Well that's unnecessarily offensive.

My offensiveness is a wimp.

You are projecting. Regardless of what narrative you put to it, it's true. — Lil

You are test driving racist speaking points under false pretense. IF anything I'm reflecting.

None of them were racist, btw. — frank

How could they be racist when they didn’t have the biological concept of race?

How could they be racist when they didn’t have the biological concept of race? — Joshs

They eventually learned it from whites. By that time most of them (in the east) were already part white and/or black.

Racism is a form of laziness insofar as a racist deduces from flimsy and superficial generalizations and does so without verification. Unfortunately, this species of thinking manifests in racists and so-called anti-racists alike.

Racism is a form of laziness insofar as a racist deduces from flimsy and superficial generalizations and does so without verification. Unfortunately, this species of thinking manifests in racists and so-called anti-racists alike. — NOS4A2

I would also add that it represented the most refined and ‘verified’ thinking among the intellectuals of Europe as recently as two centuries ago, just as homophobia was endorsed by the lab history , medical and legal establishments less than a century ago. If this stems from laziness , flimsy and superficial generalizations , then I would predict that a century from now our most refined and enlightened thinking will also be accused of such terrible things.

As George Kelly said:

“I must still agree that it is important for the psychological researcher to see the efforts of man in the perspective of the centuries. To me the striking thing that is revealed in this perspective is the way yesterday's alarming impulse becomes today's enlivening insight, tomorrow's repressive doctrine, and after that subsides into a petty superstition.”

I would also add that it represented the most refined and ‘verified’ thinking among the intellectuals — Joshs

How much of that was just establishment conservatives justifying the maintenance of the status quo?

But the way it is worded, it almost comes across as saying "even the damn ivory tower intellectual elite liberals" were on board back then. That wasn't true then and it's not true now.

I look around today and wonder what the future will look back on and cite for stupidity. The thing that comes to mind is the way we treat animals and the earth in general. But the simple fact of the matter is, we, right now, in the present, know better than to do what we are doing, and we've been told. What George Kelly could ad is that: Man, in his open conspiracy to pursue his self-interest, always claims to be doing it "for the children"; and some of those children in future generations will look back and excuse him for "not knowing any better."

quote="James Riley;568708"]5
I would also add that it represented the most refined and ‘verified’ thinking among the intellectuals
— Joshs

How much of that was just establishment conservatives justifying the maintenance of the status quo?

But the way it is worded, it almost comes across as saying "even the damn ivory tower intellectual elite liberals" were on board back then. That wasn't true then and it's not true now.[/quote]

“I It is by now well known that some of the greatest modern philosophers held racist views. John Locke (1632-1704), David Hume (1711-76), Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), G W F Hegel (1770-1831) and many others believed that Black and Indigenous peoples the world over were savage, inferior and in need of correction by European enlightenment.” ( You could add Hannah Arendt to that list).

“Michael Zeuske, a Bonn-based historian and specialist for the history of slavery, on Deutschlandfunk (a German public radio station) on June 13, 2020: “If one seriously intends to enlighten people about racism and the toppling of monuments,” to paraphrase Zeuske, “one must also take such great minds as the philosopher Immanuel Kant […] into account.” Why? Well, because, as Zeuske puts it, Kant’s “anthropological writings helped to establish European racism.”

What George Kelly could ad is that: Man, in his open conspiracy to pursue his self-interest, always claims to be doing it "for the children"; and some of those children in future generations will look back and excuse him for "not knowing any better. — James Riley

Kelly, like the phenomenologists , Heidegger and embodied cognitive theorists , rejects the quaint enlightenment notion of self-interest, which implies an atomized , autonomous subject split off from a world. By the way, your view of self-interest would probably be considered racist by critical race theory adherents.

“ A parable called "The Tragedy of the Commons" haunts social research on ethical concerns. The parable describes a situation in which a number of herdsmen graze their herds on a common pasturage. Each herdsman knows that it is in his self-interest to increase the size of his herd because, whereas each additional animal brings profit to him, the cost of grazing the animal and the damage done to the pasturage is shared by all the herdsmen. As a result, each of the herdsmen rationally increases his herd size until the commons is destroyed and, with it, all of the herds that grazed on it. The concern of the social scientist is how one can get a group of rationally self-interested herdsmen to cooperate in maintaining the vanishing commons.

