I'm sensing that you don't think much of Harvard. I invite you to start a topic on your opinion of that university.

I'm sensing that you don't think much of Harvard. I invite you to start a topic on your opinion of that university. — Wheatley

As Claira would (and did) say: The sheer entitled caucasity.

I don't care. One life lesson I learned is that paying less attention to ideologues is good for your mental health.

I don't care. One life lesson I learned is that paying less attention to ideologues is good for your mental health. — Wheatley

The question of the thread is whether there's a culture war going on. There is. It's between people willing to call out the insanity of Claira and people like her; and people claiming it's a one-off and that there's no significance to it. On the contrary, I find this a very significant story. It encapsulates everything wrong with the culture at this moment. If you don't pay attention to idealogues, what are you going to do when they come to your house or your town to set the place on fire, pull down statues, and take over neighborhoods by force, with the acquiescence of the local politicians? I'ma barf.

I'll let you have the last word.

It encapsulates everything wrong with the culture at this moment — fishfry

You would have to show that she isn't merely a fringe group. Or else it's just your opinion.

If you don't pay attention to idealogues, what are you going to do when they come to your house or your town to set the place on fire, pull down statues, and take over neighborhoods by force, with the acquiescence of the local politicians? I'ma barf. — fishfry

Nothing you say is going to convince them otherwise, that's why they are called idealogues. Call them out for what they are, and do everything you can to stop their unethical behavior.

I'm perfectly safe where I am.

I'm perfectly safe where I am. — Wheatley

Pitchfork-wielding protesters descend on wealthy Hamptons estates

NY Post again, but I have lowbrow taste. And

Nearly $1 Billion Is Shifted From Police in Budget That Pleases No One

That's from the NY Times for those who like lying warmonger fake news sources. That's 17% of the NYC police department's budget at a time when homicides and other violent crimes are exploding. And the new "bail is unfair" movement means that violent criminals are set free the day they're arrested. Plenty of links if you feel like doing the research.

You say you're safe from this insanity and I hope you're right, and I hope I'm safe too. How insane will these idealogues, as you call them, get before none of us are safe?

Ok I'm really done you can definitely have the last word but how can you say you're safe from all this? Don't you follow the news?

That's 17% of the NYC police department's budget at a time when homicides and other violent crimes are exploding. And the new "bail is unfair" movement means that violent criminals are set free the day they're arrested. Plenty of links if you feel like doing the research. — fishfry

That's only your point of view. It might be in your interest to keep NYC police department fully funded, but don't expect everyone to be on board. They give their reasons for the police budget cuts, you may not agree with their reasons, but that's what politics is about.

You say you're safe from this insanity and I hope you're right, and I hope I'm safe too. How insane will these idealogues, as you call them, get before none of us are safe? — fishfry

Lucky for you there are idealogues on the other side sticking up for your interests.

Ok I'm really done you can definitely have the last word but how can you say you're safe from all this? Don't you follow the news? — fishfry

I'm not going tell you about my personal life on a public forum. All I'll say is this: I have no power to do anything about all this instability. I might as well worry about other things. There are plenty of people who do worry about it and have the power, and I think they'll get on just fine. I'm not going to have any impact on this debate, let's be honest.

Pitchfork-wielding protesters descend on wealthy Hamptons estates — fishfry

A caravan of protesters —some wielding plastic pitchforks— descended on the Hamptons Wednesday to blast the rich and decry the nation’s rising income inequality.
https://pagesix.com/2020/07/01/hamptons-billionaires-car-caravan-protest-targets-east-end-vacation-homes/?_ga=2.188831215.559590100.1593669536-1434620757.1590193080

Did you only read the headline?

Did you only read the headline? — Wheatley

You believe everything you read in the tabloids?

I don't read tabloids. :vomit:

I watch the Morton Downey show instead.



And Jerry Springer.

It has happened before but revolutions do not come out as those who fight them hope because they go into them to destroy the existing power and do not have a plan for destroying power, so when the fighting is over, those who understand power take over, and at first people are glad for their leadership, then they realize it is not the leadership they want.

The American revolution began as an intellectual revolution and that needs to be repeated to get a good outcome to a revolution.

It has happened before but revolutions do not come out as those who fight them hope because they go into them to destroy the existing power and do not have a plan for destroying power, so when the fighting is over, those who understand power take over, and at first people are glad for their leadership, then they realize it is not the leadership they want. — Athena

It is a good point! I just want to add that the successful destroying of certain 'old' forms of power would be impossible without their simultaneous replacement with 'new' powers. Otherwise, it is not
about revolution, it is just a chaotic riot without any consequences: the 'old' organizations of power would reproduce themselves automatically.

