I've always considered Guiliani to be a typical Republican bullshitter. I used to think the Left was different - at least slightly more truthful and compassionate, etc. - but not so much anymore. Trump has turned us into a bunch of freaking loons. We now (e.g.) enthusiastically support global free trade after his proposed tariffs, we take a bellicose nationalistic stance towards Russia, we ridicule the lower and middle classes, we place our trust in the FBI without any reservations, etc.

This is redolent of the "post truth" debate that raged here some time ago; assuming that Guiliani did in fact say or imply the two (fact and opinion) are indistinguishable.

People misrepresent facts, omit them etc. all the time in their endeavor to skew others' opinions in ways they find to be favorable to their - or their group's - agenda and interests, especially politicians. Trump and his cohorts have no special monopoly on this tactic, although I'd concede that he (they) seems much less interested in concealing this 'fact' than his more polished competitors.

Ultimately that's what it came down to last time around if I recall correctly: consensus was reached that politicians of all eras and political parties lie, but those who predated Trump at least had the decency to acknowledge such a thing as truth (facts) even as they distorted it. Trump and Guiliani, on the other hand, will not concede that fundamental distinction.

I'm no fan of Trump or Guiliani but I find it hard to believe he shrugged off the difference between fact and opinion. I'd like to find out the particulars of the case before commenting.

I respect Posty's feelings on the topic but I also love the vulgar jokes in the shoutbox. I admire those who can engage in "deep" philosophical conversation/debate one minute and then turn around with some locker room humor in the next. I like those sorts of contrasts.

:up:

You articulated its importance and attraction much better than I did.

This post got me pretty curious. Why Twilight of the Idols over other works from that period? I'd love to hear the rationale, because I think it tends to get interpreted unfairly as a 'minor' work. — Ilyosha

I think there's some sentimental attachment as this was the first work of Nietzsche's that I read, and it's the one I return to most. Beyond that superficial reason I think it presents a nice broad overview of the major themes of his philosophy. It also contains a few of my favorite aphorisms (e.g. #1 in 'Reason' in Philosophy, #8 in The Four Great Errors and #5 in What the Germans Lack). So yeah, I know it's not typically interpreted by the experts as being one of his better or more important works, but it's the one that's stuck with me most.

Also interested in the rationale for Philosophy of Right since all the Hegel people seem to obsess over the Phenomenology and Logic. — It's cool

Well, I can't comment on Hegel's Logic because I haven't read it, and large parts of the Phenomenology remain incomprehensible to me. But just when I was about to give up on him, I heard someone mention Philosophy of Right as being surprisingly accessible and full of valuable insights. I gave it a shot and found that to be true. Furthermore, as anyone who's engaged me here would probably attest, my style of thinking is very "Hegelian" - seeing the partial truth of competing sides and then endeavoring to lift them up into some larger, reconciled whole. I guess 'sublation' would be the technical term. Whatever the case, I was influenced just as much by the style of Hegel's work as its substance and, as with Nietzsche, he's left a lasting influence on the way I think about a few things; in this case the family, civil society, the state, etc.

Have you read it? If so, what's your take? There are some parts where I was a bit surprised by how traditionally conservative Hegel comes across as, but there are also areas where's he's pretty radical in outlook. That's actually another attraction I find in the likes of Hegel, Nietzsche, and especially Heidegger: they're hard (if not impossible) to place within traditional categories. They seem to think through and beyond rigid alternatives - be they political, philosophical, or whatever - that most of us remain trapped in.

Incidentally, since this list was posted almost a year ago, I may change my list to include one or two really, really good books that I've read within the last year as my focus has shifted towards U.S. history and political philosophy:

Crisis of the House Divided by Harry Jaffa and Democracy in America by Alexis De Tocqueville.

Not sure what I'd remove though...

Thanks Posty, I'll take a look...

Assuming I understand Heidegger - a very large assumption - I read him as focusing finally on the word "is." To be a something (not a nothing) is to be a being. The beingness of a being - the in-order-for-a-being-to-be - is grounded in the cognition of a being. That is, no thing is absent being the cognition of a being, the cognition being the ground/cause of the being. — tim wood

I think using the term "cognition" here may be misleading, since it implies the very sort of Cartesianism which Heidegger so strongly rejected. In Heidegger's analysis, the cognition of a being is grounded in, and derivative of, a pre-theoretical disclosure of the world (of beings in Being) and not the other way around. To break out of the deeply entrenched subject-object dichotomy, in favor of a radically new and non-dualistic conception of human existence, was the sine qua non of Heidegger's thinking from beginning to end.

Apologies if I misunderstood your position, tim. You're far more knowledgeable about these philosophical matters than I. It also seems like it's been about 20 since I read that particular work of Heidegger's, but the one thing I do recall of it, however vaguely, is something that @Posty McPostface may find congenial to his own Wittgensteinian background and influence: rational explanations eventually come to an end and we have to learn to appreciate the simple but extraordinary fact (in Heidegger's estimation) that beings are, and that we are in their midst. I think both Witty and Heiddy share that sense of finding the extraordinary in the seemingly ordinary, and by focusing on mundane everyday objects and practices in ways that challenge dominant guiding pressuppostions, they invite us to share in that experience.

