Are liberty and equality (so likewise authority and hierarchy) two sides of the same coin, where you can't have one without the other? Or is each a threat to the other, where one must choose which is more important to them? — Pfhorrest
Is the status quo one of liberty or authority, equality or hierarchy? — Pfhorrest
Which of these values belong to the "left", and which belong to the "right"? — Pfhorrest
I think all of these axes are way too vague. — khaled
I think the other thread you're referring to was started by a poster unhappy about comments being made in the Trump thread, in my opinion. — Wayfarer
The scale of equality and heirarchy struck me as odd, as it implies that equal societies do not favor strong heirarchical structures. — Tzeentch
After all, use of authority is required to enforce equality, as it will not arise naturally. — Tzeentch
Also the scale between change and stasis did not make sense to me, as these things are, in my opinion, not goals in themselves and whether I would favor one or the other is entirely dependent on circumstances. — Tzeentch
I always have a problem with the liberty vs. authority angle. In my mind, authority can preserve liberty as much as endanger it. Authority is a tool, not a form of leadership. I'd say the opposite of liberty would be something like teleology. There is either a pre-determined goal for the society, or the goal is to allow everyone to pursue their own goals. — Echarmion
Tough to say [whether the status quo one of liberty or authority, equality or hierarchy] without any reference point. — Echarmion
Both left and right are a bit split, but I associate authority and hierarchy with the right, and equality with the left. Both sides will claim liberty, though with very different definitions. — Echarmion
There are plenty of people who think that equality is the natural way of things in a free society, and inequality only arises through the exercise of authority. — Pfhorrest
But that's not what I mean by "authority" here, and using "authority" to mean that sounds strange to my ear. — Pfhorrest
I mean something much more like what you're calling "teleology". Liberty is people getting to pursue their own goals, authority is some people getting to impose their goals on others. In loose language, doing what you want to do vs being told what to do. — Pfhorrest
Within the reference frame of the political spectrum as you see it, please. — Pfhorrest
Which side do you think has the correct definition of liberty? — Pfhorrest
Please also share your thoughts on the relationship between these different axes.
Are liberty and equality (so likewise authority and hierarchy) two sides of the same coin, where you can't have one without the other? Or is each a threat to the other, where one must choose which is more important to them?
Is the status quo one of liberty or authority, equality or hierarchy?
Which of these values belong to the "left", and which belong to the "right"? — Pfhorrest
I answered Maximal to all of them, because that's what I am considered to the rest of the spectrum. Among those on the furthest left, there's another spectrum where you will find people who think I'm incrementalist or sympathetic to authoritarianism. Depending on what your stance is on things, people are going to define these parameters differently. — Saphsin
But it is what authority does, right? Make the laws, enforce them etc. — Echarmion
I do not think things like this should be encouraged. — Philosophim
I think this sends the wrong message. We are here to think. We are here to listen to other's points and arguments, and logically think through them. It is not about being conservative, liberal, or political in any way. Such things often get in the way of free thought, and become arguments of ego and ideology. — Philosophim
Someone else accused the forum of having a bias. — Pfhorrest
You know that political philosophy is a thing, right? We cannot "listen to other's points and arguments, and logically think through them " about politics and at the same time be prohibited from using its terminology. Makes no sense. — Kenosha Kid
The answer to them should be that philosophy is about trying to remove bias — Philosophim
One way of removing the primary source of bias on philosophy forums, male ego, would be to remove all the screen names so that nobody can tell who said what. — Hippyhead
We can listen to people's opinions without labeling them. — Philosophim
The problem of course with removing names would be the difficulty in tracking the conversation. — Philosophim
and I'm not sure it would sit well with people. — Philosophim
Please also share your thoughts on the relationship between these different axes.
Are liberty and equality (so likewise authority and hierarchy) two sides of the same coin, where you can't have one without the other? Or is each a threat to the other, where one must choose which is more important to them?
Is the status quo one of liberty or authority, equality or hierarchy?
Which of these values belong to the "left", and which belong to the "right"?
a day ago
Reply
Options — Pfhorrest
The scale of equality and heirarchy struck me as odd, as it implies that equal societies do not favor strong heirarchical structures. I think this is not the case. After all, use of authority is required to enforce equality, as it will not arise naturally. — Tzeentch
If the conversation is perceived as being between people, then removing screen names is obviously going to generate confusion, agreed. But if the conversation is perceived as being between ideas, then it doesn't matter who typed what, and screen names become unnecessary. — Hippyhead
But then, this is a philosophy forum and the job of a philosopher is to be inconvenient and unpopular. :-) — Hippyhead
I've been living in forum land for 20 years now, and it's amazing to me what an absolutely fixed rigid idea we have about forums. All forums on the Internet, every last one, absolutely have to be pretty much exactly the same in format, or everyone starts totally freaking out, yelling about crimes against humanity and so on. — Hippyhead
Further, this prevents duplicity, in which a malicious person can pretend to be the owner of a previous thought, when they are not. Imagine a person lying that was they previously posted was now wrong. — Philosophim
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.