Let me get this right, Thorongil, you, a socialist, ( which is synonymous with communist for all reasonable intents and purposes) are saying that I a ( conservative in the mould of Edmund Burke) who, like Burke himself, was a gentleman who never hurt a fly and who firmly believes in leaving people free to live their own lives in peace without the intervention of oppressive, psychopathic, totalitarian big governmentsis odd, but Robespierre, Lenin, Stalin, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, Castro and Kruschev were not odd, just nice, normal, everyday, run- of -the -mill , Marxist torturers , mass murderers and evil tyrants?

My God- you're right, he does !! :yikes: I ... I simply don't know what to say ?! I've never been confronted with this degree of idiocy before !

And he actually ADMITS this ??!! :gasp:

Would I be correct in presuming that your political sympathies lie towards the "socialist " Left of centre ? If so, I declare that you are a [redacted]

What irks and frustrates me so much about the postmodern left ( or whatever you label you apply to that Confederacy of Dunces, be it neo- Marxist or post - Marxist or whatever) is that it wasthey who were directly responsible for creating the ultra-conservative backlash - the "Alt-Right"spring - that is happening right now in America. It's not rocket science, it's simply what happens when YOU LIE to people about basic human facts; when, for example, you shove absurd madness like "2nd and 3rd wave" gender feminism down the throat of the public, or say that there is no problem at all with the rates of violent black crime across the United States relative to white European crime rates.

Sooner or later people see through the lies of the mass media and the mouthpieces of the liberal political establishment and then it doesn't take much - just a gentle a nudge or two - to get them REALLY pissed off and up[ in arms;THEN you've got trouble - real trouble on your hands ! It's always been the same old story with radical "Enlightenment" egalitarian political theories and ideologies, be the Jacobin reign of Terror during the French Revolution 1783-84 when 40,000 last their heads to Madam Guillotine in the Place de la Concorde, or the death of untold millions of Russian citizens in Stalin's Gulag Archipelago, or in Mao's Red China or Pol Pot's killing fields of Cambodia - these projects to create social/communist "heavens on Earth" always go "pear-shaped" and history shows that they do so relatively rapidly; and, when the S**T does hit the fan on a big scale there is always a dreadful piper to pay in the form of devastation and human suffering along the way and in the clean -up that must take place in the aftermath.

When will people ever learn that ideologies like Unenlightened's "neo-Marxism" ( neo - BU*LSH*T) are simply unworkable - and not just unworkable, but absolutely unnatural, decadent and innatelyevil? These grand egalitarian utopist ideologies always fail, and when they do there is, as we have seen in the UK and the US in 2016/ 2017 always a ferocious, reactionary right-wing backlash after the fall !

Margaret Court was a psychiatrically disordered feminist LESBIAN - a thoroughly bitter and twisted, abnormally hateful and spiteful "victim".

Yes, it's a classic (post)-modern era Marxist's sleight of hand; and if the "night-porter" schtick is true, you can throw in a very healthy dose of the invidia that the decalogue TWICE warns us against; in this case, the kind of bitter class envy - or rather, the kind of vicious class jealously the french call ressentiment that always ends in grief.

I have no clue what a night-porter is, but okay. — Agustino

It intended to depict someone who is "ever so 'umble, M'Lud", in the cunning, slippery, disingenuous way that Dicken's immortal character, Uriah Heep, did in the novel "David Copperfield". (Thoroughly reprehensible).

Are you referring to the biblical God ?

Gender feminism is a TOTALLY different ball of wax to the so-called" first wave" of EQUITY ( or LIBERAL) FEMINISM that eventually enabled people like your mother to work in banks and realised the 19th Amendment in the US in 1920 (though personally I agree with Kant that allowing womens' suffrage was an act of sheer madness). GF is A TOTALLY different beast, so don't conflate the two movements.

Gender feminism is a good example of insane, postmodern utopist, Marxist critical theory run rampant (pcgm) Rarely, in American history has one perverted social/political theory resulted in so much tremendous suffering and despair. Same for the discredited policy of "Affirmative Action" that did a monumental amount of harm to untold millions of individuals in the US alone.

