This gives us so much reading scope and probably the need for synthesis. I am also open to the discussion of the unknown — Jack Cummins

After I graduated in 1990 I spent 3 years reading and writing every day for 6-8 hours. I was working on something called "The Art of Self-creation" which was an epistemological-cybernetic study of Self, Self and Other, and Self and Society. The culmination of that work was going to be a theoretical-historical analysis of the concept of "the unknown," its place and role in the structure of thought.

I raise the question of how important it is to be right in relation to the whole personal, emotional relationship which we have with the ideas which we have. On the social level, we argue our points of view in argument, often trying to defend a position. Lack of ability to defend a position can involve loss of credibility to formulate an argument, or could point to a weakness in the underlying viewpoint itself. — Jack Cummins

Think about two propositions:

It is wrong to take advantage of someone during negotiations.
It is good business to press the advantage in negotiations.

Being right ultimately boils down to having a fundamental commitment to a position. And in any non-trivial sense, this usually entails the juxtaposition of a whole value-schema on top of a set of facts. However a value-schema, by its very nature, is not susceptible to an absolute determination of right versus wrong.

In my view, being right is critical, in the sense that you commit to all the presuppositions and consequences of an idea.

First Principles by Herbert Spencer
Wingfield's Hope by Dan Needles

I honestly don't know why you are meddling in a matter between me and Raul — Gus Lamarch

I got the impression I was commenting on topic posted on a philosophy forum. I wasn't aware that this matter had privileged, private status (since normally that is what private messages are for). I'll try to keep that in mind when evaluating your posts from now on Gus.

My observation only states that only when touched on such an issue, it can become a problem - when one becomes aware of such an issue -. — Gus Lamarch

If I may, you said, "when you take it as a problem, it becomes a problem.:" Raul wasn't taking it as a problem and neither was I. That leaves only you.

When you take it as a problem, it becomes a problem. — Gus Lamarch

I don't see where Raul says it is a problem. Statistical populations are a basic fact of reality. Sounds perhaps like you are somehow offended by the question? Surveys don't bother me.

Yes. Sadly, at least during his more Romantic moments, J.S. Mill believed in rule by an elite as well. But it wasn't all that uncommon a belief in the 19th century. — Ciceronianus the White

I like the systems structured around the rule by an intellectual class specifically cultured for that role, Plato, Comte. They seem quite reasonable to me.

I am rather wary of you concern to protect the plight of the ruling class — Jack Cummins

I don't get that was specifically said that Jack, although perhaps that is the intent. I do read the wish for a "ruling-class hero" (instead of "working-class hero," get it? :smile: ) to rise to lead us to salvation, as it were.

My guess would be it alludes to the wealthy who tend to benefit from the system of inequality and therefore are in a position to exert a strong influence on the way the world works. Specifically, I think the hope is for a new Donald Trump to arise, who is actually inclined to a generous social policy.

Thomas Carlyle believed that it was the role and duty of the aristocracy to rule for the benefit of the working class. A kind of hero-mythology.

Because I think music speaks to the soul, and I love Funk and Soul music, and it kind of speaks to the topic at hand...

You Make Your Own Heaven And Hell Right Here on Earth
by The Undisputed Truth

Born into this world a baby
You're mind is clear as the air
Time passes
You learn to walk and talk
Time passes
You learn right from wrong
Time passes
You leave home seeking a life
Of your own

I'm tellin' you the natural facts
For way this world
Listen to me people
You make your own heavens and hell
Right here on earth

I'm tellin' you the natural facts
For way this world
You make you own heaven and hell
Right here on earth
On earth, on earth, on earth

Time passess
And your values change
Life becomes a strange, confusing game
Suddenly you want the finer things in life
But you find it takes a lots of hard work and sacrifice
(There ain't no such thing as something for nothing, can you dig it?)
Now you're standing
At the crossroads of life
To satisfy your personal wants
Will you do wrong
Or will you do right?
Well one thing you must admit
And you know it's true
The final decision
Is still up to you

I'm tellin' you the natural facts
For way this world
Listen to me people
You make your own heaven and hell
Right here on earth
Let me tell you one more time
I'm tellin' you the natural facts
For way this world
You make your own heaven and hell
Right here on earth

Listen people
Life is a giant, invisible scale with two sides;
Good and bad
You and your beliefs
Are the weights
The things you do each day
Determine the balance
Your conscience is a flawless
Judge and jury;
The only question is what you want

A belief is something that you actually consciously believe. People aren't guilty for their instincts or fantasies, if they were the entire world would deserve to burn. — BitconnectCarlos

Well, people have - or can have - a degree of control over their habitual behaviours. The terms "instinct," "sub-conscious," "habit," are all constructs and there is not real evidence as to exactly what they correlate. But conscious attention for sure can modify motives and habits which may have only been operating below the level of conscious awareness up until then.