This disarmingly disingenuous metaphor for our world situation embodies a long tradition of modern thought about the self and its relation to others, which may be called the economic view of the mind. The goal of the self is assumed to be profit-getting the most at least cost. The unconstrained economic man, such as Hobbes's despot,continues his acquisitions until there is nothing left for anyone else. Therefore, constraints are needed: overt social force, internalized socialization, subtle psychological mechanisms. A general theory called social exchange theory, widely used in social psychology, decision theory, sociology, economics, and political science, views all of human activity, individually and in groups, in terms of input and output calculations, paying and receiving. We believe that this implicit vision of motivation underlies not only social science but many contemporary people's views of their own action. Even altruism is defined in terms of an individual obtaining (psychological) utility from benefiting another.

Is such a view experientially validated? We believe that the view of the self as an economic man, which is the view the social sciences hold, is quite consonant with the unexamined view of our own motivation that we hold as ordinary, nonmindful people. Let us state that view clearly. The self is seen as a territory with boundaries. The goal of the self is to bring inside the boundaries all of the good things while paying out as few goods as possible and conversely to remove to the outside of the boundaries all of the bad things while letting in as little bad as possible. Since goods are scarce, each autonomous self is in competition with other selves to get them. Since cooperation between individuals and whole societies may be needed to get more goods, uneasy and unstable alliances are formed between autonomous selves. Some selves (altruists) and many selves in some roles (parents, teachers) may get (immaterial) goods by helping other selves, but they will become disappointed (even disillusioned) if those other selves do not reciprocate by being properly helped.

What does the mindfulness/awareness tradition or enactive cognitive science have to contribute to this portrait of self-interest? The mindful, open-ended approach to experience reveals that moment by moment this so-called self occurs only in relation to the other. If I want praise, love, fame, or power, there has to be another (even if only a mental one) to praise, love, know about, or submit to me. If I want to obtain things, they have to be things that I don't already have. Even with respect to the desire for pleasure, the pleasure is something to which I am in a relation. Because self is always codependent with other (even at the gross level we are now discussing), the force of self-interest is always other-directed in the very same respect with which it is self-directed. What, then, are people doing who appear so self-interested as opposed to other-interested? Mindfulness/awareness meditators suggest that those people are struggling, in a confused way, to maintain the sense of a separate self by engaging in self-referential relationships with the other. Whether I gain or lose, there can be a sense of I; if there is nothing to be gained or lost, I am groundless. If Hobbes's despot were actually to succeed in obtaining everything in the universe, he would have to find some other preoccupation quickly, or he would be in a woeful state: he would be unable to maintain his sense of himself. Of course, as we have seen with nihilism, one can always turn that groundlessness into a ground; then one can maintain oneself in relation to it by feeling despair.“
( Francisco Varela, The Embodied Mind)

— Joshs

To the extent the greatest modern philosophers held racist views they were, as I implied, just establishment conservatives justifying the maintenance of the status quo. That would include any that today, looking back, we might view as enlightenment icons. The real question (and the one historians love to dig for and often find) is who was challenging their thinking at the time? What happened to their writings? Maybe they weren't "establishment" and didn't get the time of day? Nevertheless, they are often found in obscure, dark recesses of the stacks; but, if they don't serve today's conservative interest then they don't get any oxygen now either.

In this light, there is no need to enlighten people about racism and the toppling of monuments any more than we need to take a deep dive on sexism to figure out why men should stop beating their wives. What role Kant’s anthropological writings played in establishing European racism might better be assigned to what role they played in maintaining it. But even if they were the genesis, who's interests did they serve then, and who adopted them at the time? And who now cites back to them in an effort to justify their position today?

Kelly, like the phenomenologists , Heidegger and embodied cognitive theorists , rejects the quaint enlightenment notion of self-interest, which implies an atomized , autonomous subject split off from a world. — Joshs

Hence why I suggested he might add my proposed addendum.

Having studied the tragedy of the commons as historical background for the Taylor Grazing Act, and the real, on-the-ground proofs of it out west (U.S.) on public lands (especially with sheep but also with cattle), one might reconsider it as quaint or qualified for rejection. With the ever-widening, disparate wealth gap (in the U.S. anyway), it seems the parable is not so disingenuous. One need only view the government as the commons upon which the 1% graze their fat faces. It's only when they see things drying up (Covid) that the "enlightenment" flies back into self-interest and we try a little trickle-up for a change (and discover who the essential workers really are). Such is not unlike the ranchers creating grazing associations to divvy up the grass they overgrazed and keep out the riff-raff. When they failed at that, leaving vast tracts in ruin, Uncle Sugar comes in and regulates things. And let's not forget "bobbed ware."