What's the "pcgm" brigade ?

Tom paine was a frothing- at- the- mouth egalitarian communist who died a penniless , alcoholic, in a dirty little hovil in England. Only six people attended his funeral ( and they were probably paid to front by the local Council)...S**T HAPPENS, right? Also, most of the American's who bought and read Paine's "Common Sense, were semi-literate "plebs", and "Common Sense" told them that they weren't semi-literate "plebs" ( that is , it peddled a monstrous LIE) and that is why he managed to sell so many copies of it.

:grin: - Couldn't resist the temptation !! ( wicked, I know).

I suppose that's up to you. If you want to deny rights to others then you have no leg to stand on when others deny rights to you. — charleton

People denying each other's so-called fundamental human sright ? Ha, you must be joking. It happens all the time, 24/7/365 day a year, everywhere on planet Earth there are people, buddy ! - It's an innate attribute of human BEING ( i.e. our human"being" in itself, in its ontological context) It's an intrinsic part of what we call the "human condition". (and the human condition is notorious for not always being a pleasant stroll through a rose garden young man ! (Quite the F**KING opposite , in fact).

To put it bluntly, Charleton, S**T HAPPENS in this life, and the sad fact is that not uncommonly, S**T that happens to precious, little YOU ,is a direct consequence of other human beings nearby NOT respecting the romantic utopist, "cloud cuckoo land" notion of universal, moral equality.

If you cannot provide evidence, why should I, or anyone, believe you? — Maw

OK. Say ,for example, regarding Pinker's Claim #2, I wanted to provide evidence that gender feminism in the US, is, and always was - as a "celebrity" academic like Jordan Peterson observes - sheer madness that has, over the past 50 or so years, bought an unspeakable universe of grief and suffering to bear on countless millions of American individuals and families. There is SO MUCH hard , official, high-quality, objective, empirical ( you name it) evidence of this fact that to be perfectly honest with you, I would scarcely know where to begin in setting it out!

If you think I am THAT stupid, that I would pay one atom of serious attention to the conclusions of any kind of "professional" research studies conducted in any the modern social sciences, esp in the US, let me assure you that I am not.

You say there is a troubling, pervasive "pro-communist" sentiment on American campuses. Do you have any research, statistics, any substantive evidence to offer to support this claim? Across America, are college students really flying the Soviet flag, reading Mao's Little Red Book, and smoking Cuban cigars? — Maw

Like I said, if you even bothered to read my post above, I am English and living in England, so I cannot, therefore, gather any first-hand evidence for myself. I have no option but to trust the claims of certain persons ( American public figures) whom I generally regard to be reputable, responsible and honest individuals. Like I said, if Pinker nd Peterson suggest that the glorification of 20th century Marxist icons is a worrisome issue on US university campuses today, (and in American youth culture more generally), I tend to listen and I tend to take them at their word.

You do not, BTW, see students at universities in this country vandalising their campuses with the noisome sayings of Mao Zedong or the lofting of "Hammer and Sickle" ensigns! I think if you were a youngster caught carrying on like that at a respectable college here in Oxford or Cambridge or London, you would be swiftly apprehended by the local police, then bought before a local magistrate to defend a public order charge the next day.

The fact that he is such an extremely popular public intellectual in the US tends to contract your view of him as "jejune" and "uninteresting", Darth ?

The dachshund photo is cool, and yes I do own a miniature, smooth red Dachshund ( called "Tory" in line with my world-view). :halo: AS for the dead dinosaur, political conservatism, is far from dead, I can assure you, Charleton! You should read some of Edmund Burke's work, he was one of England's greatest political theorists ( that's not merely my opinion BTW, rather that of the entire Western academy to this day) and not a bad philosopher either ! ( had a great influence on Kant's aesthetics, for ex).

