the conflation of conservatives and libertarians...

...See Hayek’s “Why I am not a Consevative” — NOS4A2

I read the first five pages of the article you linked and then skimmed the rest. I liked the way Hayek clarified the liberal/conservative/radical/socialist/libertarian mixups, although I don't share his obvious disdain for socialism. As I said in the OP, what really matters to me is the impact of government actions on the people who live within a society. In that regard, this jumped out at me:

...the liberal position is based on courage and confidence, on a preparedness to let change run its course even if we cannot predict where it will lead. There would not be much to object to if the conservatives merely disliked too rapid change in institutions and public policy; here the case for caution and slow process is indeed strong. But the conservatives are inclined to use the powers of government to prevent change or to limit its rate to whatever appeals to the more timid mind. In looking forward, they lack the faith in the spontaneous forces of adjustment which makes the liberal accept changes without apprehension, even though he does not know how the necessary adaptations will be brought about. It is, indeed, part of the liberal attitude to assume that, especially in the economic field, the self-regulating forces of the market will somehow bring about the required adjustments to new conditions, although no one can foretell how they will do this in a particular instance. There is perhaps no single factor contributing so much to people's frequent reluctance to let the market work as their inability to conceive how some necessary balance, between demand and supply, between exports and imports, or the like, will be brought about without deliberate control. — Why I Am Not a Conservative

I've bolded the parts that I found most significant. There is no mention of the impacts of change on the people who will be most affected by it. If misery is the result, it seems like that's ok as long as there is the proper balance "between demand and supply, between exports and imports."

Well, let's consider an average human vs a pig. The human has infinitely more value, right? We can't gas the human and eat him. But let's swap out the human's heart with a pig heart. Let's replace his arms and legs with pig arms and legs. Let's give him a traumatic brain injury that reduces his intellect to that of a pig. Can we eat him now? If we end up making him identical to a pig, down to the DNA, is it now ok to eat him? — RogueAI

Yes… well… hmm.

As if causal processes were clearer than the chair on which I sit.

The Eleatic Principle looks pretty useless. — Banno

Yes. Determining what is and is not caused by what is as fraught a question as what is real. Just passing the buck.

My daughter gave me a subscription to the London Review of Books for Christmas. There is an interesting article in the April 3rd edition - "Regime Change in the West," which is about the history of liberalism in the west since 1930. Thought some of you might be interested if you have access.

I'm sure the mega-engineering (& machinations) fascinates you, — 180 Proof

It’s true, he was an amazing person. A genius. That doesn’t mean he was a good person. He did a lot of damage and hurt a lot of people.

I recommend The Bronx by Evelyn Gonzalez (scholarship) or Before The Fires by Mark Naison & Bob Gumbs (oral history) to give some much needed social context to Caro's biography. — 180 Proof

Thanks.

Why do you ask? — 180 Proof

I read "The Power Broker" last year. Robert Moses had an enormous effect on the quality of life in the area where and in the period when you grew up. I wondered how aware of that you were as a child and how much it influenced your philosophical and political outlook.

I wouldn't expect any different from an extreme leftist. When you're so far to the left, everyone else is right. — Harry Hindu

And here you were doing so well - playing nice and all.

A good post, although there’s a lot in it I don’t agree with. Today, in the US, the Democratic Party represents respect for democratic institutions and standards of governance. The Republican Party, to the extent it represents anything, stands for chaos, vengeance, and mean-spiritedness. I vote party line Democrat. I’ll never vote for a Republican. Voting for third-party candidates is voting for Republicans.

So if you hold a liberal position on one issue but not others, please do not call yourself "liberal". You would be a Democrat or Republbican, not liberal. — Harry Hindu

What you say is true, but the terms liberal and conservative have come to be used differently today and especially in the US. That has led to some ambiguity in this thread.

I really love this thread, but the way the word “liberalism” is being used is really confusing sometimes. It doesn’t seem to just be confusing me, it seems to be confusing a lot of other people too. The way you’ve put it helps me put things in perspective.

Yes, I'm not anti-liberal simpliciter. I'm an immanent liberal-sceptic — Jamal

Remember when I said you have interesting things to say? I take that back.

Nothing metaphysical is required. What do social animals need? How can a society of animals get the maximum portion of what they need with a minimum of suffering? The moral commitment is the same as in Christianity: Do onto others as you would have them do onto you, and communism: To each according to need from each according to ability. Neither can be achieved, or even approached, in the overpopulated, god-ridden, money-driven, propagandized societies of today. All liberals can do is attempt to mitigate the worst outcomes. In some countries they do fairly well; in others, they fail, get knocked on their keesters, get up and try again. And again, and again.... — Vera Mont

I like this very much.