I believe he concludes the work by quoting Novalis or some other poet - "the rose is without why, it blooms because it blooms," or something like that. So the principle of sufficient reason has its obvious uses and justification, but, if taken to an extreme, it ultimately cuts us off from the source of wonder and the ground of our own existence that is Being - which, once again, is without "why?".

It's also been a very long time since I read Popper's work but I vaguely recall some of his criticisms of Plato, Hegel and Marx being compelling. I actually read The Open Society and its Enemies before I read any Hegel, so I should probably revisit that work and see how fair (or unfair) Popper was towards him. There's an obvious danger in subsuming all individual actions and historical events within some larger, suprapersonal unfolding of things which posits a definite goal, an end of history. Those who fancy themselves privy to this hidden meaning and direction of the process will not hesitate to sacrifice anyone or anything for the sake of achieving that end, and they will do so in good conscience.

So yeah, Popper's criticisms of Hegel et al may be worth considering, too. Popper lived through the horrors of Nazism and communism, so I'm sure that affected his views on (e.g.) Plato's anti-democratic philosophical elitism, in which the masses are to a large extent dehumanized, and also the historical determinism of Hegel and Marx, which again seems to have led to a devaluing of the significance of the lives of actual human beings, etc.

I'm by no means as philosophically adept as most posters on this forum, yet I found both Philosophy of History and Philosophy of Right to be fairly easy to comprehend and filled with interesting insights. Can't say the same for Phenomenology of Spirit, though, which is apparently a much more important work and has been sitting on my shelf about half-read for a few years now. I had to give up for lack of comprehension but may give it another go fairly soon.

My quick opinion is that he's similar to Heidegger in that it takes a good deal of time and effort to become acclimated to the conceptual framework he lays out - most people seem to dismiss his work as nonsense before ever getting to that point - but once you have that down you see that he's not being purposely obscure in order to conceal a complete lack of substance, which, if I recall correctly, was the charge leveled at him by Schopenhauer.

Going off recollection, some interesting things in Hegel include: his notion that history is not a tale told by an idiot but has a certain rational trajectory and a final goal (appearances to the contrary notwithstanding - the "cunning of history"); his attempt to outline the development of (self)consciousness and freedom through successive stages of human development; the role that Christianity played in influencing later movements like the Renaissance and the Reformation, and ultimately its secularization through the Enlightenment; his important analysis of the master-slave dialectic within the "state of nature"; his subtle take on the relationship between the individual and the State, which was far much more advanced (imo of course) than anything posited by previous contract theorists who started from highly questionable notions of autonomous individuality; his idea that just because something has a history - maybe even in origins which it has since transcended - does not mean its current significance is diminished in the least (thus finding a way of reconciling the conflicting claims of relativism, historicism, absolutism, etc.); his very thisworldy "spirituality" in which former antagonisms (e.g. spirit and matter) are once again reconciled; etc.

People may not agree with him on any of these things - and I may have even unwittingly misrepresented some of them - but at the very least they're worthy of consideration. And there's also the important role he played in influencing later thinkers as diverse as Marx, Heidegger, MLK, Francis Fukuyama, etc.

I agree with your take personally but another mod saw fit to delete the discussion, presumably because it had deteriorated due to the level of polarization there. Waiting for an explanation to give you all. — Baden

Sounds good. That was a tough call for you guys and I can see the rationale behind either decision.

My take is that moderation in that regards is pertinent. I was just posting yesterday in a thread about the philosophy of 'farts', so go figure. — Posty McPostface

Dude, I was reading that "farts" thread more thoroughly than I do most others around here, at least up until mention was made of lighting a match with a fart. :lol:

Great contributions to the topic there, though, Posty!

:up:

I respect the decision too. This case may be one of those rare scenarios in which a topic that should have been deleted right from the start, at least according to forum guidelines, actually turns into an interesting discussion. What to do in those strange cases? Tough call but like I said I can see and appreciate why it was removed. I'm a believer in the importance of laying out rules and then applying them impartially.

Many posters did take it seriously though.

I would have liked for the mods to have made an exception to the rules in this case and allowed the topic to keep going, despite the questionable assumptions underlying it and the even more questionable solution brought forth.

Somewhat akin to the impractical if not impossible utopian scheme laid out in Plato's Republic, which, more than anything else, serves as the occasion to think through important topics like justice, the nature of various political regimes, the aim of a genuine philosophical education, etc.

Oh well. I'm still not convinced that Jake was being entirely serious, but I have to admit he sold it well and put some real effort into his views, however naive (imo), as did others who contributed.

