Yep, I agree. Sappy and Bitter Crank obviously don't like accumulations of wealth, but they have done precious little to rationally justify this dislike, apart from saying it's oppression, without being able to show how. — Agustino

I think a shift in perspective regarding the ultimate aim of life, like that outlined by Baden, is a necessary component of any compelling critique of your position.

If one assumes that creating optimal conditions for economic development - as manifested in things like entrepreneurial activity/success and overall economic growth - is the sine qua non of a happy life and a happy political community, then IMO advocates of unregulated (or less regulated) capitalism will win the argument since the free market does seem much better than its alternatives at things like allocating resources, maximizing efficiency and productivity, spurring on technological development, etc.

Nevertheless, there do seem to be some serious drawbacks - in addition to those already mentioned - to such an excessive preoccupation with monetary considerations and individual wealth accumulation: the narrowing down of relationships to instrumental ones with literally everything being reduced to the level of exploitable resource; a heightened level of envy and resentment among the masses against the 1% and a reciprocal fear of the the 99% on the part of the extremely wealthy, both of which erode important communal bonds transcending economic relationships; the role of education being entirely subordinated to this larger economic project at the expense of more 'elevated' interpretations of its function within the life of an individual and a community; individuals and groups perceiving each other as competitors rather than collaborators in their single-minded fixation on accumulating wealth; the highest cultural exemplars (which all aspire towards) not being the wisest, the most virtuous, the most noble, the most thoughtful/poetic/philosophical/artistically inspired, but rather the rich and the powerful (e.g. Donald Trump); etc. etc.

Hyperbole aside, this modern consumerist world which capitalism has created is debased in many ways, and that 'big picture' way of looking at it is important. I would also add, however, that forms of socialism or communism which do NOT challenge guiding assumptions concerning essentials aren't much better, other than the fact that they want to divide the pie in a more equitable way, which is a sentiment I can definitely appreciate.

I'm thinking of simple and basic questions like: what characterizes a 'successful' life? what's the proper aim of education beyond the technical training one undertakes to satisfy his or her material needs and, for the more ambitious, their aspirations for significant wealth? etc. I could be wrong about this, but it seems that a major element underlying our consumerist civilization is the widespread agreement, albeit tacit agreement for the most part, regarding the values and assumptions which dictate the way we think and act, the way we direct our energies and abilities.

I didn't articulate that very well, I'm afraid, but the reason I liked Baden's post so much is that he gets right to the heart of the matter about what kind of world he wants to live in and what he considers to be important; and unlike most people he doesn't take it for granted that material success (and what it can buy you) is the most important thing in life. Getting at capitalism at that base level - at the type of life which is held up as exemplary, at the type of human beings it produces, etc. - is precisely where it's most vulnerable IMO to thoughtful analysis.

I'm obviously biased, of course, and not nearly smart enough to become successful - i.e. wealthy and powerful - within this system as it exists. It's not complete hell, as I imagine Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia were, but I do believe that this planet could be much more hospitable than it currently is if we could somehow shift the way we understand ourselves and our world. These self-conceptions have changed historically, and significantly so, and there's no reason to believe they couldn't do so at some point in the future.

So the issue seems just as much (if not more) cultural and philosophical as it is economic. We could stop buying needless shit, we could start spending more time cultivating non-instrumental relationships with others (and 'nature,' however pathetic that sounds), we could start reading and thinking and appreciating things that are currently viewed as non-productive wastes of time since they don't typically provide us with financial payoff, etc.

That's a world I would like future generations to live in since I see it as being vastly superior to the one we inhabit now. Not all will agree with this largely negative assessment, obviously, but I don't think it's too far-fetched to assume that others may eventually come to find life in this world to be unsatisfying in many ways - inhuman and barbaric even.

Nicely put. (Y)

He briefly touches upon economics but the work is overwhelmingly concerned with the issue of rights. He quotes Douglas as using his home of Illinois as an example of a state which ultimately outlawed slavery - but only after the states' citizens found that it wasn't in their economic self-interest to allow for its continuation, and not because they found it inherently wrong or immoral.

So Douglas is portrayed, at least to my understanding, as prioritizing economics over natural rights. Jaffa obviously rejects this stance and claims that Lincoln did too. Lincoln abhorred the idea that if the citizens of a new territory (or anywhere for that matter) found it in their economic (or other) self-interest to legalize slavery, or to engage in other forms of what he felt to be violations of individual natural rights, then so be it.