To the extent the greatest modern philosophers held racist views they were, as I implied, just establishment conservatives justifying the maintenance of the status quo. That would include any that today, looking back, we might view as enlightenment icons. The real question (and the one historians love to dig for and often find) is who was challenging their thinking at the time? What happened to their writings? Maybe they weren't "establishment" and didn't get the time of day? Nevertheless, they are often found in obscure, dark recesses of the stacks; but, if they don't serve today's conservative interest then they don't get any oxygen now either. — James Riley

Good luck finding those mysterious hidden ‘liberals’ from past centuries. You won’t find them any more than you’ll find secret discoverers of relativity or genetic theory. That’s because science, technology and social thought evolve together. The previous leading edge of ethical thought is always going to appear backward to contemporary minds.

Thinking that ethical thinking remains static over cultural
history while only science evolves gives you license to demonize those whose thinking isn’t up to your standards It also gives you no way to anticipate how you might help them to see things differently, because you are concentrating on nefarious motives rather than issues of knowledge.

Good luck finding those
mysteriously hidden ‘liberals’ from past centuries. You won’t find them — Joshs

Some have been found. They are usually indigenous people, some of whom did not write but were written down; others penned their thoughts from prison. Again, historians love searching for and finding them. But again, the discoveries often don't find the light of day for obvious and already-explained reasons.

The previous leading edge of ethical thought is always going to appear backward to contemporary minds. — Joshs

It only appears that way to the vested interests who want to cite them for authority. Conservative is, by definition, that which seeks to maintain or justify the status quo. Then or now. Liberal is, by definition, that which would move or justify the movement forward. Those enlightenment icons who justified racism weren't creating it.

There was a time when the leading edge of science said tobacco was harmless, even beneficial. But guess what? It was not the follow-on, more modern science that refuted that. So no, I'm not living in some romantic understanding of science and knowledge. It was people who, in the 15th and 16th century knew it was shit and bad for you. But they don't get much play, do they? Our bias has us looking to science of the 20th century as the leading edge on tobacco harm, blah blah blah. But the leading edge was contemporary voices that were ignored. Same with alcohol. Same with Audubon's warning about the bison and carrier pigeon, long, long before their demise. Not to mention the Indians and their warnings.

you are concentrating on nefarious motives rather than issues of knowledge. — Joshs

I'm looking at nefarious motives now, but citing contemporaneous warning from then. Your philosophy is just more apologetics for man in furtherance of his open conspiracy to look the other way while pursing a not-so-enlightened self-interest. "They didn't know any better back then!" "Even the best minds back then thought it was okay!"

LOL! I guess they weren't the best minds now, where they? The best minds were marginalized, ignored and often lost to history. Only to be proven right today.

It all depends on who you listen to, and who you consider "the leading edge".

Your philosophy is just more apologetics for man in furtherance of his open conspiracy to look the other way while pursing a not-so-enlightened self-interest. "They didn't know any better back then!" "Even the best minds back then thought it was okay!" — James Riley

What if my philosophy were true? How would it change the way you look at people who disappoint your moral standards? Im not just just talking about those from previous eras but your contemporaries who violate your standards of decency. You would look them in the eye and say “you are just trying to further your open conspiracy to look the other way while pursuing your unenlightened self-interest”. And they would belt you in the mouth for impugning their motives. Basically describes today’s polarized political atmosphere , with each side impugning the others’ motives as selfish, greedy, dishonest , etc , etc. It never occurs to either side that the other believes deeply that their approach is unimpeachably ethical.

Which is why I agree with Ken Gergen:

“Cobstructionist thought militates against the claims to ethical foundations implicit in much identity politics - that higher ground from which others can so confidently be condemned as inhumane, self-serving, prejudiced, and unjust. Constructionist thought painfully reminds us that we have no transcendent rationale upon which to rest such accusations, and that our sense of moral indignation is itself a product of historically and culturally situated traditions. And the constructionist intones, is it not possible that those we excoriate are but living also within traditions that are, for them, suffused with a sense of ethical primacy? As we find, then, social constructionism is a two edged sword in the political arena, potentially as damaging to the wielding hand as to the opposition.”(Social Construction and the Transformation of Identity Politics)

What if that were true? How would it change the way you look at people who disappoint your moral standards? — Joshs

[Edit: Note the change in your original post from "What if it were true?" and your change to "What if my philosophy were true?" I responded to the former]

It doesn't change the way I look at people because it is true and I already look at people that way. Usually they are disappointing their own moral standards, but it's all part of the open conspiracy: "I'll look the other way if you look the other way."