The American revolution began as an intellectual revolution and that needs to be repeated to get a good outcome to a revolution. — Athena

Do you understand the current situation in the US as the beginning of the next revolution?
Any 'successful' revolution was led by an organized group that could articulate a clear ideological agenda and establish new forms of power and societal life. Do we deal with a similar situation now?

If you'd like to know where to start, read your Chomsky. — fishfry

I read Chomsky a while ago. Please correct me if I misunderstand or misinterpreted him.
According to Chomsky, the interests of the ruling elite are masked by a particular ideology.
The concept of ideology presupposes a specific frame of reference: there is 'real world,' distorted
and falsified by the ideological system of inaccurate representations. This conceptual scheme was criticized by Althusser, who pointed out that ideology should be reformulated as the system, maintaining a necessarily imaginary relation of an individual to the 'real' world. Let say that I accept your evaluation of the current situation in the US, and I consider your examples as 100% real facts. (Actually, I could bring my own examples, supporting your perspective). But, in our environment, it does not matter anymore. Anyone can object to our sources of information and bring different ones, supporting their own narratives. Further, we will inevitably become a kind of marginal, isolated group. Our sources of information cannot compete with the dominant mainstream media platforms: they determine the current agenda and maintain the prevailing public opinion. When the media start supporting a different narrative, the current one can become irrelevant and eventually forgotten.
Who remembers now judge Kavanaugh's nomination? The media could represent him guilty, and at that moment, so many people hysterically supported this narrative. Let me come back to https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/6106/fake-news/p1
"Definitional question. In 2002 the NYT ran stories by Judith Miller alleging that Saddam Hussein was acquiring yellowcake uranium and aluminum tubes for the construction of WMDs Those articles, appearing as they did day after day after day in the Paper of Record (TM), helped turn the tide of public opinion in favor of invading Iraq, and gave cover to politicians (Hillary and Joe Biden to name two) to vote for Bush's war despite millions of liberals (who used to be against war, way back in the day) marching in the streets against it. That was by the way the last time we saw anything from the anti-war movement in this country. Something that troubles me."
You made perfect points here. Nevertheless, once again, what the NYT did in 2002 is wholly forgotten today. Chomsky's conceptual framework cannot be applied to analyze the current crisis. Its fundamental flaw is the assumption that we deal with the 'real' world. Yet, we firstly deal with the medium, producing various effects (fake news).

Culture wars is a trap that we have fallen in for.

It's a way to make everybody a moron and let people go fighting their strawmans. Even the name "Culture wars" makes hubristic claims of a war going on. The portrayal of the "enemy" is the most stupid thing in this war. For one side it the "marxists" and for the other it "fascists" and the "1%".

As if really, we genuinely would be living in the 1930's. But what better way to beat two dead horse again and again.

Culture wars is a trap that we have fallen in for. — ssu

I agree. This is just one of possible ways to frame our situation. How would you define the unfolding
event in the US? Yet, one could try to apply Hunter's definition of 'culture war': there are a few current developments, verifying his perspective.

How would you define the unfolding
event in the US? — Number2018

Let's remember that Presidential elections are the silly season in the US when this discourse spills out of the normal political commentating ring (talk radio, right wing/ liberal & progressive channels). US politics is obsessed with values, morality and lifestyle, so naturally some debate in the culture war realm would be invented. But now you not only have a populist president, but a very incompetent populist president, which just makes things even worse. Populism itself seeks to divide people to "us" and "them" us being the ordinary people and them being the filthy elites.

If this wasn't bad, add into the toxic stew a GLOBAL PANDEMIC, which has not only killed well over a hundred thousand in the US and is strong and well and spreading in the country, but also put the US and the World into one of the worst economic depressions ever.

So what better time to pull down a statue of George Washington and set in on fire.

Weee...culture wars!!!

I'd laugh at this tragicomedy if it only would stay as it is.
But likely it will be even worse. If you think this is the low point, you will be surprised how more low and stupid it can get.

Your points make sense: 1)Trump 2)elections 3)pandemic 4)economic depression 5)populism
I would add a few more, but even this combination is explosive enough.

what better time to pull down a statue of George Washington and set in on fire. — ssu

But likely it will be even worse. If you think this is the low point, you will be surprised how more low and stupid it can get. — ssu

Don't you think that pulling down statues of Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln would perfectly fit
to the situation of a culture war? And, there would be the division of people into the two camps:
in favor of and against. Still, it is not clear how pulling down these statues is caused by the above combination.
You could add burning the American flag and destroying other symbols of the US -
will the union survive after all?

Don't you think that pulling down statues of Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln would perfectly fit to the situation of a culture war? — Number2018

Oh, it's fits perfectly a culture war! But so do the protectors of the statues, who think that officials will do absolutely nothing to protect public statues, and that they have to create patrols to defend the cultural heritage of the nation from anarchists. Perhaps not Mt Rushmore, but other places...