I really, really think Jake is really, really serious. Maybe I'm wrong. Hey, Jake, can you set things straight. — T Clark

Yeah if I recall correctly he said he's being serious, but that doesn't necessarily mean he's telling the truth. I've seen people engage in these sort of "gotcha" tactics before, promulgating ideas they don't believe in one bit in order to expose blatant double standards of their perceived opponents, but maybe his case is different and I shouldn't dismiss it so cynically.

Is the discussion really meant to be taken seriously? I assumed with Baden (I believe) that Jake was being playful, and I was a little surprised others engaged him in good faith.

I know Jake has denied the charge, but I still can't help thinking he's attempting to (e.g.) expose the hypocrisy of those who would deny essential differences between the sexes on the one hand - especially biological differences - and then offer their support for a proposal like his, i.e. one which is grounded in those very assumptions they'd previously rejected.

Or maybe he's attempting to see, in a playful way, how far he can go and still be taken seriously among those of us interested in philosophy, regardless of how impractical or horrific the idea hes proposing is when followed to its end. Or maybe his goal is to expose obvious double standards at work concerning what's acceptable to post (and what's not) on internet message forums like TPF, which is something you rightly identified. Or maybe a combination of all the above and even more that I can't think of right now.

My apologies to Jake if he is being completely serious. I could very well just be too shortsighted and narrow-minded to see how realistic and desirable the possibility is.

Second article was pretty uncharitable imo, full of hubris and caricatures and straw men, which is not quite what I'd expect from a writer who clearly fancies himself to be morally and intellectually superior to his ideological opponents.

I know this will sound like a platitude, but equally decent, intelligent, and well-intentioned people can have honest disagreements over guiding values, over the "common good," over the role government should be allowed to play in peoples' lives, over which economic policy is more conducive to meeting peoples' needs, over which needs should be prioritized, over whether a more centralized or decentralized system of governance is preferable, over how to balance individual rights with the community's needs, etc., etc., etc.

There are obviously some positions (e.g. proponents of slavery or genocide) that don't deserve a hearing, that no decent human being defends these days, but however much we may disagree with them I think it's hyperbole to place basic conservative ideas and values within that category, and this seems to have been the author's intent. Like if you hold those views you're not only wrong, you're evil. There's an oddly religious quality to this sort of thinking, going so far as to incorporate the "history is on our side" narrative which I erroneously assumed was suspect among progressives, at least of the postmodernist sort which he seemed to identify with in certain passages.

Be that as it may, I continue to be an economic progressive who largely agrees with his basic assessment of Republican greed, militarism, environmental indifference, etc. through the years, but I would also acknowledge that this is not the only conservative position imaginable, and that most people - on both sides of the political aisle - are more complex than self-righteous political propagandists (again on both sides) portray them to be within their narrow and dogmatic Manichean worldview.

And there you go, now I've just hypocritically reduced this group of political agitators to caricature, and I'm almost certain that most, if not all of them, would neither agree with nor appreciate it. What they typically do - create simplistic narratives - does seem to be a more effective strategy than one involving, say, the humanization of people who think differently, or seeking to understand why others think and feel the way they do, etc. So I can see why they do it, but that doesn't make it right.

Maybe I'll give it another read though lest it turns out that I'm the one who's being uncharitable. I would finally add that I hate it when conservatives engage in absurd caricatures and ridiculous distortions of progressives and their positions, too, and would prefer that they sincerely address the many strengths and achievements of the modern progressive movement(s).

An individual's social status and economic condition seem inextricable linked in this country, which makes the either/or scenario a bit odd. But I'll read the articles...

I never quite understood the interpretation of Heraclitus as the "weeping philosopher."

For example, he praised war as the "father and king of all," he accused the poet who desired an end to all conflict of being a fool, he maintained that (according to God) all things are good and just despite the fact that human beings interpret some things as just and others as unjust, etc.

He was clearly a cynic and a misanthrope, no doubt about that, but it's hard to reconcile thoughts like the above - inspirations for Nietzsche's later unconditional affirmation of existence - with the notion that he lamented the nature of things.

Going off memory and paraphrase here (and maybe even a questionable translation) since I lent his book of fragments out to a friend some time ago and am too lazy to look online for specific quotes.

But carry on...

Pity. As cynical rants go, it was a good one. :up: — Baden

Thanks, Baden. It was definitely cathartic!

Deleted overly cynical rant.

Yeah I was impressed with @csalisbury's last post as well. He clearly got the angle I was coming from: I'm not against trying to understand the causes of diminished social capital in the hopes of finding possible ways of increasing it - quite the opposite in fact - but IMO the means of getting there are not served by this sort of terminology. I think I would actually prefer to use a different term to describe the phenomena under investigation, maybe even using largely outdated ideas like "civic virtue" or "public spiritedness" or some such.

It's not like this one concept is an anomaly working in isolation - as a technical term used by experts who make their living studying issues like this within universities - within an otherwise poetic or at least less monetized public discourse. No, uses like this pervade everyday language and frame the way we perceive and respond to the world around us, setting up a system of values in which beings are reduced to a collection of exploitable resources to be studied, measured, manipulated, managed, etc. Human beings included.

