• Devolved
    8
    I find it rather puzzling, although not surprising, as to why I didn't arrive to the following realization sooner in life.

    Of course, it's not in the best interest of any given structured society or collective function to say that our collective being is based on "necessary assumptions" which we can't adequately support without collective agreement that these things are as agreed.

    What I find fascinating is how much of our collective "axiomatic agreement" actually comes to play in our everyday life. And by that I mean "needing no support or adequate justification".

    All of us have to agree on some surface meaning of language, which by nature is "axiomatic". Some of you may be reading this right now and mentally correcting my grammar, because some guy not so long ago was determined-enough to assume on behalf of everyone as to how we should sequence words to be "proper" :).

    If we examine this issue along the developmental lines of the cultural axioms, we may understand as to why there's so much historical conflict in the world. We don't have enough "meta-cognitive" ability to see that virtually all off our collective human function is built on assumptions that we can't readily defend, thus we have to rely on authoritarian force to keep these structures together.

    In such, it seems like all activity of human being is "political" when it comes to maintaining the structure that's built on maintaining collective consent. Virtually in all cases, these seem to depend on totalitarian pluralism to enforce and perpetuate "our understanding of reality".

    Thus, we seldom throw out disclaimers like "Here's a structural foundation of reality that we believe in, but it's based on underlying assumptions that we can't really justify other than by our collective consent. If you don't agree ........ here's how we can accommodate that disagreement".

    So, can it be said that from certain POV, virtually every society we have is a form of "pluralistic totalitarianism", because it requires subservience and conformity to a set of mainstream ideals in order to participate in such society?

    There seems to be little difference in that regard when it comes to separating "religious", "political" and "scientific" activity when it comes to established orthodoxy. It seems like it's really not a matter of the "quality of thought", but eventually it's a matter of how many people will agree with you.

    The consent seems to always trump the "reason", because that's how we seem to keep "reason" in check.

    __________________________________________________


    Keep in mind that I understand the utility and necessity of baseline assumptions in context of our collective being. I too see no viable alternatives. What's less clear as to:

    1) Why do we tend to obfuscate the fact that virtually all of our structures of knowledge is axiomatic in regard to reality?

    2) It clearly seems to me that a more egalitarian approach would be that of understanding and education in regards to "there are many better ways" as opposed to "this one way that you must do it".
  • T Clark
    13.7k
    Thus, we seldom throw out disclaimers like "Here's a structural foundation of reality that we believe in, but it's based on underlying assumptions that we can't really justify other than by our collective consent. If you don't agree ........ here's how we can accommodate that disagreement".

    So, can it be said that from certain POV, virtually every society we have is a form of "pluralistic totalitarianism", because it requires subservience and conformity to a set of mainstream ideals in order to participate in such society?
    Devolved

    I guess my first comment is on your use of "totalitarian" in relation to the underlying assumptions. They're not totalitarian, they're just established and yes, also more or less enforced. How could that be any other way. And yes, you're right, they are rarely examined and that leads to problems.

    Next - I recommend you take a look at "An Essay on Metaphysics" by R.G. Collingwood. Tim Wood steered me to him. He writes about what he calls "absolute presuppositions" which seem pretty much like what you call underlying assumptions. He talks about the issue primarily in a scientific context.

    Next - take a look at @StreetlightX's recent thread "The Poverty of Truth." He has a different take on the matter that I'm still trying to figure out. He talks about "frames" rather than underlying assumptions or absolute presuppositions.
  • Devolved
    8
    Next - I recommend you take a look at "An Essay on Metaphysics" by R.G. Collingwood. ....

    Next - take a look at StreetlightX's recent thread "The Poverty of Truth." .....
    T Clark

    Thank you for these. Will check these out.

    I guess my first comment is on your use of "totalitarian" in relation to the underlying assumptions. They're not totalitarian, they're just established and yes, also more or less enforced. How could that be any other way. And yes, you're right, they are rarely examined and that leads to problems.T Clark

    By "totalitarian" I mean a cultural preset that intentionally narrows individual perception of choices in order to harness preferred actions of individuals, which essentially is a goal of any totalitarian regime - robotic obedience to axiomatic "societal program".

    I think that the alternative to that would be the adequate education and a societal structure that's more open to a wider range of communities that operate in context of "localized axiomatic agreements".

    Of course, the first step forwards that would be awareness of axiomatic presuppositions that underline our societal structures.
  • T Clark
    13.7k
    Thank you for these. Will check these out.Devolved

    The Collingwood essay is available as a PDF on the web.

    By "totalitarian" I mean a cultural preset that intentionally narrows individual perception of choices in order to harness preferred actions of individuals, which essentially is a goal of any totalitarian regime - robotic obedience to axiomatic "societal program".Devolved

    I don't think intentionality applies to what we're talking about. Society doesn't intend things. The things you are talking about make up a complexly interacting system of beliefs, attitudes, and practices. An ecology. That would be true of any society, especially a large centralized, interconnected one such as ours. I don't see that as a particularly ominous thing.
  • Devolved
    8
    The things you are talking about make up a complexly interacting system of beliefs, attitudes, and practices.T Clark

    individual beliefs, attitudes and practices are directed by cultural presets, which in turn perpetuate cultural loops. In such, the differences between people's attitudes, beliefs and practices are always limited by axioms outlined by memetic presets.

    To paint a loose analogy, culture is an OS software for the "hardware" of human brains. While computers may perform various functions and run additional software, that software must be compatible with the "cultural OS" that it runs.

    In that sense, the differences when it comes to core cultural axioms are generally minimal from person to person.

    I don't think intentionality applies to what we're talking about. Society doesn't intend things.... I don't see that as a particularly ominous thing.T Clark

    Again, the whole point of this is the axiomatic preferences in context of mutual agreement. Any post-judgement would be rendered using these as a context.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.