I figure you are a young guy Charleton ? So , if I am right ,let me tell you that one can only really appreciate classical conservative political theory when they have gathered a fair bit of wisdom and experience walking around on this funny old planet called Earth - that is why young people so often lack the ability to REALLY connect with a thinker like Edmund Burke. Burke's thought, like that another great old conservative, Cardinal Newman,is is like a fine, old, vintage wine - totally wasted on today's youth ( who might as well be given a glass of "Coca Cola") :lol:

PS: Edmund Burke was not a nasty man - great sense of humour - so you should associate Burkian conservatism with the image of a dachshund who is snarling in a nasty, angry manner ! !

I live in England, so I am unable to see for myself if students on American campuses are, in fact, somehow being "radicalised" into displaying communist symbols from the former USSR or Chinese Cultural Revolution on their campuses. If Pinker says that they are, and that it is a concern, then I tend to believe him, as he has never shown himself to be a fool in any of his previous forays into the public domain in the US/West. In any case, it is a well known fact that many of today's social science and humanities/liberal arts academics are themselves children of a postmodern educational establishment whose teachers and curricula were heavily influenced by the Marxist critical theory of the hard left ( e.g. Marcuse) which was very fashionable on American campuses during the 1960s, 1970s, 80s and 90s.

To cut to the chase. In my own opinion, whoever is responsible - and SOMEONE - IT WOULD SEEM - MUST BE - for the fact that bright, young people in the West are glorifying the kind of Marxist ideology that grounded the Soviet Union under Stalin and the Chinese Cultural Revolution ( not to mention that "charming" little Marxist, Pol Pot, in Cambodia) last century, should be hunted down immediately and then publicly "strung up by the balls" asap. The very idea of American/Western kids literally hoisting the Red Flag at their schools makes me really angry, in precisely the same way that child abuse does.

Pinker is one of those intellectuals who feel it necessary to provide an opinion on everything outside his main area of work, which, as a result, are usually jejune, uninteresting, or just plain wrong. — Maw

Yes, and when he does ( which is not all THAT often) his political position is typically a very measured and moderate - "centre left" -kind of liberal progressivism. This is precisely why I find his recent attack against the liberal-left political orthodoxy/establishment in America today so very interesting

Pinker is not the only public academic to express concern at the magnitude and extent of hard (old school) left pro-communist student sentiment on American campuses. Jordan Peterson, for example, finds it very disturbing as well. It clearly seems, at present, to be a bigger,more worrisome phenomenon than the presence of a small minority of students who are affiliated with hard right , neo-nazi, white nationalist/supremacist type organizations .

(1) The Superiority of Capitalism over Communism/Socialism.
— Dachshund

Where has "the left" "rendered [this] more or less taboo and unmentionable"? — Michael

I don't know exactly, but what I do know is it has ( as Pinker suggests) become fashionable for students at many American universities to hoist Soviet era "Hammer and Sickle" banners on campus and paste or paint up revolutionary slogans from Mao Zedong's "Little Red Book". Why on earth would young people in the West do something as offensive and mindless as this? Where would American college kids get hold of such repulsive and deplorable political ideas , I wonder ?

What do you think?

As per the topic of equality, he did seem to believe that Africans had a lower intelligence, so I don't think he really thought that people were born equal, in a physical sense anyways. Based on my interpretation, he believed all men should be equal under the law and equally free of slavery at birth, and as such should be afforded equal rights, specific to the right of self-defense, property ownership, and the pursuit of happiness. — Sydasis

Hi Sydasis,

It is not so much Thomas Jefferson, I am criticising, but the egalitarian notion that we all hold it to be an" inalienable", and"self -evident" fact that"all men are created equal". IMO, Jefferson probably included this idea in his preamble to the American Declaration of Independence (1776) after befriending and reading the work of Tom Paine, a rabble-rousing, political firebrand and full-blooded English egalitarian socialist, who arrived in the colonies around the mid (I think)- 1770s an went on to play a major, if not critical role, in the helping the Americans to win the Revolutionary war against the British Crown (1775- 83).

I made the point, in a post above, that the phrase "all men are created equal" is an endorsement,( in my view), of the ethical doctrine of moral egalitarianism; that is, it is an affirmation of the ""irrefragable", "unquestionable" fact (?) of the MORAL EQUALITY of all human beings.