I'd agree, but it's not worth flagellating oneself over an attitude one has on a subconscious level. — BitconnectCarlos

I really think this is where it is most important. Whether philosophically or socially, our unexcavated beliefs can be among the most powerful, and the most dangerous.

What I do believe is that prejudice is a subtle force. It is most obvious in obvious forms of discrimination against minority groups. However, that is the tip of the iceberg, ranging to the much more subtle. Where does 'dislike' end and prejudice begin? — Jack Cummins

Yes, I think it is important to excavate the true depths and nuances of "prejudice." Essentially, even something like the phenomenological reduction can be viewed as a kind of elimination of prejudice. However I think that you rightly focus on the social dimensions, as this is where prejudices do the most damage. Let's see what other ideas emerge.

Interesting. I believe that every human being has particular weaknesses that they are subject to, as well as particular strengths. Very often people may be highly critical of another persons' dependency on alchohol, lets, say, while they may themselves have a corresponding weakness, but perhaps in a socially more acceptable sense, being a workaholic for example.

So I would agree, in general terms, that we all are subject to "prejudices", but I don't think these always are manifested the the specific form of prejudices against types of people, which is the sense in which I assume you are using the term. A prejudice is fundamentally a "pre-judgement."

When it comes to the common usage of prejudice today, I think that those specific types of prejudices are to a very large extent learned-taught behaviours. And I do think that, to the extent that our society becomes enlightened, they can and will be eliminated.

I hope you'll be twice as hard on me! ;)

I'd be good with that!

I’d go one step further and say that the “objective” in “objective knowledge” or “objective reality” or “objective morality” just means that same thing: unbiased, divorced from any particular point of view, consistent with all points of view — which is not the same thing as consistent with all opinions, else it would be impossible for anyone to ever be wrong about objective things. — Pfhorrest

:up:

Objective measurement is only valid within limits. Whether it is the limit of the accuracy of a device or the limit of our current knowledge. And the context within which this discussion is occurring is that of the real-world exchange of ideas. I think my example of the "relative in-tune-ness" of a band in a concert setting is far more a propos than yours of walking around with a spectrum analyzer.....

The Human Place in the Cosmos
by Max Scheler

So if I found myself in a group of Rolling Stones fans, a more 'objective' view of whether Mick Jagger hit the right note would be obtained, not by analysing the recording, but by adjusting my belief thereby gained to be more consistent with that of his fan base, regardless of the spectrum analyser. — Isaac

If you were at a concert, yes. Also, what if he was "objectively" out of tune, but so was the entire band, uniformly? Then he would be objectively in tune. This really illustrates the point.

True. But since that's not what "being objective" typically means, I'm not sure I see the relevance. — Isaac

You think that "being objective" is typically used in the sense of "possessing objective knowledge?" I'd have to strongly disagree. I'd submit that in its usual use and here "being objective" in the sense of "trying to minimize one's personal biases to achieve a more collectively consistent perspective" is a much better description of "objectivity" than "possessing objective knowledge".

Politics does not proceed on the basis of a common morality. — Kenosha Kid

Maybe not, but that is definitely part of the standard under which democracy operates:

Decisions about laws typically involve a combination of validity claims: not only truth claims about the likely consequences of different legal options, but also claims about their moral rightness (or justice), claims about the authenticity of different options in light of the polity's shared values and history, and pragmatic claims about which option is feasible or more efficient.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/habermas/

Why would a lack of objectivity preclude commonality. There's no objective 'best film' but that doesn't prevent people from collectively promoting the one they all agree is such. — Isaac

There is a difference between "an objective truth" and "being objective".

From a strictly theoretical standpoint, if "being objective" means adopting a certain type of perspective oriented towards agreement with others, then a lack of objectivity certainly has to, at the very least, limit the extent to which commonality can be realized.

I think the concept of instrumentality only focuses the question of the interaction between mind and matter. An instrument is an object in which knowledge has been embedded. Conversely, there are discovered or natural instrumentalities. I think that the objective and the subjective both reach towards each other. Things only interact to the extent that they share some commonality.