When language is understood along these lines - e.g. as the "house of being" or as expressing a particular "form of life" - then simple shifts in language represent concomitant shifts in the way we understand ourselves and our world. Heidegger was apparently horrified, for instance, when young students around campus began talking about the "Uni" rather than the University. Seems like an absurd overreaction, but what we see as completely benign and/or more efficient/technical uses of language, he saw as intimating a new and more impoverished disclosure of our world.

To bring this full circle, if this world of advanced technology, global capitalism, managerial elites, research universities, etc. has led to a cumulative loss of social capital - and I think a compelling case can be made that it has - then nothing short of an equally radical transformation in the way we understand ourselves and our world can reverse that trend. That hypothetical shift would involve a corresponding shift in language. A sort of word mysticism, I suppose.

Good topic, though, @Bitter Crank. It's a ridiculously complex issue with so many contributing factors, but in many ways it's the one I find most worthy of study and reflection. My apologies if I offended you or anyone else here. Just wanted to take the clever response of @unenlightened and run with it. I've been impressed with the responses so far and feel like I've learned a few things from the contributors that I'll appropriate for my own ends.

My understanding of the term is that a volunteer fire service counts as social capital, whereas a paid fire service does not. This seems like an arbitrary moral distinction that makes paid work necessarily more 'selfish', and less 'social'. A society that institutes social care as an integral part of the economy has less social capital than one that relies on volunteers; a government funded and organised universal health system has less social capital than a pay as you go system with a bit of voluntary assistance for the poor. — unenlightened

My purpose in bringing this up was simply to show that the town I live in has a relatively high level of social capital. I guess the distinction between volunteer and paid work would come down to motivation: are you driven by making money or a genuine care for the community? The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive, of course, and you make a good point about that, as well as other things. There are a lot of wealthy people around here (not me) - many of whom have been the beneficiaries of the accumulated family wealth of previous generations - so they can afford to be virtuous in that way.

What is it about governments (and companies?) that excludes them? It seems to me that they have exempted themselves from all social obligations, and that use of the notion of social capital legitimises this. 'It's terribly important that we are kind to each other and cooperate, but this is not the business of business or government.' What? Really? — unenlightened

That's a good point, but it seems like a big part of the guiding narrative for those of us who live in the US - as opposed to the UK and almost everywhere else in the world it seems - is an overall suspicion of government (think separation of powers, federalism, etc.) and a corresponding emphasis on the importance of non-political or sub-(national)political things like individual responsibility, private charity, local politics, etc. We're not bound together so much by race or a shared history/culture or other such things, but instead by a commitment to abstract ideals grounded in notions of individual natural rights, with the primary purpose of government being to protect these rights.

There have been various waves of progressivism in the US over the past 100+ years which have taken a more positive approach to government (and a more hostile stance towards businesses lacking a sense of social responsibility), including the more prominent role it could and should play in bettering citizens' lives - e.g. Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Lyndon Johnson, and Obama - but there's always been significant resistance to these "activist" and purportedly unconstitutional endeavors. This antagonism continues to play itself out now, obviously, in a number of ways.

Anyhow, I'm not saying that I agree with the sentiment that's skeptical of what it considers to be government overreach - nor in my disagreement do I dismiss it as completely absurd - but it is there (or rather here) and has been pointed out by European interpreters of our country from the time of its inception up to today, such as Tocqueville in his Democracy in America (great book!) back to the 1830's, I believe. The idea persists among a large segment of the American population, and may help (in part) explain BC's setting up the social/political juxtaposition.

It's using a monetary term to describe a non-monetary phenomenon. Just because somebody says "put your money where your mouth is" doesn't mean that he or she is referencing anything financial. Or "the money shot" doesn't mean that some guy is ejaculating dollars. — Bitter Crank

I think it was a pretty good point that unenlightened made, too, in that it indicates how much this type of thinking has infiltrated our approach to problems, or, more specifically, to finding possible solutions to those problems. Said in the form of a question, What if the increasing dominance of that calculative/monetary way of thinking is the primary source of the growing social problem?

On the surface it does seem like an innocuous use of language, but it may actually reveal something deeper about way we relate to others, to ourselves, and to our world more generally in our (post)modern consumer culture. We see things as exploitable "resources" (e.g., human resources, information resources, natural resources) to be used as efficiently as possible, while other forms of non-calculative, non-instrumental ways of relating to others, and the the world more generally, are driven out. Examples abound. We want to maximize our possibilities as consumers, etc.

On a related note, I also think the fast-paced nature of life in the modern world - with a highly mobile workforce matching the needs of a complex, technologically-advanced global economy - has likely contributed a great deal to the loss of social capital. Commercial interests seem to reign supreme and the guiding values of these interests (speed, efficiency, productivity) have supplanted much less productive but more family, religious, and communally-based ones.