But - (pardon me if I am putting it too bluntly) - I smell a rat...


When we proclaim the MORAL EQUALITY of all human beings, what we are actually stating, I say, is a belief that ANY INTEREST of any one man or woman that is comparable in MAGNITUDE and QUALITY to the interest of any other man or woman SHOULD COUNT THE SAME in determining what actions and policies we adopt. BTW, it is very important for me to clarify I what I mean by the term "INTEREST", and what I mean, precisely, is this; one has an INTEREST in something, if attaining the something would be conducive to one's GOOD or WELFARE.

The big problem I have with the claim that "all men are created equal" is that it only makes sense - it is only INTELLIGIBLE - if, as I say, we take to be a MORAL PRESCRIPTION that holds there is at least SOME RESPECT in which no difference OUGHT to be made to the treatment or consideration of ALL MEN and WOMEN (all human beings) REGARDLESS of whatever obvious differences there might be in their qualities or circumstances.

As I said above,if there is some such respect which actually exists and which means we MUST therefore treat the interest of any one man or woman (when it is of comparable MAGNITUDE or QUALITY) to the interest of any other man or woman and regardless of whatever self-evident differences their might be in their qualities ( age, skin colour, height, race/ethnicity, intelligence, gender, occupation, personality traits, etc) or circumstances (e.g. being the current Queen of England or President of the United States or being , say, indigent and homeless with no fixed address), then what is it ??

WOULD SOMEBODY PLEASE TELL ME WHAT IT ( the mysterious RESPECT I refer to above) IS, BECAUSE I HAVE THOUGHT LONG AND HARD ABOUT IT AND I CANNOT SEEM TO FIND ONE - ANYWHERE, EITHER IN MY OWN EXPERIENCE ,OR, IN ANY BOOK OF WISDOM OR SYSTEM OF PHILOSOPHY I HAVE READ OR BEEN TAUGHT !! It is all the more frustrating because of the pressing urgency of this entire matter - there is, I mean, naturally a tremendous amount at stake for humanity in finding -if it exists - a real, concrete, no-nonsense answer this question.

That is why I published the original OP, not so much to indict Jefferson (whom most people know was an arrogant, wealthy capitalist and certainly "no Angel" in terms of his general behaviour), but to challenge EVERYTHING the "Great American Creed" ( "We hold these truths to be self-evident... etc") stands for. Is it all, I am wondering, all just a piece of high falutin', self-righteous, woolley, abstract nonsense ?

What do you think ?

Regards

Dachshund

There is an impressive body of more recent research that strongly suggests:

(1) The "g-factor" represents a true high-order latent phenotype.
(2) The "g-factor" is largely a genetic phenomenon, with a heritability factor of over 0.85.
(3) "g" exists as a real phenomenon in the mind/brain as well as in psychometric tests.
(4) "g" can be understood as a causal differences construct.

If you are interested in any citations from the literature re the above, I can provide them for you.

Regards

Dachshund

Indeed. IQ does not measure intelligence. It measures the ability to do the test. — charleton

That's simply not true as a matter of scientific fact.


Current standardised IQ tests do accurately and reliably measure general intelligence ("g-factor") as I defined it above. Moreover, these measures of IQ have a very high predictive validity. These are hard, incontrovertible facts. IQ tests DO NOT merely measure the ability to do IQ tests. Full Stop.

Regards

Dachshund

This is what we call low-quality posting. — Akanthinos

I do beg your pardon M'Lud !

Makes an "ASS" out of yoU and ME. Right?

