs the most are my favorites, and she did a superb job on that front.

I think the best way to surreptitiously introduce philosophy to those who may believe they are not philosophical (for whatever reason) ((and when they clearly are, given the sort of questions and discussions they like having -- they may just not like the associations of philosophy, or think they're bad at it, or think it's for "they" and not "us")) is to not discuss this or that philosopher, but to discuss the ideas people might be interested in.

I posted this book in the last forum, but it's worth the repost: https://www.amazon.com/Socrates-Cafe-Fresh-Taste-Philosophy/dp/039332298X

I joined a group found on this model (in a small town, even -- so you don't need a city), and even led it for a couple of years after joining. It's worth a read for anyone whose interested in philosophy "in the streets", so to speak.

Of the bunch I voted Descartes because he's arguably the beginning of modern philosophy, and I would say the reason for that is because of his contribution to philosophy. In many ways we are still dealing with the problems he set out. Everyone disagrees with Descartes, of course (well, most everyone) -- but it is this very requirement of disagreement which makes him the most important.

Not many take the time to disagree with Boethius, for instance. He's well known and respected in the cannon, but the modern period doesn't take the time to disagree with him in the same way as they do Descartes because he's not as important to the modern period of philosophy.

While I agree that the causes for mental health problems are more often than not found in the environment, I would still say these two are distinct one from the other. Sometimes after fixing the environment the damage is still or already done. The environment was the cause, but the cause had an a/effect on something real to that person, and while fixing one's environment is a good step towards alleviating a condition (just as quitting a job which requires lifting is a good step towards alleviating back pain), mental sickness is still a reality that needs to be contended with after removing the cause of damage.

Also, sometimes it is easier to learn how to cope than it is to fix wider social conditions which are surely the cause -- but given one's general feeling of impotence (depression is apt here) coping is easier to learn than changing the environment.

I have to say that though I spoke in favor of likes in the aforementioned post, I've actually grown used to not having them and like things as they are now.

What gives art (literature, poetry, religious texts, visual art, music, etc.) its power over the human soul? Clearly, art never helped man to survive, except in a very abstract kind of way. It's more likely that we live in order to create art, rather than create art in order to live. So why do we create art, and why do we enjoy art? — Agustino

I'd note that I think all of your questions, including the title question, are asking different things. What gives art power over the human soul isn't the same thing as the purpose of art isn't the same as why we create art or why we enjoy art.

I'd also probably separate religious texts from art, saying that religion -- while it can be and is interpreted by artistic ways of understanding -- is a separate domain from art. We can make religious art, but religious texts are just religious -- they may have artistic qualities to them (like the Psalms, for instance), but in reading the Psalms from an artistic perspective we are not reading them from a religious perspective, and vice-versa. We can do both at once, of course, but they're different too.

I'd say art has no purpose. It does not derive its value from some higher goal. It is intrinsically valuable.

As to why it is intrinsically valuable -- why it has power over the human soul -- I would say I'm not sure. What could possibly serve as an explanation for, say, science or religion? Why does science have power over the human soul, why does religion have power over the human soul? While we can propose answers, it would seem to me that any answer would presume to know too much about both the human soul and its subject. It may be an informed and reflected upon opinion derived from much work, so it's worth listening to answers that people have arrived at, but I wouldn't say I have an answer and I wouldn't say any answer is knowledge.

As for why we create or enjoy art -- that seems to be pretty individual, from my point of view. But perhaps I don't understand the question. In answering "why" I'm thinking about what motives people have, and if that be the case then that is highly individual -- some people gain pleasure from creating/enjoying art, some people want something extrinsic to the art, some people feel a duty to create/enjoy art, etc. It would just depend on the person.

No, there is nothing objectively wrong with having depression; but, one feels much more burdened socially having depression than say having a broken wrist or leg — Question

That's true. People don't view it in the same way. And I agree with you -- especially in the workplace. I'm more open about my depression with friends or in social spaces than I am at work or with people I don't know very well for that very reason. Socially speaking there's a kind of taboo surrounding mental health, and I agree -- again -- with you when you say that depression, and admitting that you have depression (even to yourself) runs counter to classical forms of masculinity.

I suppose that's why I say that depression is identical to having chronic pain -- in an effort to make it viewed in that manner. Depression isn't just being down or feeling pain. It's very particular, and one can feel both happiness or sadness concurrently with depression. (at least with the kind that I have. I am drawn to understand that not everyone's is like mine, though I am far from alone in my experiences too)

It seems to me you're saying what is wrong, in some moral sense, with being depressed. As if having depression is a failure of oneself, and the reason people seak treatment is not out of need but is because they perceive themselves as being wrong and perceive others as perceiving them as wrong.

If that be the case then, certainly, there's nothing morally wrong with depression. The reason one seeks treatment is the same as the reason one seeks treatment for chronic pain -- to feel better. Not because they are wrong for having depression.

Do I have you right?

I don't think there's a distinction to be had between the two. Hardware itself is programmed, and you can do the tasks of hardware within software (in fact, you need "software" to make "hardware" sync up). The distinction is more to be useful in certain contexts than some fundamental difference in a computing machine.

But either way a computer is a bunch of logical switches running on binary.

Why does anyone still continue to study this nonsense? — lambda

Because lamda was unable to prove any of lamda's claims about philosophy.

One problem though is that he used the phrase "logical deduction." It's kind of difficult to make a case that he wasn't referring to logic in the sense of deductive inference when he uses the phrase "logical deduction." — Terrapin Station

Good point. I was just giving it a go, I suppose.

I think we can easily go overboard with the principle of charity.

:D

I think I agree with un when he says it doesn't apply with exam questions. At least, not as much.

I'll note I'm quite the fan of the principle, though. Perhaps even to my own detriment.

As an aside, I never liked the formal/informal distinction with respect to logic. I don't think that the idea of an informal logic, in the sense of a logic that doesn't have to do with form (or relationships of propositions etc.), makes any sense. Symbolic/non-symbolic, or logical language/natural language or variable/non-variable, or something like that would be a better distinction in my opinion.

Have you had the chance to read Finocchiaro? I think he does justice to informal logic. Maybe just a preference of ways of expressing the same thing, but it seems to me that his approach warrants the "informal" approach (in that he studies logic, but it is not the study of logicians but is rather the study of people using reasoning in historical contexts -- in particular he focuses on Gramsci and Galileo a lot)

Anyway, not as an aside, the upshot of this is that there's not really an informal, significantly different sort of logic (in any broad sense) to refer to.

Perhaps a bit off the point from the initial question, but it looks like we've tripped across another topic to discuss in another thread. :) Not sure i even disagree here, but it does seem to go pretty far astray from the OP.

I don't know. I was just trying to give the best interp of question that I could. I'm not even sure if I'm right, it was just the only thing that made sense to me.

Post what you think of it. I'd like to hear first hand accounts.

It all looks pretty cool.