Douglas was however extremely principled when it came to the notion of popular sovereignty. He rejected the Lecompton Constitution, for instance, which followed the Kansas-Nebraska Act and sought to permit slavery in the new state of Kansas. He did this - despite the fact that it would cost him the support of Southern Democrats - because he felt that it was unfairly rushed through by pro-slavery advocates who quickly flooded the state after the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, and who tried to impose their (minority) will on all.

This cynical attempt to legalize slavery quickly before incoming anti-slavers had a chance to have their voices heard in the creation of a state constitution, meant that it didn't genuinely represent the will of the people and was therefore illegitimate.

So Douglas apparently remained neutral on moral issues like slavery while also maintaining that in order for the laws to be considered legitimate, at least in a democracy where power is vested in the will of the majority, they must be grounded in the the will of the people (the majority), and this regardless of what that will decided upon.

I purchased a copy of the Lincoln-Douglas Debates recently and I'll see for myself if Jaffa oversimplified or otherwise misrepresented Douglas's position(s) in the book.

Anyway, if you want to discuss natural rights, maybe start another thread where more posters can share their thoughts. — Buxtebuddha

That would be a great topic IMO.

I don't have a definite position on the matter, but I'm reading Harry Jaffa's A New Birth of Freedom right now and I think he makes a very strong case for natural rights. Much better than I'd anticipated, at least.

Highly recommended read for anyone interested in the topic, as it's framed within the context of the debates over slavery leading up to the Civil War between Abraham Lincoln on the one hand - a firm believer in natural rights - and his many intellectual adversaries on the other, especially Stephen Douglas. Douglas championed the cause of popular sovereignty disconnected from any 'higher' rights or values - and is thus cast as the Thrasymachus to Lincoln's Socrates.

It does seem important to move away from abstract discussion on the particular issue and place it in actual, concrete circumstances. Douglas apparently could not condemn the extension of slavery in the territories on moral grounds, since he felt that values were completely relative to the will of the majority, and was therefore content to leave it up to the people to decide whether they wanted it or not. Relativism seems inescapable, but also completely heinous when its possible consequences are presented through these types of historical examples.

Anyhow apologies for the digression, but yeah, somebody start that thread!

It doesn't disproportionately benefit the wealthy, if by that you just mean that the wealthy own more of the newly created wealth than the others. — Agustino

Sure it can, especially if the wealthy infiltrate the political system and affect policy. Embarking on expensive and adventurous wars under the guise of spreading democracy; maintaining a massive military which not only protects but also expands their assets and interests; negotiating free trade agreements which hurt average folk but benefit the already rich; etc.

This is nosense. Yes, without other people on Earth, the entrepreneur would have no one to help. But that's not saying much. The entrepreneur isn't aided one iota in actually helping those people by their mere existence. It's his ingenuity and effort that is of help. The entrepreneur identifies and solves society's problems. — Agustino

This seems one-sided since the entrepreneur also creates certain problems - social, environmental, etc. Automation, for example, may help entrepreneurs cut labor costs and become more efficient but it also hurts certain groups of people that have lost their livelihoods as a result of advanced technology. This is the ambiguous nature of what Joseph Schumpeter referred to as the "process of creative destruction" as I understand it.

You know way more about this topic than I do, obviously, but I'm almost certain that it's not nearly as simple as you're portraying it. There are winners and losers here, even when judged strictly according to economic considerations; if we factor in other long-term criteria then it would seem to become an even more complex topic.

I'd also maintain that a large work force and robust consumer base would seem absolutely necessary for peddling the products and services that the visionary entrepreneur you're so in thrall to creates. Let's not forget the tremendous amount of money that goes into creating needs through advertising, often through extremely sophisticated and manipulative psychological means.

It's not boundless greed. To make money you need to solve problems that others have. You're not just going to give me your money, but on the other hand, if, say, I help you make $10,000, you don't mind giving me $1000. Or if I help you get your health back, etc. — Agustino

That's great, sincerely, but what about creating a smart phone or a highly addictive website (e.g. Facebook, porn) or some other thing which may impact your life, your relationships, your health adversely, in such a way that you become more isolated form others, less physically active, more prone to feelings of depression and suicide, etc. The jury is apparently still out on these things, yet you seem to be assuming they only lead to positive and beneficial results.