I live in nice, small (just over 10,000 people), community-oriented town despite it being located less than 15 miles from downtown LA. There are no stop lights, we have an all-volunteer fire department, and zero corporate stores or restaurants. Last night we voted on whether or not to keep the local library open, and the proponents pitched their defense almost entirely in economic terms, i.e., numerous studies have (apparently) shown that libraries (indirectly) make positive contributions to a city's economic development, etc.

Way down on the list of reasons to approve a new tax there was mention of things like libraries being "important community spaces where people can connect with books, with other people..." and whatnot, but it's clearly a sign of the times that damn near everything is subordinated to larger economic considerations. Education, healthcare, etc., etc., all have to be defended in these terms. I understand the importance of economic development and prudent spending, but I'm also of the antiquated opinion that we may have it backwards, and that the economy should be seen as a means to non-economic ends rather than the other way around. I'd even say a means to "higher" ends guided by a superior set of non-calculative values. I don't think we need to tie this hypothetical shift in values or alternative modes of thinking in with traditional religious values, either.

Apologies for sounding preachy here, and this is admittedly (and obviously) a pretty speculative approach, but understanding that underlying ontological framework - as articulated in the way we use language - may at the very least open up new ways of thinking about issues like this one. That's where the main battle is going to be waged imo - identifying and addressing the primary cause of the various symptoms - if we're ever going to reverse the current trend of a continued loss of "social capital."

And I don’t for one minute want to convey anything like sympathy to Trump. — Wayfarer

You've established your credentials as someone who loathes Trump, and understandably so I might add. That being said, the idea that Trump is an unethical self-serving jackass does not preclude the possibility that certain elements within the U.S. government may be corrupt. Ruling out the latter possibility a priori just because you can't stand anything about Trump is the wrong move imo. This has been my basic position all along.

I think this new tentative position of yours, if I'm understanding it correctly, speaks to your non-partisan integrity.

I wanted specifically to respond to Eric's stab. One only needs to inspire a lifelong love of learning after it has been destroyed. It is the natural condition of children. — unenlightened

Yes, this is exactly what I had in mind!

To restore that natural curiosity and love of learning after it's been strangled to death through traditional schooling by middle childhood.

I'll take a stab.

The primary purpose of education is to inspire a lifelong love of learning in the student and a corresponding awareness of the possible limitations of knowledge. (the exemplary case here would of course be Socrates)

In this sense, education (at its best) is not limited to learning about specific things - however useful that information may be - but, more importantly, it involves the development of a particular way of being, one which is marked by passion, amazement, humility, etc., etc.,

Well I'm sorry you and your wife have had these experiences, but it remains unclear to me how these incidents have been extrapolated and constructed into modern tenets of the Democratic platform, e.g. that whites are incapable are anything other than evil etc., or that women must choose a career rather embrace motherhood. — Maw

Fair enough.

Party platforms seem to be in perpetual flux so it's hard to pin down specific positions - especially concerning cultural issues - which can be considered essential to the left or the right in an ahistorical, decontextualized way. Those Counter-Enlightenment thinkers, and even some essential figures of postmodernism (e.g. Nietzsche and Heidegger), are widely identified with the right. And yet their primary influence today is on the academic left, which in turn has shaped the way the younger and possibly more radical generation understands the need to deconstruct dominant frameworks, to reconfigure power relations, etc. Very confusing stuff.

It's way easier, I think, to identify those things which fall on the left or right on political and economic matters. It's more black and white in those cases. But I did make the claim that there's a cultural shift to the left taking place in the US and should therefore be able to back it up with more than just personal experiences and gut feelings. Maybe some actual, tangible evidence supporting the tentative idea that heterosexual white supremacist patriarchy (or some such - I'm not trying to make it sound ridiculous and I do think there's some truth to the social justice platform as I understand it) is the new(ish) cultural enemy which the left rallies around? Can we agree on something like that?

I'm talking about things like gender-neutral bathrooms, the desired elimination of Confederate statues, the ending of Columbus Day celebrations in favor of (I believe) Native American Day, etc. These are all relatively new changes to the culture landscape that were not around when I was a kid, and imo they clearly indicate that shift to the left that I mentioned originally. It seems to be a cumulative, incremental process which has picked up significant momentum at the grassroots level over the past 10-15 years. I would say this is especially true since the day of Trump's election and the subsequent equating of his supporters with lingering racism, sexism and xenophobia allegedly at the heart of America.

Good topic though and I've enjoyed the testy back and forth between participants. Oh and by the way I'm only vaguely familiar with Jordan Peterson so I'm not tying my position in with his; not because I disagree with him, but because I'm almost entirely ignorant of what his positions actually are. I've seen the somewhat recent and well-known 'gotcha' interview but that's about it. Nothing he said there struck me as particularly crazy or radically conservative, but you likely have more knowledge of his views than I do.

I think the most fertile area on which to establish a new conservative movement, if anyone's interested, would be to incorporate those prior critiques of our technological commercial civilization in an endeavor to transform the way we understand ourselves and our world. In other words the 'revolution' would be ontological in origin rather than political or economic, although those too would change accordingly. To be a bit more specific, this shift would combine the best of our current situation's focus on speed, efficiency, productivity and the like - so no 'Ludditism' - with an increased openness to less 'reductionist' and less calculative/instrumental ways of relating to things.