And we could start/continue it here too!

We could start a huge fight about it here in the PF. And then, by the standards of how the culture war is fought, the discussion should degenerate to personal insults and end in someone getting banned. And that banning then would be seen as "cancel culture" and PF being taken over one side or the other (depending on the viewer, likely).

I was hoping this thread would be more on the culture war between what I'd colloquially term the "Silicon Valley Libertarian" and the "Social Justice Warrior" stereotypes, reckoned "right" and "left" respectively, though inaccurately. (The true right is the worst of both, and the true left the best of both).

That's a much more philosophical culture war, as both sides are philosophically wrong in one way about factual matters and philosophically wrong in the opposite way about normative matters, but they've got which kind of wrong they are about which direction of fit reversed from each other. (And also a populist vs elitist leaning in one of their kinds of wrongness each, hence the left vs right gloss they get painted with).

Maybe I should start a different thread on that, if anyone's interested.

I was hoping this thread would be more on the culture war between what I'd colloquially term the "Silicon Valley Libertarian" and the "Social Justice Warrior" stereotypes, reckoned "right" and "left" respectively, though inaccurately. — Pfhorrest

Do you think that these two groups of stereotypes and their supporters do initiate the current cultural conflict? If not, we need to find the divisive imperative. It is not clear if it is possible to single out the primary determinant. Can the ongoing debate about racial inequality function in such a manner? Does it leave room for neutrality or reticence in American society? Do people have to choose between opposite views on American history, the symbolic significance of the familiar cultural landscape, the acceptable limits of violence during protests, the legitimacy of certain political discourses, etc.? If yes, there is Hunter's culture war situation: " The actual diversity of attitude, opinion, and belief in the general population is not reflected in the kind of artificially polarized rhetoric of the special purpose groups … Plurality is reduced to duality; polyphony is quickly reduced to a crude, hackneyed, and discordant diaphone."

both sides are philosophically wrong in one way about factual matters and philosophically wrong in the opposite way about normative matters, — Pfhorrest

From what philosophical position can you articulate your judgement?

From what philosophical position can you articulate your judgement? — Number2018

The one under discussion in this thread:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/8626/the-principles-of-commensurablism

Especially as captured in this diagram:


I think the “right” “Silicon Valley Libertarian” does the top pattern with regards to norms and the bottom pattern, to a lesser extent, with an elitist lean, with regards to facts.

Meanwhile the “left” “Social Justice Warrior” does the top pattern with regards to facts and the bottom pattern, to a lesser extent, with a populist lean, with regards to norms.

I think the “right” “Silicon Valley Libertarian” does the top pattern with regards to norms and the bottom pattern, to a lesser extent, with an elitist lean, with regards to facts.

Meanwhile the “left” “Social Justice Warrior” does the top pattern with regards to facts and the bottom pattern, to a lesser extent, with a populist lean, with regards to norms. — Pfhorrest

I appreciate this level of formalization. Let say that one accepts your proposition about the philosophical foundations of being ‘right’ and being ‘left.’ Yet, how can you demonstrate that this divergence is the cause of the real culture war? People can peacefully agree or disagree on different philosophical principles, but the same people could irreconcilably wage the culture war.
There could be ‘irrational,’ unarticulated actual reasons.

Do you understand the current situation in the US as the beginning of the next revolution?
Any 'successful' revolution was led by an organized group that could articulate a clear ideological agenda and establish new forms of power and societal life. Do we deal with a similar situation now? — Number2018

Yes, and no.

We are ahead of the game because we have history and advanced communication technology.

We are in trouble because we ignored history. We replaced our domestic education with education for a technological society with unknown values, and because this education leaves us ignorant or the democracy we inherited, we can not defend it. We herited perhaps the best possible democracy and we don't know enough about it to defend it, nor could we establish anything better.

Forums such as this one could resolve the problems. We can take back our power and we restructure our laws so they do what they were intended to do. For example from the book Empire of Illusion by Chris Hedges:

"He (Roosevlet) sent a message to Congress on April 29, 1938, titled "Recommendations to the Congress to Curb Monopolies and the Concentration of Economic Power". In it he wrote:

"the first truth is the liberty of democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of power to a point where it becomes stronger than the democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism- ownership of Government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. The second truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if its business system does not provide employment and produce and distribute goods in such a way to sustain and acceptable standard of living."

Our democracy is open to change by reason and consensus. We do not need to change that. We need to read and talk and realize what has gone wrong and how to right that wrong.