Not in Dungeons and Dragons. Wisdom is intuition, you can roll a wisdom check to assess someone's emotional state from body language, sensing motives is a wisdom based skill, medical knowledge is wisdom based, perception is wisdom based, capacity to learn a standard profession is wisdom based... — fdrake

The meaning of the term widom is rather ambiguous today - it is used describe a number of different human attributes. In Victorian times it was synonymous with the word "prudence", and this is the sense that I am using it in my post. Prudence today connotes "caution", but in the 19th century, as I say, it referred to wisdom in the context of good common sense, it comes from the latin "prudentia, which is a contraction of "providentia", ( meaning to see ahead, sagacity). Thus, in the 19th century, a prudent or "wise" man was said to be one who made timely preparations for the contingencies of the future and any long-term goals he desired to achieve in the years ahead; for instance, a wise man was one who put aside a little money from his wages each month to invest for his retirement in old age, or save some money each week in order to be able to send his children to good schools in the future, today a wise man is one who gives up smoking tobacco / drinking excessive quantities of alcohol in light of it deleterious effects we are told by the medical profession that these substances will likely have on our health and well-being in the future etc.

You say "wisdom is intuition"... "sensing motives", etc; I think you are referring here to what is known in the vernacular as nous (the ancient greek word for (conscious) "mind" or "street smarts"; again, these are different intellectual qualities to what I would call "wisdom".

Medical knowledge in the West is fact - based; i.e. based on the growing body of hard facts/objective evidence established by the ongoing process of empirical medical/scientific research. To be a wise doctor takes EXPERIENCE (many years of it!) using these facts and learning from the outcomes of their application in the past, because medicine is not a precise, exact science like physics.

Regards

Dachshund

Would I be correct in assuming that you are a "libtard" ? :lol:

Dear Francis,,

I'm sorry, my friend, but what you are saying is simply false. Modern standardised IQ tests reliably and accurately measure what psychometricians refer to as "g-factor" - the "general (fluid) intelligence factor"; and G-factor, BTW is not an abstract or man-manufactured (factitious) social construct, it is a REAL, "biological" phenomenon thatexists in the real natural world. "G-factor" is closely related to the notion of "executive functioning" in neuropsychology, and executive functioning is a meta-construct that describes the unified operation of a number higher cognitive, rational mental processes, such as those that are involved in tasks like problem-solving, analysis/synthesis deliberation and judgement, etc. Healthy, normal (unimpaired) EF is also the means by which adults acquire the capacity for competent self-regulation/control, and the exercise of prudential wisdom in securing their desired long-term, future goals. The executive functions are localised anatomically in the human brain's prefrontal cortex, a region of the neo-cortex that does not reach full maturity until around the age of 25 years.

I do agree with you that there does not appear to be any kind of robust correlation between affective mental processes like "compassion", and general intelligence - at least not in the mainstream scientific research literature. Though personally, I do think, there may well be a direct -ish relationship of some kind between emotional states like empathy/compassion and cognitive measures like the "g-factor," though this particular field of scientific research is extraordinary complex and it may take many years before neuroscientists are able to shed any further light on the issue.

Regards

Dachshund

I said, " I take it (i.e. I assume) that you voted for "Crooked Hillary, the crazy feminist ? (Question mark). That is, I asked you whether or not this was true. I did not conclude anything. :wink:

I take it you voted for "crooked Hillary", the crazy feminist, Sapientia ? Now that's what I call retarded ! (or was it "Red Bernie", the dotty old clown who still doesn't realise why the Berlin Wall was pulled down in 1989)

Either way, it provides a good case for why, IMO, Americans should have to pass a mandatory general mental competence test before they are granted the right to vote.

Regards


Dachshund

That's right, Mr Clark. There's no doubt that Donald Trump, for example, is a very "clever cookie" - the best President the US has, IMO, ever had ! What did you think of his speech today to the CPAC?! :razz: U-S-A !! U-S-A !! :up:

Regards

Dachshund

You aren't alone MP, Immanual Kant - the greatest of the Enlightenment era's philosophers - firmly believed that women should never be allowed to vote; basically because - (and there's no way to put this diplomatically, I'm afraid) - he felt that they were just too stupid (irrational) ! :wink: Actually quite a few great philosophers would have run foul of the "Mod Squad" and been banned from this forum for sexism if it had have been operating in their time, like Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Kant, Aristotle ... (?!) :gasp:

In the end I think the concept of God is about the search for larger meaning and purpose both in individual lives and in the larger world and universe. For some, I suppose, we live, we die, we set our own values and goals and that is all there is and that is enough. Many, however, hope to find larger mea; and this is the decisive moment of the searching and purpose in both their own lives and in the world at large. The notion that the universe is in the final analysis accidental and purposeless just does not satisfy the longing that humans have for larger purpose and meaning and flies in the face of our perception of the world as imbued with beauty, form, striving and creative advance. — prothero

Dear Prothero,


Yes, well put, and I agree. As Aristotle famously observed, "human beings desire to know". Not only this, but they are the only creatures who know that they know.