My goal here is simply to remind people to engage in a little introspection when they say they are "doing it all for the kids" and those in the past "didn't know any better." That, and consider the historical record.

That should inform our decision-making and have us pay closer attention to the voices who speak against what we all know in our own little hearts to be true. Our history is not the lies we tell about ourselves, or the statues we put up. Our history is recorded in books and oral traditions and art and dance and the voice of the oppressed. In other words, the leading mind of the day on the issue of slavery back in the 1850s might very well have been a slave. Did anyone bother to ask? No? Why?

Anyone who spouts the white man's burden or racial superiority or what white, Eurocentric philosophers of the 15th, 16th, 17th century might say are the apologist who, in the most generous analysis, failed to listen to countervailing positions of the day.

The leading minds of the day are those who history and hindsight prove to have been correct, regardless of whether the dominant paradigm (white? Eurocentric? Whatever) debated with them. To assume they did not exist because they were marginalized, or not recorded, or because their works were lost, or have not yet been found, is to assume there was no debate at the time. If that were the case, then the dominant paradigm simply failed to ask the leading minds of the day. Such are the forces of conservativism.

And they would belt you in the mouth for impugning their motives. — Joshs

So you agree that the leading minds of the day are marginalized by the open conspiracy. I'm glad we got that settled.

It never occurs to either side that the other believes deeply that their approach is unimpeachably ethical. — Joshs

Because they don't. Everyone knows it's wrong. It's just the open conspiracy to allow it. There is not "two sides." There is one side. It's just that some folks admit they have a problem and others are in denial. That problem is usually best cured collectively but individuals are called hypocrites for not trying to resolve the problem alone.

You and all the apologist in the world can say "they believe deeply that it's okay to hold a little girl down and cut off her clitoris with a broken coke bottle." BS. You know it, they know it, I know it. And the little girl sure as hell knows it. And guess what? She's the leading edge expert on the subject.

Which is why I agree with Ken Gergen — Joshs

I spend days and countless words spelling out my position on natural law in another thread. I'm not going to reiterate now. Regardless, please, wherever you go with your arguments, please don't tell me what I'm thinking or what the logical conclusion of my point must be. And no hyperbole. Nobody is going to punch me in the mouth for pointing out their BS because I don't go around pointing out our collective or individual agreement to look the other way. I just look the other way. It's part of the conspiracy. But, if we take to heart what I have said, and record history, and listen to the voices of the little girls, it just might inform our decisions and create a culture that our children won't look back on with derision, or who won't feel compelled to make excuses for us based upon a non-existent ignorance.

Until about 150 years ago many, if not most, philosophers and scientists in Europe and the U.S. accepted as fact what we would now label as racist ideas. Was it because they were weak-minded, stupid and not rational? Or was it because ideas about many aspects of human nature evolve over long periods of time? — Joshs

Yes, it was because the tools of rational thought weren't fully developed by then. No scientist or rational thinker today that's worth a damn would be able to reach a racist conclusion without totally abandoned the wisdom that we've acquired from the enlightenment era to today. Only reason it's still going on is because of generations of people keeping conservative biases alive while the reasonable and rational thinkers view these people as mere morons, incapable of actually doing the proper work needed for up-to-date rational thinking.

Basically, you argue against my point by pointing out that we should dismiss the last 150 years of development in science and philosophical thinking because before that people didn't come to the same conclusions. That's a fundamentally flawed way of giving credit to people who either didn't have any modern tools of deduction or simply dismissed any attempt at rational thought during their times. I would argue that thinking heavily through biases and subjective superstitions or invented concepts that don't have any connection to reality outside of the self... is stupid. It doesn't matter which time in history we are speaking about, history up until now has only developed to lessen the influence of idiots and weak-minded people. We still have them, but we have developed tools to lessen their influence on the world and we are still doing it. Would you agree that we still have idiots in the world today? If the amount of them are higher in power the further back in history we get, based on my reasoning here, that only strengthens the idea that the way we've developed rational thinking today and respect its process, has decreased the number of idiots having influence compared to 150+ years ago.

Just because people had some good ideas back then, doesn't mean they had the tools to always arrive at rational conclusions.