Not necessarily an either/or situation and ideally we could draw upon the benefits of modern science and technology while also ameliorating some of the pernicious social, environmental and psychological effects. That's a rough outline for a future conservatism. Actually, this hypothetical shift in paradigm could render the traditional left and right divide obsolete, so maybe 'conservatism' isn't the right way to describe it. Those terms only make sense, it seems, given the current framework, and by altering that framework those terms would no longer apply. On top of that the terms 'conservatism' and 'right-wing' conjure up negative associations for many, so as a practical measure it's probably best to leave them behind.

Wishful thinking perhaps, but I do think the possibility is there, even if not likely anytime soon (if at all). That's the direction I would go in at least. Crazy talk? Probably lol.

Expand on that — Maw

Well I'm almost positive you'll dispute my interpretation (straw man) given the ambiguity of the topic, but my sense is that there's less tolerance among leftists these days towards those who challenge the guiding values underlying our increasingly fast-paced, scientifically-oriented and technology-obsessed world. Proponents of this system appear to be tying their identities in with its continued advancement while those who urge caution are seen as opponents of progress. (and probably racist, sexist, homophobic...)

I trace this general issue of left vs right back to the Enlightenment and the reaction to it in the Counter-Enlightenment. My personal views represent a hybrid of sorts between the sides and while I do appreciate many aspects of the modern project (e.g. increased political equality, advances in science and medicine, etc.) I also think there are some potential drawbacks which were initially articulated by 18th and 19th-century Romantics. I'll hold off on listing those here and get back to my belief that Dems are moving more and more to the left.

Some quick personal examples include: getting blasted for pulling my younger son out of the public school system in favor of a charter school which takes an unconventional approach to education and child development; my wife being made to feel like a complete failure of a woman for choosing to prioritize our children over career goals (I did the same lest anyone assume ours isn't an equal relationship); getting mocked for expressing an openness to insights found in religions; being attacked by a mob (not literally) for white privilege because I criticized aspects of an article which demonized all white people as being incapable of anything other than racism, destruction, evil, etc.

Anecdotal evidence like this may not be convincing but I just don't recall the level of intolerance coming from Dems, especially as related to cultural issues, being anywhere close to what it is today. Not even a decade ago. Incidentally, I originally moved to the political left (significantly) around seventeen years ago, just a few months after joining the RATM message board and engaging in debates with some really sincere and thoughtful posters.

Through those lively exchanges I began to question many of my basic assumptions about economics, patriotism, and other politically-related issues - I was a staunch Republican until then - and began to see things much differently. And while posters did take on issues of racism, sexism, militarism, etc. quite often they did not (to my recollection) focus on my racial and sexual background but treated me with respect and kindness, and they did so despite significant ideological differences. Could that sort of political transformation `happen today? It wouldn't be as likely, I'd say, although I wouldn't place the blame entirely on one side for this.

I'd also point out that within the ranks of those forum members were a surprising number of religious, pro-life anarchists, socialists, and more traditional progressives. Anti-consumerist, pro-family, pro-'spirituality' positions were actually well-respected among many of them just as they would have been within counter-cultural hippies from the 1960's. But within today's neoliberal Democratic party of the Clintons, Obama and Pelosi, those who have reservations about this narrow conception of 'progress' are generally seen as reactionaries ("clinging to their religion"), even among the rank and file members of the party.

The length of this post notwithstanding I feel I left way too much out to prevent misunderstandings - my highly qualified use of the term 'spirituality' for instance - so I'm anticipating criticisms of my views on social conservatism, the trajectory of the Democratic party, and other stuff that would take a lot more time and effort to make clear(er).

Only by American standards the Democratic party seems pretty far to the left. — ssu

I think the distinction is that Democrats in the US seem to be moving more and more to the left culturally while simultaneously moving to the right on economic issues. Never thought I'd hear Dems singing the praises of free trade, challenging the idea of protectionism, etc. but they've done this recently in large part (it appears) as a reaction to Trump's (likely feigned) populist economic nationalism.

They no longer emphasize class antagonisms - even to the relatively limited extent they did previously under the New Deal platform - and focus their attention instead on improving the plight of marginalized racial (and other) groups. The two things aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, but it does seem like a tough juggling act and the white lower and lower-middle classes are increasingly viewed as the enemies of the social progress desired by most on the American left.

That's how it seems to me at least. I happen to be one of those few remaining a "pro-life" and somewhat socially conservative Democrats who harbors strong "progressive" economic inclinations. It's a pretty lonely place to be these days.

One must take their life seriously. One must care about it. Even when one is joking, playing, etc. You must play seriously. — Agustino

This reminds me of one of those counter-intuitive quotes from Heraclitus which I've thought about quite often:

"Man is most nearly himself when he achieves the seriousness of a child at play."