What do humans desire to know? The answer must be that they desire to know the truth; that truth is the proper object of knowledge. As Saint Augustine teaches us:"I have met many men who wanted to deceive, but none who wished to be deceived".

The truth, I think, initially comes to human beings - it initially approaches us - as a question: "What is the meaning of life?"," Why do I exist?", "Is there a life after death?" At first sight human existence may seem completely meaningless. We do not need Albert Camus or other philosophers of the absurd to doubt that human life has meaning. The daily experience of suffering - in one's own life, and that of others, and the myriad facts we are aware of that seem utterly inexplicable to reason are enough to ensure that a question as dramatic as the question of meaning cannot be evaded. Moreover, the first absolutely certain truth of life, beyond the fact that we exist, is the inevitability of our death. Given this unsettling fact, I think that the search for a full answer is inescapable. Do you agree ? Am I right, that is, in assuming that you experience both the desire and the duty to know the truth of your own destiny? You desire to know if death will be the definitive end of your life, or, if there is something beyond - if it is possible to hope for an after-life or not ? You feel obligated - "duty-bound" - to know this . Right?

It seems to me that no one can avoid this questioning neither the philosopher nor you nor I nor any other human being. The answer we give is critical, for it will determine whether or not it is possible to attain universal and absolute truth;this is the most decisive moment of the search. Every truth - if it really is a truth - presents itself as universal, even if it is not the whole truth. If something is true, then it must be true for all people and at all times. Beyond this universality, however, do you agree that people (human beings) are driven to seek an absolute truth, one which might give a meaning and a final, complete answer to all of their searching - something conclusive and ultimate which might serve as the ground of all things. Or, to put it another way, would you agree that we all seek a final explanation, a supreme value, which refers to nothing beyond itself and puts an end to all questioning. As you suggest in your post, - and I agree -, hypotheses may fascinate, but they do not satisfy; and I think that whether we admit it or not, there comes for us all a time - a moment - when personal existence must be anchored to to a truth recognized as final, an ultimate, absolute truth which confers a certitude that is no longer open to doubt. (On a personal note, I find I am increasingly inclined to believe that his final, absolute truth is the divine,supernatural, transcendent and eternal being those who are Christians call "God" - "God the Father Almighty").

Throughout the centuries philosophers have sought to discover and articulate such a truth, giving rise to countless systems and schools of thought. And beyond these systems of thought people have always sought to shape a "philosophy" of their own, - in personal convictions and experiences, in the traditions of family and culture, or in journeys in search of life's meaning under the guidance of a master. What inspires all of these is the desire to reach the certitude of the truth and the certitude of its absolute value.

My point is this...

It is unthinkable , is it not, that a search so deeply rooted in human nature would be completely vain and useless? The very capacity to search for truth and to pose questions itself implies the rudiments of a response. Surely, human beings would not even begin to search for something of which they knew nothing or something which they thought was wholly beyond them. Surely, It is only the sense that we can find an answer that leads us to take the first step? The same must be true of the search for truth when it comes to ultimate questions - namely, those big, radical questions we ask about the meaning of life and death.

The thirst for truth is so deeply rooted in the human heart that to be obliged to ignore it would cast our very existence into jeopardy. Everyday life shows well enough how we are each preoccupied by the pressure of a few fundamental questions and in the soul of each of us there is at least an outline of of the answers. One reason why the truth of these answers convinces is that they are no different in substance from the answers to which many others have come. Naturally, not every truth to which we come has the same value, but the sum of the results achieved confirms that in principle human beings can arrive at the truth. Right ?