The leading minds of the day are those who history and hindsight prove to have been correct, regardless of whether the dominant paradigm (white? Eurocentric? Whatever) debated with them. To assume they did not exist because they were marginalized, or not recorded, or because their works were lost, or have not yet been found, is to assume there was no debate at the time. If that were the case, then the dominant paradigm simply failed to ask the leading minds of the day. Such are the forces of conservativism. — James Riley

:100: :fire:

Our history is recorded in books and oral traditions and art and dance a — James Riley

Let’s talk about art as an example. Do you notice that prior to the Greeks, renderings of humans in sculpture were rigid, without movement and personality? It has been said that what changed was the discovery of individual personhood and this is depicted not just in Classical art but in literature, poetry and philosophy
of that period. Notice that medieval painting did not understand perspective and a unified light source. This emerged with the renaissance , and reflected not just discoveries in art but larger shifts in thinking about the interconnected basis of the natural and human world. Each innovation in the arts expressed new discoveries about the natural and cultural world., and about human potential and commonality. The point I want to make is twofold. First , individuals learn about who they are from their participation in community. Second, each innovation is made possible by , and builds upon previous innovations. This suggests that it is impossible for an individual to be a true genius in the sense of leapfrogging over his era’s level of cultural and scientific understanding. There is instead a certain range of creativity within any era that amounts to variations on a theme. That’s why labels like renaissance , enlightenment, modernism and postmodern are useful, because they are crude ways of pointing to the contours and limits of thought of a given era.
Isnt there at least one aspect of inter human , psychological understanding that you recognize as evolving from era to era, in parallel with advances in science, literature and the arts ? Piaget wrote about child development as proceeding from greater egocentrism to more and more decentered ways of thinking. By egocentrism he didn’t mean selfishness in the moral sense , but a cognitive limitation that represents an earlier phase in the child’s increasingly differentiated understanding of their world. The child begins with rigid, inflexible black and white categories though which they organize meaning , and progressively diversity and integrate these categories. They become more ‘moral’ citizens as their simplistic , one-dimensional interpretations of others become more relational and empathetic. Piaget argued that cultural development can be likened to child development in this way.
You really think that our ability to get along with and understand others is not something that has evolved era to era in the slightest? You don’t believe that any aspect of what allows us to empathize with others who are different from us , and what allows us to avoid being afraid, hostile , threatened by individuals and cultures who are alien to our ways , builds progressively upon and depends on previous eras of enlightenment?

— Joshs

One need not be a true genius to leapfrog over his era's level of cultural and scientific understanding.

One need only be honest with himself.

Any change I might perceive is not relevant to our discussion here.

There are several relative constants. Two that are important for our discussion here are all the emotions, and the open conspiracy. These constants, and not the aberrations from them, are what kept us where we are today: alive. Not better, but alive. Not extinct. Those constants are not always honest or good. And we know that. But we continue to avail ourselves of our nature, regardless. It is the aberration of humble honesty about these understandings which constitutes a leap, if any there be.

Your post rings of the old "nasty, brutish and short" assessment of our former selves, which also hints of an indictment against indigenous people. Analogizing early childhood development to societal evolution is the same thing. More of that white (?) western (?) justification of the myths we tell ourselves about ourselves to make ourselves feel better about ourselves so we can righteously and indignantly belt others in the mouth with impunity when, in a lapse of judgement, that other might make so bold as to be honest with himself and inquire about the same with he who would belt him.

I hate to use the following as an example because it will be extremely easy for you or someone else to misunderstandthe purpose for which it is offered, and then run with a distinction without a relevant difference, but I'll go ahead and trust you: When reading Plato, I am just astounded with his brilliance and the fact that people could even think like that 2,500 years ago. Especially when I look around and see all the knuckle-dragging people we have today. But then I realize, not only have we not changed all that much in the last 200,000 years, but we really aren't any better or more worthy than the man who sat at the mouth of the cave and chipped a spear point from a rock. He could have been an asshole, or a wonderful person, or some combination in between. But we are no better. Indeed, we are no better than the animal he killed with the spear. That animal is what got us here today, and not simply his killing of it. That which the fittest consumes must itself have been fit or the consumption of it would inure to no one's benefit. Humbly honoring and respecting is what constitutes the leap, the evolution, the advancement of man, and it constitutes what is today an aberration. And today's generation won't be the first one to learn that lesson, if it does. I pray that it does.

[A digression I find interesting: Socrates wasn't a writer. Had Plato not written it down, then I could not be astounded. And yet I think there were many who's lives have not been reduced to writing. And the dominant paradigm might not only have killed them, but then taken concerted efforts to erase all memory and burn all books. But the humble honest leap will have been taken none the less.]