And you can read your old posts! We've been having the same discussions for a decade. — fdrake

We’ve been having the same discussions for 4000 years years.

If at age 20 you are not a communist, you have no heart. If at age 30 you are not capitalist you have no brain — BC

I would say rather that, at whatever age over 20, if you don’t recognize and acknowledge what John Donne said, you have no soul.

“No man is an island,
Entire of itself;
Every man is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.

If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less,
As well as if a promontory were:
As well as if a manor of thy friend's
Or of thine own were.

Any man's death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in mankind.
And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee.”

I'm a child of the South Bronx (NYC) in the post-Civil Rights seventies — 180 Proof

Did you ever read the “Power Broker?”

I don't think I've said the past was better than the present. I've said things have gotten worse in various regards, but the idea that the 20'th century is not uniquely evil means that the past was not better than than the present. I agree with you here: — Moliere

I went back and reread your post I originally reacted to negatively. Reading it again I saw you said almost exactly the same thing I did. I just jumped on it because of some of the phrasing you used. Mea culpa.

Rather than progress I'd say we're about the same, but with more ability to enact our will. — Moliere

Yes.

But I want to provide a bit of caution to the idea that the 20th century was uniquely evil. The USA's extermination of the natives and exploitation of Africans and immigrants were liberal precursors to the evils of the 20th century; only the 20th century is more evil because of our abilities to continue the same with more firepower due to technological progress. — Moliere

This kind of claim pisses me off elicits a negative reaction in me, not because I don't recognize the scope and consequences of the actions of the British and Americans in what is now the US starting in 1600 and on till today and not because I don't recognize our, my, ongoing responsibility. What I object to is the misuse of these historic and contemporary actions here to make the case that somehow the past was better than the present. In the list of war casualties in Wikipedia, only one - World War 2 - took place after 1900. A quick look at World War 2 indicates that about 3.5 % of the world population was killed. For the Mongol invasions of Europe and Asia, the comparable number was 10%. Of course the Mongol invasions took place over a period of about 150 years while World War 2 took place over a much shorter period.

If you look at genocides, it's harder to tell. There certainly are a lot of 20th century examples in Wikipedia. One question I can't find an answer to is how many of those are related to colonialism that took place earlier. I would guess most of them, but I don't have evidence to back that up.

So, as I noted, saying that the 20th century is uniquely evil is a misrepresentation. A lot of the increased numbers could probably be attributed to improved weaponry as opposed to a more violent human nature. Empires kill people - it's what they do.

This thread has taken on a strong resonance with @Count Timothy von Icarus’s next door.

My Goodreads is in my bio — IntolerantSocialist

Welcome to the forum. You should tell us about something you have been reading that you particularly like or particularly hate.

I'm not sure I have much to contribute here. I never really rebelled against my father until I was in my early twenties. And then I didn't really rebel, I just kind of slipped out the back door while he wasn't watching. I don't have the stuff to be a radical - I've always been too much the pragmatic engineer to believe in golden ages or utopias. And lazy.

Still, I wanted to let you know how much I appreciate that you seem to be jumping back into active participation feet first. Turns out you have interesting things to say. Whoda thunkit, or as the Cambridge English Dictionary puts it - Who would have thunk it?

And I've always loved Peanuts. Before the cutesy Snoopy takeover it was pretty sophisticated about human nature. I did especially like Linus. Here's one of my favorites.

Yeah, that’s why I can’t imagine reading it without Kindle. The flow is barely disrupted at all - and the tumbling, rumbling flow is one of the best parts.

"The Dogon Egg, and its distribution of intensities" — fdrake

Of course!!! Suddenly, everything is so clear. Why didn’t I think of that?

How disruptive do you find the endnotes? — Jamal

I am not sure what you mean by disruptive. I love them, they’re wonderful - funnier than the main text. It’s another reason I wouldn’t read this without Kindle. I probably would never turn to the back to look at them. With Kindle, all I have to do is push a little hyper text button.

What a great discussion. I think I said that about the last one too. While reading it I said to myself "So this is what philosophy is supposed to be like." I can't begin to give the kind of in-depth treatment the other participants have, but I do have some thoughts, many or all of which have been commented on by others here.