At the same time technology and science has totally revolutionized our consciousness and never before have we been so close to realizing the awesome potential of our democracy. Up until now we have lived with many false believes and without the organization and wealth to fully manifest our democracy. Our consciousness is bringing us to a New Age, a time of high tech, peace and the end of tyranny.

What we have to do now is bring together past wisdom with today's knowledge and potential.
WE HAVE TO DO THIS, BECAUSE THERE IS NO ONE TO DO IT FOR US. OUR LIBERTY DEPENDS ON WHAT WE DO, NOT WHAT SOMEONE ELSE DOES FOR US.

Return to the intellectual revolution that began our democracy and that was not stated by the Bible! We must bring an end to the Myth of Christianity being the foundation of our democracy. That is just plain un-American and there is no way we should be supporting Israel any more than we should support China or Saudi Arabia or Russia. Making money the bottom line and using religion to support this and the "power and glory" of military force, is destroying our economy, democracy and liberty.

I was hoping this thread would be more on the culture war between what I'd colloquially term the "Silicon Valley Libertarian" and the "Social Justice Warrior" stereotypes, reckoned "right" and "left" respectively, though inaccurately. (The true right is the worst of both, and the true left the best of both).

That's a much more philosophical culture war, as both sides are philosophically wrong in one way about factual matters and philosophically wrong in the opposite way about normative matters, but they've got which kind of wrong they are about which direction of fit reversed from each other. (And also a populist vs elitist leaning in one of their kinds of wrongness each, hence the left vs right gloss they get painted with).

Maybe I should start a different thread on that, if anyone's interested. — Pfhorrest

I am thinking may be I don't belong here at all? Which one objects to the notion that a cooperation is an individual? Which one is againt monopolies and would return things like banking and the media to several small owners? Which one understands what bureaucratic organization has to do with the shift of power from power of the people to power of the state? I am really sorry but I am very ignorant of philosophy and I don't understand what it has to do with political and economic power or lack of it.

Don't you think that pulling down statues of Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln would perfectly fit
to the situation of a culture war? And, there would be the division of people into the two camps:
in favor of and against. Still, it is not clear how pulling down these statues is caused by the above combination.
You could add burning the American flag and destroying other symbols of the US -
will the union survive after all? — Number2018

Thomas Jefferson believed everyone must be educated if we are to have a strong and united republic, and that was not education for a technological society with unknown values. It was education for citizenship and independent thinking and good moral judgment and this education stimulated inventions and the advancement of science because truth is essential to our democracy and liberty. The strongist opposition to that education is Evanglical Christians who also give us the myth of our democracy depending on Christianity. Christianity without education for democracy is theatening to our democracy.

Our culture war is still the war against Christian England and those who wanted to remain loyal to the king. It is still the divide of the federalist papers and Jefferson's democracy and still the divide of slave owners, aristocrats and autocrats, against the people. It is a divide full of lies on one side and the side of science that corrects false information.

Tearing down all the statues is destroying the good with the bad. But as I keep staying we don't know our history and are not prepared to defend our democracy. Welcome the result of education for a technological society with unknown values.

the philosophical foundations of being ‘right’ and being ‘left.’ — Number2018

To be clear, I don't think those are the foundations of the actual left and right, just of those two stereotypes that are associated with the left and right. I think they're both a mix of left and right in actuality: their good parts are left and their bad parts are right.

am thinking may be I don't belong here at all? Which one objects to the notion that a cooperation is an individual? Which one is againt monopolies and would return things like banking and the media to several small owners? Which one understands what bureaucratic organization has to do with the shift of power from power of the people to power of the state? I am really sorry but I am very ignorant of philosophy and I don't understand what it has to do with political and economic power or lack of it. — Athena

Sorry, I'm not following how this related to the bit you're responding to. In any case, political philosophy is all about the analysis of power and authority. I'd be happy to explain more if you have some more specific questions, I just don't know where to go from here.

Sorry, I'm not following how this related to the bit you're responding to. In any case, political philosophy is all about the analysis of power and authority. I'd be happy to explain more if you have some more specific questions, I just don't know where to go from here.
an hour ago
Reply
Share
Flag — Pfhorrest

What forms culture?

How do people come to know the different philosophies and decide which ones are the best to use when they prepare to make a political decision?

What is the relationship between philosphy and culture? That is what I really want to know. Like which philosophy should I study to understand economics and politics?

PS I totally understand what philosophy has to do with democracy, but I don't see anything about that here.

The Left-Right dichotomy had its origin in the French National Assembly, of course. But it has persisted and hence perhaps reflects something more essential to humanity than the rights of the King. Psychologists have found that those on the left tend to be more willing to accept ambiguity. The right is associated with fear of change, and hence conservatives. The left, with the acceptance of difference and hence progressives.