:100: Jives with my understanding, well said! Thanks.

Thank you! While I pretend to be a misanthrope, I confess it's nice to be appreciated, especially by someone who's intellect and philosophy I look up to, and who's reading and analytics far surpass my own.

reply="James Riley;568973"]

Your post rings of the old "nasty, brutish and short" assessment of our former selves, which also hints of an indictment against indigenous people. Analogizing early childhood development to societal evolution is the same thing. More of that white (?) western (?) justification of the myths we tell ourselves about ourselves to make ourselves feel better about ourselves so we can righteously and indignantly belt others in the mouth with impunity when, in a lapse of judgement, that other might make so bold as to be honest with himself and inquire about the same with he who would belt him — James Riley

Piaget’s developmental model was heavily indebted to Marx’s dialectic , and of course Marx was indebted to Hegel. In fact the psychologies of Freud , the American Pragmatists (In particular Dewey, James and Meade) and so many others within the psychological community who embrace a Darwinian evolutionary framework, all are thinking in Hegel’s shadow. In addition , liberal theologies that hark back to Kierkegaard also are ‘after Hegel , I haven’t even mentioned the various strands of wokeness , critical race theory and BLM, all of which can be traced back to the changes in political thinking that Hegel made possible.l, and Wittgenstein’s ideas on language. Within analytic philosophy students of Hegel include Putnam, Sellars, Quine, Davidson, Sellars and Rorty. On the far left are the postmodern, post structuralist French philosophers who filter Hegel through Marx and Freud, filter those two through critical neo-marxism(Adorno, Habermas) , and filter critical marxism through Nietzsche.

I’m mentioning this history because of your stated belief that an individual can leapfrog over their era’s worldviews , and that human nature is stable and relatively unchanging:

not only have we not changed all that much in the last 200,000 years, but we really aren't any better or more worthy than the man who sat at the mouth of the cave and chipped a spear point from a rock — James Riley

we continue to avail ourselves of our nature, — James Riley

One need not be a true genius to leapfrog over his era's level of cultural and scientific understanding. — James Riley

Such a perspective, it seems to me , is at odds with all that came after Hegel in psychology and the other social sciences , in biology , in politics and philosophy. All of the above writings necessarily becomes targets of your accusations of “ apologetics for man in furtherance of his open conspiracy to look the other way while pursing a not-so-enlightened self-interest”.

I’m reminded of Andrew Breitbart’s writings. Yes, he was the founder of the alt right publication. I see nothing in your views that indicates you have anything in common with the alt right, except for what you wrote above.
Breitbart recognizes that all of the thinking that I mentioned above can be traced back to, and was made possible by Hegel. So he considers Hegel to represent a crucial dividing line in the cultural wars between left and right. Everything that he considers dangerously relativistic, ungrounded in fixed verities about human nature and morality , he blames on the eras of thought in all the above fields that got their start with Hegelian dialectic.

So it appears that there are at least two strands of thinking that reject Hegelian dialectics and what came in it’s wake. In addition to alt right populism we have MLK styled enlightenment liberalism with its belief in the notion of rational self-interest. The distinction between these two strands has not been lost on intellectuals within the woke community.
They more or less ignore the alt right brigade and heap all their venom on the enlightenment liberals and the ideas that you espouse about the relation between the individual and culture. I think this is because the latter is more threatening to them than Breitbart, being closer in their thinking and also closer geographically.

I certainly could be wrong about where your views stand i realism to the above communities

eply="James Riley;568973"]

Your post rings of the old "nasty, brutish and short" assessment of our former selves, which also hints of an indictment against indigenous people. Analogizing early childhood development to societal evolution is the same thing. More of that white (?) western (?) justification of the myths we tell ourselves about ourselves to make ourselves feel better about ourselves so we can righteously and indignantly belt others in the mouth with impunity when, in a lapse of judgement, that other might make so bold as to be honest with himself and inquire about the same with he who would belt him — James Riley

Piaget’s developmental model was heavily indebted to Marx, and of course Marx was indebted to Hegel. In fact the psychologies of Freud , the American Pragmatists (In particular Dewey, James and Meade) and so many others within the psychological community who embrace a Darwinian evolutionary framework, all are thinking in Hegel’s shadow. In addition , liberal theologies that hark back to Kierkegaard also are ‘after Hegel , I haven’t even mentioned the various strands of wokeness , critical race theory and BLM, all of which can be traced back to the changes in political thinking that Hegel made possible.l, and Wittgenstein’s ideas on language. Within analytic philosophy students of Hegel include Putnam, Sellars, Quine, Davidson, Sellars and Rorty. On the far left are the postmodern, post structuralist French philosophers who filter Hegel through Marx and Freud, filter those two through critical neo-marxism(Adorno, Habermas) , and filter critical marxism through Nietzsche.