As I see it, the minimum requirements of a just society, especially one in a world as crowded and bounded as ours is today, include the following - a decent, secure life with adequate housing, nutrition, education, medical care, and opportunities for self-expression. A safe place for our children. You've added to that, if I may over-simplify, an obligation to provide a place for the sacred, virtue, and meaning. I don't disagree with that at all. I feel it myself. My thoughts...

Here's a quote from C.S. Lewis I like.

To be happy at home, said Johnson, is the end of all human endeavour. As long as we are thinking only of natural values we must say that the sun looks down on nothing half so good as a household laughing together over a meal, or two friends talking over a pint of beer, or a man alone reading a book that interests him; and that all economics, politics, laws, armies, and institutions, save in so far as they prolong and multiply such scenes, are a mere ploughing the sand and sowing the ocean, a meaningless vanity and vexation of spirit. — C.S. Lewis

It's a cliche I guess, but the pre-modern, pre-liberal world was a place of widespread war, empire-building, slavery, genocide, mass-murder of non-combatants, oppression, subjugation... Was there any colonialism worse than the Mongol invasion of western Asia and Europe. Of course there have been many modern examples of the same kinds of things. There was never a golden age of the sacred and traditional.

I'll start with this:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed... — US Declaration of Independence

Am I right in assuming this is an expression of liberal values? Yes, I recognize its hypocrisy. Although it may seem like it, it is not a call for free expression "founded on the principle of self-interest, which is posited as most basic." Instead, it is a statement of obligation to treat all people equally. Here, equality doesn't mean everyone is treated the same. It means everyone is endowed with the same rights.

It seems to me that, short of nuclear war, we are stuck with the modern or post-modern world we have now or whatever comes next. How can we bring more of a sense of the sacred into this world as it is?

No, for most of us, kindness - what we are calling altruism here - is not self-centered. It is an expression of compassion, empathy, and fellow-feeling. It comes from our hearts.

No, a focus on personal morality is not something modern. This is from Chuang Tzu, written about 2,300 years ago.

What I call good is not humankindness and responsible conduct, but just being good at what is done by your own intrinsic virtuosities. Goodness, as I understand it, certainly does not mean humankindness and responsible conduct! It is just fully allowing the uncontrived condition of the inborn nature and allotment of life to play itself out. What I call sharp hearing is not hearkening to others, but rather hearkening to oneself, nothing more. — Chuang Tzu - Ziporyn translation

There's certainly more to say, but that's enough.

I didn't want to dissuade — Moliere

I didn’t think you did.

I imagine you'd hate him — fdrake

I agree with fdrake. — Moliere

I don’t intend to drop everything and start reading Deleuze. I have a long list of other things to read first. Actually, I have a short list of things to read, but I read philosophy very slowly.

Metaphysics is my thing, and the way Jamal describes it sounds interesting. If I don’t like it, I won’t get very far.

sometimes feel I ought to read that, but tennis and drug addiction have always been turn offs for me. — Jamal

Every year - well, for two years now - my daughter and I read a really long book together. Last year we read the “Power Broker.” This year it’s “Infinite Jest.” My younger son and his girlfriend are reading it with us this year. Just a hundred pages a month. The criteria is it must be a very long book that we would never finish on our own.

It’s hilarious. I rarely laugh out loud at books, but I do all the time with this one. It’s also difficult to follow, non-linear, and absurd. I think It would be accurate to call it magical realism. I’m sure many will scoff, but it reminds me of “100 Years of Solitude” sometimes. The language is amazing - obscure, playful, and funny. I’d hate to read this without Kindle. The characters are goofy and damaged, but mostly sympathetic.

It’s clear to me that, after about 250 pages, I would’ve quit by now if I wasn’t under pressure from my family. Which is the whole point of doing things this way.

“Infinite Jest” - What’s up with that?

Yeah, I was talking about Deleuze's metaphysics, not metaphysics generally — and I imagine there might be other philosophers around who do it in the same knowing way (though fdrake's talk of moorings should be noted). — Jamal

Your and @fdrake's brief discussion of Deleuze makes me think I should take a look at what he has to say.

Okay, but "cruel and unusual" is a non-procedural constraint. I mean, if there is a cruel and unusual rule that is applied equally to all, would you have a complaint? Would there be something wrong or irrational about the rule? — Leontiskos

Let's use a different example. Let's say agents of the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency detained and deported a legal US resident without due process of law. I would call that unreasonable, procedural, and cruel and unusual.