So it's a masterly work of devil's advocacy? That's a cheering thought, but I'm afraid it's all too sincere and dismal a thesis to be ironical. — Cuthbert

Haha you're probably right about that. But can't one have a little fun in academia? I guess this is an indication of the democratic instinct in me that I can't even take the (vague) idea he puts forth seriously. Says a lot about the strength of my own biases, I guess.

I got offended just reading his proposals, and I'm going to flatter myself and assume I could easily pass whatever tests he or anyone else would design to limit participation in the system.

I agree with that assessment concerning the strength of the instinct.

While Francis Fukuyama has been wrong on a number of things I do think he makes a valid point on this matter: liberal democracy is the only form of government which satisfies the "desire for recognition" which has developed in the West over hundreds of years through the Renaissance, the Reformation, the Enlightenment, etc. and is felt so strongly by individuals (and groups).

There may be temporary setbacks of course (e.g. failure to recognize marginalized groups which inspires SJW's), and the system will doubtless continue to be implemented imperfectly, but there's just no going back to monarchy or aristocracy or anything else, and every government which arises in the future will have to address peoples' desire to be recognized as the political equals of their fellow citizens, regardless of other differences.

From the article:

"The political scientist Scott Althaus has calculated that a voter with more knowledge of politics will, on balance, be less eager to go to war, less punitive about crime, more tolerant on social issues, less accepting of government control of the economy, and more willing to accept taxes in order to reduce the federal deficit."

I only skimmed the article, but these were the only policy positions I found which intimated specifics concerning the alleged "wisdom" of these hypothetical Epistocratic elites, who would apparently be running things on behalf of benighted fools like myself. Needless to say that while I personally agree with many of those positions, I'm skeptical of the notion that high levels of intelligence and education lead to such a consensus.

I'm almost certain Brennan conveniently left out details entirely, and focused instead on the problems of democracy along with the potential theoretical strengths of his proposed system. But imo his inability (or unwillingness) to outline specifics shows just how elusive identifying something like political wisdom is. And if we can't at least point out some of its most basic features, then trying to create a system which allows for a higher concentration of "it" doesn't make much sense.

Contrast Nietzsche with JS Mill. Both highly educated men whose writings continue to exert significant influence on us. Nietzsche famously felt that Mill was an idiot (I believe a "blockhead" is the specific term he used), and I'm almost certain Mill would have reciprocated had he been aware of Nietzsche's writings. Whose perspective, if either, more closely resembles wisdom? They're radically opposed on essentials concerning politics, ethics, and pretty much everything else.

Setting aside obvious foreign counter-examples which challenge the assumption that the more educated someone is the more peaceful and progressive they will tend to be, even here in the relatively well-established bourgeois democracy of the United States one finds extremely affluent and highly educated Straussians (aka neoconservatives) who clearly don't share these basic positions, especially on war and crime. They are in many ways more barbaric in outlook than even the uneducated mob.

Come to think of it, this nation was an Epistocracy of sorts at its inception. But far from being unanimous in their views, the Founding Fathers vehemently disagreed over essentials regarding the government they brought into existence. In their collective wisdom they couldn't foresee things that seem obvious to us in hindsight, such as their inability to anticipate and/or proactively address the slavery issue which would nearly destroy the country in the not-too-distant future. (Of course one could counter-argue here, paraphrasing Thomas Jefferson, that they did in fact agree on principles while only disagreeing in opinions.)

But that was an interesting and fun read. I think I'll go back and read it again in more depth. My impression is that while Brennan is (apparently) a legitimate scholar at a respected academic institution, he comes across as a provocateur more than anything else. But hey, maybe he's doing our democracy a service by questioning some of its most cherished assumptions, all in the hopes of reinvigorating it.

It just seems like the democratic instinct is so deeply ingrained in the populace of the Western world, and increasingly everywhere else, that there's no viable alternative to it. If an alternative political system were to somehow come into power, it would have to cloak itself in democratic garb. Epistocracy is completely unrealistic imo and not necessarily even desirable.

Obviously, many of these issues are an all-or-nothing case (as I believe were some of the issues in our other discussion). Removing child labour laws without changing anything else would be a disaster for children, allowing them to be treated as adults in court without changing our punitive system would be cruel. But I do think some changes are possible within the society we have. Allowing children to vote is one such change, allowing them to work in very strictly controlled types of job is another I would be in favour of, for example. — Pseudonym

I share your disgust with the system of values, practices, institutions, etc. underlying our modern Western societies. I also think your position on extending rights to younger people - as with your philosophy of child development - seems much more reasonable when combined with a radical shift in these things from where they're at now.

And you're right to point out that extending those rights to kids without a corresponding shift in the larger social, political and cultural context would be a huge mistake. It's an admirable goal for sure, but one that has to work against deeply ingrained prejudices. I guess that's true of all significant social change.

Consequently I'm in favour of reducing the voting age to at least 14, possibly 12. — Pseudonym

Interesting. In addition to extending the "blessings" of (legal) adulthood, would you also expose younger people to the burdens of being an adult at an earlier age?