I’m mentioning this history because of your stated belief that an individual can leapfrog over their era’s worldviews , and that human nature is stable and relatively unchanging:

not only have we not changed all that much in the last 200,000 years, but we really aren't any better or more worthy than the man who sat at the mouth of the cave and chipped a spear point from a rock — James Riley

we continue to avail ourselves of our nature, — James Riley

One need not be a true genius to leapfrog over his era's level of cultural and scientific understanding. — James Riley

Such a perspective, it seems to me , is at odds with all that came after Hegel in psychology and the other social sciences , in biology , in politics and philosophy. All of the above writings necessarily becomes targets of your accusations of “ apologetics for man in furtherance of his open conspiracy to look the other way while pursing a not-so-enlightened self-interest”.

I’m reminded of Andrew Breitbart’s writings. Yes, he was the founder of the alt right publication. I see nothing in your views that indicates you have anything in common with the alt right, except for what you wrote above.
Breitbart recognizes that all of the thinking that I mentioned above can be traced back to, and was made possible by Hegel. So he considers Hegel to represent a crucial dividing line in the cultural wars between left and right. Everything that he considers dangerously relativistic, ungrounded in fixed verities about human nature and morality , he blames on the eras of thought in all the above fields that got their start with Hegelian dialectic.

So it appears that there are at least two strands of thinking that reject Hegelian dialectics and what came in it’s wake. In addition to alt right populism we have MLK styled enlightenment liberalism with its belief in the notion of rational self-interest. The distinction between these two strands has not been lost on intellectuals within the woke community.
They more or less ignore the alt right brigade and heap all their venom on the enlightenment liberals and the ideas that you exposure about the relation between the individual and culture. I think this is because the latter is more threatening to them than Breitbart, being closer in their thinking and also closer geographically.

I certainly could be wrong about where your views stand in relation to the above communities. Maybe you could mention a philosopher or two born after 1800 whose thinking you believe is consonant with the views you stated above concerning the individual and cultural history , and the fixity of human nature.

Such a perspective, it seems to me , is at odds with all that came after Hegel in psychology and the other social sciences , in biology , in politics and philosophy. — Joshs

I think that may be the case simply because you are unduly impressed by Hegel, et al, and what might have spilled out over the years hence; alt.right, or MLK, or otherwise (if indeed that spore can be read by a simple tracker like me).

I've been struggling with him for many years and the best I come away with has more to do with my understanding of general and special relativity, quantum physics, infinity, eternity and god. He has confirmed my belief that everything and nothing is happening and not happening, everywhere and nowhere, all at once, now, never and forever. But I'm willing to stipulate that you and these other great minds went down a more informative track with him than I did. To that extent, you may very well be over my head. In which case I bow down to you.

However, I stand steadfastly by my belief that for all their and your work, you have yet to come up with anything that constitutes progress beyond the simple truths understood by the man who launched his spear at that bison priscus, who danced naked by the fire light, fucked his woman, told lies to his friends, and pondered the stars at night; not pretending to know but instead just loving them. He would probably belt Breitbart in the mouth before Breitbart could shuck his AR; then he would hand MLK a priscus horn of fermented berries and water, toast with him, laugh, and say he did it for the children.

Breitbart would then return with his minions, slaughter my man (and MLK), erase all the evidence, tell his crew he did it "for the children" and then create some myths about how advanced he is.

Racism is an invented concept by individuals and society in order to cope with the "fear of the unknown", but through biased and fallacy-heavy reasoning aimed it at different looking people. It's the Dunning-Kruger process of intellect that formed it, not intelligence or intellect when used properly. — Christoffer

very eloquently put

Here's Blumenbach, a contemporary of Kant, who came up with the five races but was decidedly anti-racist at the same time :

Moreover, he concluded that Africans were not inferior to the rest of mankind 'concerning healthy faculties of understanding, excellent natural talents and mental capacities',[17] and wrote the following:

Finally, I am of opinion that after all these numerous instances I have brought together of negroes of capacity, it would not be difficult to mention entire well-known provinces of Europe, from out of which you would not easily expect to obtain off-hand such good authors, poets, philosophers, and correspondents of the Paris Academy; and on the other hand, there is no so-called savage nation known under the sun which has so much distinguished itself by such examples of perfectibility and original capacity for scientific culture, and thereby attached itself so closely to the most civilized nations of the earth, as the Negro.[18]