So it seems to me, that sooner or later we all - each of us in our own different ways - arrive at a point in our lives where we must make a choice. We will be called to choose between either "God" (absolute, ultimate, final truth) or Nothingness ( living a life stripped of any authentic meaning or value, an existence that is merely a ridiculous, absurd prelude to the oblivion of eternal death)". However much we may TRY to deny it,TRY to lie to ourselves about it, TRY to dismiss it, TRY to delude ourselves that it is not the case, the hour of decision will come. (And) when it does, we must either confirm with all sincerity in our hearts and minds the existence of one, ultimate, absolute truth - the one truth that has the power to end all of our questionings - and then strive to know that truth,or, opt to live an existence of desperate lies, delusions and evasions in order to distract ourselves from the inevitability of a death where we have resigned ourselves to the grim conviction that death is death.

When you suggest that:

"For some, I suppose, we live, we die, we set our own values and goals, and that is all there is and that is enough".

I don't think for such persons that this is ever "enough". Rather, I think they always sense that there is, within their DIY world-view, something deeply unsound and unsatisfactory. Something consequently, that never really permits them any genuine peace of mind (?) They are the typically the ones who exhort us to "lighten up" and never to take the meaning of life too seriously. Sit back, they tell us and to enjoy the brief "ride" that is human life for what it is, - a mere stream of fleeting, ephemeral sensations. Learn how to laugh, they say, at the preposterous caper that is the human condition - though such laughter, whenever I hear it, always seems to me, unmistakably, a gallows humour.

What do you think?

Regards


Dachshund

There is a hierarchy, hierarchies cannot be eliminated, and that hierarchy is based on competency.
— Agustino

Circular and laughably naive, no wonder you readily subscribe to Peterson's vapid "self-help" philosophy. — Maw

Dear Mr Maw,

For the past 6000 years of human history the societies of every successful civilization have been structured as pyramidal, patriarchal hierarchies of dominance - oi polloi have always occupied the broad base level of the structure, while the most intelligent and competent members of the polis have always naturally ascended to occupy the highest "executive" levels of the hierarchy as the rulers and leading authorities, etc. of their empires'/civilizations' affairs.

Why do you find this "laughable", and what exactly do you mean by saying that Augustino is being "circular" and "naive" in stating the scientific fact that human and animal societies have - for millions of years in the case of certain animal species - organized themselves socially in the form of patriarchal hierarchies of dominance, competence and authority?

Please explain.

Regards


Dachshund

Dear Phil (and Mr Crank, Mr ClarK),

Here is rest of my rebuttal of Jefferson's claim that "all men are created equal".

(A) The notion of moral equality interpreted as equal treatment for equal interests

Because "all men are created equal" they are equally endowed, with certain inalienable rights, such as the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness , and now those additional human rights that are set out in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948).

The claim that all human beings have an equal basic moral status also means that any interest of one man/woman that is comparable in magnitude and quality to the interest of any other man/woman should count the same in determining what actions and policies we should adopt. (I must clarify what I mean by the term "interest" as it is used in this context. I mean that one has an interest in something if attaining the something would be conducive to one's good or welfare). I think it is fair to say that an individual who is a creative genius has richer and more complex interests than those of an ordinary average Joe. If I interpret the principle of moral equally as equal treatment for equal interests, then human beings with fancier interests should get fancier treatment. If one is sympathetic (which I am) to a theory of value according to which the very highest intellectual accomplishments greatly outweigh any lesser satisfactions in contributing to the goodness of someone's life, then the interests of some person will have relatively little weight, compared to the interests of other persons, in determining what should be done.

In sum, human cognitive ability varies ( according to the "Bell Curve" principle), I discussed in my previous post) and I believe that the higher the level of cognitive ability (g- factor, general intelligence intelligence, capacity for rational thinking, ability to reason) an individual possesses the greater/more enhanced is the the moral status of this individual, and consequently the satisfaction of his/her interests counts for more than the satisfaction of the interests of individuals with lessor cognitive ability that are the same in quality and quantity.

Having said this I now need to demonstrate the veracity of the ( cognitive ability/intelligence ) theory of value I am using. I will do this in a separate post.