In the United States, for instance, it falls on adults to provide for the material existence of children until they reach the age of eighteen.

Those younger than eighteen are also typically tried as children for crimes committed, and the punishments meted out take consideration of their age as a mitigating factor.

There are also child labor laws which prevent kids under sixteen (maybe it's fifteen) from working, that limit the number of hours those between the ages of sixteen and eighteen can work per day and per week, etc.

As in the other thread where we talked about raising children, I like where you're going with this, but when I think through some possible consequences I become a little more cautious.

:up: Well said.

Going off recollection I think Andrew has acknowledged those points before.

I personally think the term white privilege is aggressive and alienating, and therefore on the whole counterproductive if the goal is to get as many white people as possible to recognize and sympathize with the struggles against discrimination of non-whites.

So keeping the focus on instances of racism - which clearly and unfortunately exist in abundance - without also introducing the notion of white privilege as a necessary corollary of racism, would be more a more effective strategy in pursuing that aim IMO. Racism can exist without most white people receiving tangible and recognizable benefits from it. Unless you lower the bar so much as to make (e.g.) not getting randomly pulled over by police because you're white, or not getting followed around in a store while shopping because you're white, examples of privilege. The one strategy immediately puts white people (regardless of class background or personal struggles more generally) on the defensive while the other is, at the very least, more likely to open them up to the challenges facing minorities - many of which we as white people may be oblivious to.

That's my hunch and it's mainly based on my own experience. The very idea of privilege conjures up ideas of absolute advantages one receives through no effort of their own, whereas many disadvantaged white people cannot fathom how they are privileged in any meaningful way. This seems true even if we acknowledge that poor white people, despite their challenging socio-economic predicament and limited opportunities, are still relatively privileged in significant ways compared to non-whites.

It would be like telling a woman who gets physically and/or mentally abused by her husband once a week that she's privileged, because this other lady down the street gets beat up by her husband every single day. Lame analogy perhaps, but I think it hits on the potential misuse of the term privilege. In a (relative) sense it's true that the first woman is more "privileged," but in an absolute sense that doesn't seem true at all and, more significantly, it would be an extremely insensitive thing to say. Average (i.e. non-affluent) white people do not have it easy these days, and this is true even if non-whites typically have to deal with even more serious obstacles than they do.

I've presented similar "arguments" elsewhere and have often been met with something akin to "figures you'd say that since you're a privileged white guy," (as in lame social media arguments with complete strangers where the only thing you notice about the other is their profile pic) and, as mentioned, these experiences have influenced my feelings on the topic. It's hard to sympathize with others when they generalize and demonize you based on something you have no control over; and since it's wrong to do it to non-whites then it should also be wrong to do it to whites. De-emphasizing racial identity is an ideal to me and anything which runs counter to this goal is met with resistance.

I will admit one thing, though: I have had the privilege of discounting the significance of my racial background in large part because I'm white, whereas it seems much harder to do this for black people and other POC living in countries like the USA, since they're often reminded that they're the inferior "other" through the actions of narrow-minded bigots. Again, it's those actions (e.g., being passed on for a job, not being allowed to rent an apartment, etc.) based on negative stereotypes that should be the focus of our attention IMHO.

But then he starts saying how terrible Marxism is, and conflating identity politics with Marxism. — andrewk

I thought about this while reading through some of Peterson's ideas. I'm not an expert on Marxism but it would seem as though one who subscribes to the communist worldview would necessarily eschew identity politics, at least forms of it based on anything other than class identity.

There may be possible points of convergence between Marxism and identity politics on occasion (e.g., when one's racial identity strongly correlates with a socio-economic class), and hence some sort of alignment is not totally unreasonable under specific conditions, but conflating the two as necessary allies - or as essentially the same - as Peterson does seems unwarranted and unfair.

This seems such an obvious oversight that I'm sure he must have noticed it, and this being so one can only assume there must be some deeper explanation for his tendency to lump them together without making the proper distinctions. I can't imagine that it's nothing more than a dishonest attempt to discredit both in one fell swoop by purposely conflating them. Perhaps TPF posters who are more familiar with and more sympathetic to Peterson's views can clarify this issue for those of us who are confused by it.

Anyway, I can definitely see how others may dislike almost everything about Marxism but IMO there's one significant advantage it has over other leftist rivals: it transcends racial, national, gender, and ethnic identities (along with others I may have missed) in favor of class-based ones. This in turn makes it much more inclusive than identity politics as typically conceived today; the two seem theoretically incompatible in fact.

I like the way you pitched that and it makes sense to me. Something like hermeneutic phenomenology complementing investigations of other "regional" sciences rather than being set up as an either/or scenario. I definitely find that approach congenial.

I'm not so sure, however, if the "existentials" he lays out - being-in-the-world, being-with, etc. - would be accepted as properly scientific since they represent ways of being (so to speak) rather than physical properties.