1 - Would you say this "being-instrument" would be today equivalent to being a technology? — Raul

Marcuse's entire work is about technological society, so technology is definitely instrumental, I'm not sure all instrumentality is necessarily technological, unless you just make that part of the definition. There are natural instrumentalities.

Not true as I understand it. We do not weight our childrens' brain nodes and backtest the weights repeatedly until we get good results. Current approaches to ML aren't anything like how brains work. We don't even know how brains work. This kind of misunderstanding is very prevalent and is a real hindrance to understanding both brains and AI. — fishfry

Yes, and neural network simulations operate at a conceptual level. Simulators that actually emulate the transmission of neuro-chemical waves in the brain have been tried, but they are much less efficient.

I don't think that perspective on the view of mind and matter is unique to Marcuse. It is a whole tradition of thinking, especially the transpersonal tradition of psychology. It is simply that within psychology that this whole perspective has been dismissed by those intent on claiming that psychology is a science, like the other hard sciences. — Jack Cummins

For sure. I just really, really liked the way he puts it. Really gave me the sense of being "the product of mind and matter", versus purely "mind" as I used to conceive myself. Possibly "Material Mind?" I like how some yogic systems have seven "subtle bodies" that gradually intermediate between matter and mind.

I believe he is saying that the nature of matter is determined by the informational content of the relational properties which define it. Hence the objective structures of matter and mind are comparable.

Artificial intelligence is not there yet, agreed, but they are already reaching the level of artificial dumbness. — Olivier5

:lol:

I just wish Alexa could follow what I say and do what I ask more than half the time. Maybe AI is making some time in big labs, but practical, interactive AI is a long way from where I'm sitting now.

I'm talking about the abolition of Philosophy as system, though. I'm talking about it becoming praxis. — thewonder

Everything that human beings do is literally praxis. Philosophers teaching at schools are engaged in philosophical praxis. Are you saying that every philosophical theory should be realized as a specific type of action? Seems to cry out for some more details.

Presumably a philosopher will stay open to new ideas indefinitely, so that any conclusion will, at most, be just temporary. — baker

:up:

Legitimation traditionally consisted of actions aligning with social and ethical norms, hence conformity with accepted religious interpretation and authority. Also, with the notion of static ideals of right and wrong which are likewise aligned with that type of authority. As the inherent authority of christianity declined along with the feudal system, new standards of legitimation evolved, consistent with the emerging humanistic trend. Consensus became an important feature of legitimation.

Well, commitment is the measure of value and the price of reward.

Appreciate that, I was able to find the PDF.

I'm pretty committed to my books. I just bought a used copy of Sydney Hooks' Metaphysics of Pragmatism that cost me $45 with shipping, and it's not a big book. The Popper I bought last year were about $60 each.

↪Pantagruel Andre Leroi-Gourhan's Gesture and Speech. I cannot, cannot, cannot recommended this enough. — StreetlightX

Ah, MIT Press, always a winner.

Doesn't look like it is available to buy, checking the InterLibrary Loan system...

Thanks!!

Jurgen Habermas wrote extensively on the history of legitimation and legitimacy and its status in post-modern capitalist democracy. Worth a read if it is a serious interest.

Much better: we're not fundamentally alone, our selves are made of interactions we have with others - extracted patterns from the social instances we're exposed to. Our self concept forms in adaptation to our developmental environs. We were never "truly" in our own heads to begin with. — fdrake

:up:

? Seems to be right there in the OP. — Isaac

I'd say it is more a fundamental premise which contradicts the reasonableness of some of the other categories.

I think I'm just going to watch and see where this goes with some other comments for now.....

A person whom you think might be right is not a person with whom you disagree and so is outside of the scope of situations this advice applies to. — Isaac

Yes, as others have commented, the OP as formulated has problems. Following Habermas (and discourse theory in general) if you are entering into a genuine dialog, then you must not only be prepared to offer reasons but also be persuaded by them. Which precludes ever making such assumptions as that one is "correct" and the other "incorrect". The OP, as presented, is the end of dialog, not the beginning.

From the introduction to "Facts and Norms"

Yet modernity, now aware of its contingencies, depends all the more on a procedural reason, that is, on a reason that puts itself on trial.

You might not think they are right, but you could be wrong. Hence there is a whole missing category.

What is this other category in which we could place those who disagree with us ethically aside from misinformed, misguided, or wrong? — Isaac

They could be right.