Regards

Dachshund

I do hold the position that all people are of equal moral worth (a la Kant). I would love to hear why you believe the contrary. — Phil

Dear Phil,

Just to recap. We are debating the veracity of Thomas Jefferson's claim that it is a "self-evident truth...all men are created equal".

Firstly, equality is a multidimensional concept, and I should like to make it clear that I believe Jefferson is referring to moral equality in his preamble to the Declaration of Independence.This is because his claim that "all men are created equal is only intelligible as a prescription, namely, a moral prescription that holds there is some respect, at least, in which no difference ought to be made in the treatment or consideration of all men, whatever differences there might be in their qualities or circumstances..

I(A) I have to tell you that I am unable to identify any such respect/s. If you are able to identify any such particular respect/s that serve to verify Jefferson's claim, could you please please tell me what, precisely, they are ?

(B) You are, like Jefferson, asserting , (I take it) ,that the claim of absolute moral equality in the statement "all men are created equal" cannot be rebutted by pointing to any obvious (self-evident) hierarchical variation/s in quality or quantity that exist in any natural human characteristics such, for instance, as, say : height; race/ethnicity; sexual orientation; "Big Five" (OCEAN) personality traits, talent in some particular field /s ( e.g. musical talent) or skill/s (e.g. mathematical or literary skill), that might potentially justify the provision of any kind of differential treatment or consideration of any man with respect to the essential intrinsic worth/ value/ dignity he or she possesses just in the fact of his/her existing as a human being (i.e. just by being a living member of the species homo sapiens).

I disagree.

You mention Kant, so I'll use his ethical theory as an example, to explain why I think your position is indefensible.

Kantian morality holds that all rational agents must always be treated not merely as means, but as ends in themselves. According to Kant, possession of the capacity for rational agency confers an equal fundamental status on all persons as opposed to all other creatures who lack rational agency. Right ? But there is a problem here, let me explain. The problem derives from the fact that rational agency is a result of rational cognitive processes.

The higher cognitive processes that are associated with human reasoning in mental events like "ratiocination", i.e.reasoned logical, rational deliberation are classified in neuropsychology under the broad rubric of what is called "executive functioning" and the executive functions are anatomically localized in a part of the human brain called the prefrontal cortex.

To cut to the chase, "executive functioning" is a technical term that pretty much refers to the operation of general (fluid) intelligence. (And) the amount of general intelligence that an individual possesses can be measured ( quantified) by psychological tests like standardised IQ tests that have the capacity to reliably and accurately calculate the magnitude of a person's so-called "g-factor" (general intelligence factor). "G-factor", BTW, is a real construct that exists as phenomenon in the natural world. That is, Itdoes exist as a real, (actual) entity in the human mind/ mental domain, and , as I say, it can be accurately and reliably measured. We know these things about the g-factor for sure; they are concrete, cold, incontrovertible scientific" facts- in -the- bag". We also know , for a fact ,that general intelligence ( the g-factor) in human beings varies (in a graduated ,hierarchical) manner from very low to low to average/normal to high to very high according to what is called in statistics a Gaussian or "Bell Curve" type distribution.

Now that we know this, lets return to unpack the problem I identified with Kant.'s moral theory in more detail. The problem, in short, is this: if the human capacity for rational agency is a capacity that varies continuously in magnitude - and as I have just confirmed above IT CERTAINLY IS and IT CERTAINLY DOES, how exactly is it, I wonder, that one will ever be able to pick out some threshold level of the capacity such that variations in rational agency capability above the threshold do not generate corresponding differences ( i.e. INEQUALITIES ) in fundamental moral status?

Do you have any suggestions, Phil ? If so, I'm all ears !

Anyway, I'll leave it at that for now. Tomorrow I'll continue my rebuttal of Jefferson's moral egalitarianism in the claim he makes that "all men are created equal "by extending the scope of my argument to incorporate an overview of the Kantian "categorical imperative" and how I believe its basic tenets can be used to provide further robust support for my case.


Regards


Dachshund