As I said, let's leave this here. I don't want to distract from where you want the discussion to go.

metaphysical concepts are products of the imagination, knowingly fictional, and designed to be useful for thinking rather than corrresponding to "how things really are". — Jamal

This is how I see it, although watching people here on the forum scratch and struggle to defend their metaphysical positions as universal truth, I don't think it is correct to say knowingly fictional.

you do not assert that any of it is true, or even sensible. You just write it as if you were writing the ramblings of some magical wizard as part of the lore for a tabletop game or something. — Pneumenon

This is pretty close to my understanding of metaphysics except in most cases people who take a particular metaphysical position are not aware that they are. Metaphysics is generally the unconscious, unexpressed, unintentional foundation of what we believe and how we act.

But what if metaphysics were a kind of poetry? — Pneumenon

I'm not sure what you mean by "poetry" in this context. As I see it, metaphysical perspectives are stories, narratives. Just about everything humans think or say is a story. The general theory of relativity is a story. Do you mean that it uses metaphors? Everything we think and say uses metaphors. Our entire world is metaphorical. This is from "Surfaces and Essences" by Douglas Hofstadter and Some Other Guy.

...without concepts there can be no thought, and without analogies there can be no concepts...What we mean by this thesis is that each concept in our mind owes its existence to a long succession of analogies made unconsciously over many years, initially giving birth to the concept and continuing to enrich it over the course of our lifetime. Furthermore, at every moment of our lives, our concepts are selectively triggered by analogies that our brain makes without letup, in an effort to make sense of the new and unknown in terms of the old and known. The main goal of this book, then, is simply to give analogy its due — which is to say, to show how the human ability to make analogies lies at the root of all our concepts, and how concepts are selectively evoked by analogies. In a word, we wish to show that analogy is the fuel and fire of thinking.

Geeze, you started a metaphysics party without me. Can’t respond now, but I’ll get back to it later.

So you think that there is no rational basis to any rule regarding dismissal/exclusion, and yet you also hope that the rules of an internet forum will be reasonable and fair? It sounds like you are contradicting yourself. — Leontiskos

Fairness and reasonableness are procedural rules, not rules for deciding what will and won't be sanctioned. Fairness means whatever rules there are are applied to everyone the same. When I said "reasonable" I meant that they are not applied or interpreted rigidly and there is no cruel and unusual punishment. I probably wasn't clear enough about that.

Also, I would prefer speaking about "internet forums" in the generic sense, as I don't want this thread to become a thread about TPF. — Leontiskos

My reference to the forum was a specific instance of a general rule and was not intended as a comment on the forum itself. It is the institution of this sort with which I am most familiar. As such it is a reasonable example.

I stand by my claim that deciding what is beyond the pale is not primarily based on rational criteria or processes. We can leave it at that since it doesn't seem to be the direction you want to take the thread.

What are the rational grounds for deeming someone or something beyond the pale and dismissing them or writing them off? — Leontiskos

There is no rational basis. It's a question of values - what is important to the people who make the decisions about what is allowed. Using the forum as an example, there is a written set of rules for what is acceptable and what is not. Those rules were established by the administrators and moderators and are updated from time to time. By participating in the forum we accept those rules. Our hope is that they will be reasonable and fair. In general here, they are. When members don't like the rules or the manner in which they are administered, we whine and complain. Sometimes the moderators will change a decision based on feedback, sometimes not.

So that's the answer to your question. Who decides what is beyond the pale? Them what's in charge based on their values.

I pushed the post comment button too soon. Here’s my second thought. I don’t disagree with the distinctions you’re making, but I’m not sure what the implications are.

Information is always created as a relationship between an interpreter and an interpreted. — JuanZu

A couple of thoughts - The definitions of information I looked up call it a type of knowledge. We have enough trouble here on the forum deciding what knowledge is. I’m not sure how this discussion of information fits into.

Does my complicated odyssey end should I go deep enough within myself to open the door of my inner Conscience, then find a way to step into my soul? — jufa

I’m not familiar with the specific language you use in your post, But the general direction of all our paths, Odysseys, is towards self awareness. Self-awareness shows us how we are, I don’t know how deep it goes.

That long drawn out section from ChatGPT doesn’t add anything to the discussion. You should be able to summarize your ideas quickly rather than letting somebody else,something else, do your “thinking” for you. There is a creepy parallel between your question about the experience machine and you use of AI to do your thinking for you.