He did not consider his "degenerative hypothesis" as racist and sharply criticized Christoph Meiners, an early practitioner of scientific racialism, as well as Samuel Thomas von Sömmerring, who concluded from autopsies that Africans were an inferior race.[19] Blumenbach wrote three other essays stating non-white peoples were capable of excelling in arts and sciences in reaction against racialists of his time.[20] — Wiki

:up:

Blumenbach makes me think of the concept of "pride," mainly in his distinction between those "of capacity" in any race, and the average joe in that same race.

There is black pride, white pride, etc. But what really is it? I can understand pride in my own accomplishments, or in those of others where I played a hand, but why should I take pride in what other white people do or did? Why should I identify with the Denver Broncos? (I don't, by the way.) I don't live anywhere near Denver and even if I did, I have exactly jack-diddly squat to do with them.

I'm one of the few, the proud, the Marines. And I can understand pride in what I've done to earn that title, but I wasn't at Iwo Jima or wherever. So I can't point to all the Marines who have done this or that and say, "Yeah, that's me!" I once asked a Marine Chaplain about pride being a sin and yet the Marines are all about it. He parsed the hair in some forgotten way. But I raise it again in case somebody wants to school me on the difference.

Modern white conservatives often express pride in our founding fathers. But they were liberals, even radicals, every one. The U.S. has accomplished a lot, but why would some white moron think he had anything to do with it? We beat the Russians to the moon? What do you mean "we" (especially if you don't pay any taxes).

This brings me to the question of push-back. If blacks have been oppressed for so long, but some excel in some area, should other blacks take pride in that? It almost seems understandable in that case. But I don't suppose I should say it's okay here but not there.

Is pride the genesis of the "us vs them" that leads to racism?

I don't understand pride. I'm not saying anything about it, good or bad. I'm looking for insight from others. What good is it? What purpose does it serve? Where did it come from? I have the same concerns about the word "deserve." But that's another thread I reckon.

Well to continue along this tangent.

I think pride in the task itself and in each other, if it was a team effort, is great and normal in moderation. By moderation I mean it should be done graciously without expressing pride at the expense of others, for instance, the enemy or, in sports, the other team. I think there's a tendency to warp pride into it just being about being a member of a group ("USA the greatest", "if you ain't Dutch, you ain't much!"). There's nothing prideful about that. It's not the membership, it's what has been accomplished. And if you had a meaningful role in that, you deserve :wink: to feel proud.

I have more problems with feeling proud about characteristics and have more problem placing them. Is it ok to be proud because you're brave? Seems a bit narcissistic.

Taking pride in someone else work is clearly wrong, it's not your accomplishment.

Admiring someone else's work is fine too, please pay them a compliment. And we should show more admiration for those who naturally had a harder time reaching a goal than others. A rich person getting richer is a statistical likelihood and deserves a yawn, someone bootstrapping himself is an entirely different story.

Showing gratitude for the accomplishments of our forebears is appropriate.

So you can be grateful being American, admire some of your fellow Marines past and present and take pride in your accomplishments - hopefully something that didn't involve killing people.

Showing gratitude for the accomplishments of our forebears is appropriate. — Benkei

Yes. There is, I think, a world of difference between gratitude and pride. If our forebears set the table then it should be: "Thank you for setting table!" And "I had a nice table set when I arrived." Not "We set a nice table for ourselves, didn't we? RAH RAH RAH! YEA US."

I think people would do well to teach grace, humility and gratitude instead of pride. Reserve pride for those who "deserve" it.

Anyway, thanks for bringing gratitude into this as an alternative understanding.

:100:

:fire: :clap:

I think people would do well to teach grace, humility and gratitude instead of pride. Reserve pride for those who "deserve" it. — James Riley

:up:

I don't understand pride. I'm not saying anything about it, good or bad. I'm looking for insight from others. What good is it? What purpose does it serve? Where did it come from? I have the same concerns about the word "deserve." But that's another thread I reckon. — James Riley

People feel like certain groups, be it nations, sportsteams, parties are part of their identity... that's to say there's no stark difference between them feeling pride in accomplishing something themselves or the group they identify with accomplishing something.

Ok maybe you'd follow this up by asking why one would identify with something other then themselves... at some point the answer will just be because we are that kind of beings, social beings. Individualism is a later ideological invention.