So again, it's not just a simple matter of 'solving problems' - it could be about exploiting weaknesses, catering to the the basest of human desires, etc. I'd argue, yet again, that you're employing an overly simplistic perspective on the topic which remains blind - and MUST remain blind if the rigid position is to be maintained - to the many potentially destructive consequences of entrepreneurship and economic development without regard for any other (economic and non-economic alike) considerations.

To summarize, it seems like you're isolating economic activity from the larger historical, social, environmental, and cultural (just to name a few) context in which it takes place. That tactic seems extremely suspect on a number of levels: morally, intellectually, etc.

But I'll admit that I don't approach this topic under the assumption that things like economic growth and continued technological development should be pursued for their own sake, regardless of the impact these have on individuals, communities, the environment, etc. The assumption seems to be that pursuing this path raises the quality of life for everyone, and for this the wealthy and creative 1% should be appreciated by the rest of us.

IF I approached it from that standpoint then I'd imagine I'd find your argument much more compelling. I'd question whether there's strong link to be found between personal happiness/well-being and a thriving economy which often appears to place the pursuit of profit above all other aims. Perhaps there's a compromise position of sorts which would embrace economic growth while also subordinating it to, say, something like the 'higher' values and aspirations of the people who make up the community.

Of course that doesn't mean I'd want to return to some romanticized pre-modern era of agrarian simplicity, but I also wouldn't be quick to dismiss the idea that a few important things have been lost in the drive towards unrestrained economic development.

What would the 1% do if the bottom 99% didn't work for them, purchase their products or services, pay their portion of taxes to help perpetuate the system which disproportionately benefits the wealthy, etc.?

At the very least it would seem to be more of a symbiotic relationship between the wealthy and their less 'successful' counterparts than is being suggested in this antagonistic scenario (I could very well be misinterpreting your intention), and without the latter group the former would not have been able to achieve what they have.

IMO I think there's an important distinction to be made between pursuing economic equality to an excessive degree, which would negate differences in talent, hard work, and the like, and the sort of sociopathic, Ayn Randian justification of boundless greed with its corresponding contempt of the masses that you seem to be either supporting or playing devil's advocate for, Agustino.

I sense a bit of hyperbole and false dichotomy being employed to make a point, although I could be wrong. I'd imagine that being ridiculously rich and generous aren't mutually exclusive, and that one can be financially successful while also feeling a sense of gratitude and indebtedness to the larger community to which one belongs.

I read an article in which a forensic psychiatrist who had examined a number of mass killers, said he found that by most standards, at least half of them were not mentally ill, crazy, or insane. They were "normal". Some of them were unhinged, of course. — Bitter Crank

I've always found the topic concerning whether a particular mass murderer was mentally ill or not to be intriguing. To my simplistic mind it would seem as though anyone who plans and follows through on the indiscriminate killing of large numbers of human beings must be, ipso facto, mentally ill.

But then again I don't know what specific standards 'experts' in the field use to determine whether or not these labels fit. I know these aren't completely arbitrary designations, but there does seem to be an element of arbitrariness in them.

Can a 'normal', ostensibly stable and sane person engage in these types of acts? If so then what constitutes insanity? Hearing voices? Having hallucinations?

Doubt this adds much to the topic but I'd wager that Nietzsche and Heidegger, in somewhat different but complementary ways, could be considered (anticipatory) right-wing critics of this apparently nebulous phenomena of neoliberalism.

One could possibly even include earlier modern cultural conservatives like Burke, Schopenhauer and Rousseau in this category, but I'd leave it to other more knowledgeable members to decide if this is true or not. Yeah I know these guys lived way before the rise of neoliberalism, but I'm going off the assumption that this is just the latest unfolding of a certain historical trajectory in the West.

Seems like neither H nor N was much concerned with right or left-wing economic theories in themselves, but rather with the underlying assumptions which gave rise to the supremacy of economic thinking in the modern world in the first place.

Of course making this observation does no favors for opponents of neoliberalism who'd try to appropriate their insights in order to combat certain tendencies at work in it, since both N and H will be forever tainted with Nazi associations and thereby discredited.

But the idea that something much deeper than 'mere' economics is at play in neoliberalism is one that I find compelling. As H noted in 1935:

"Russia and America, seen metaphysically, are both the same: the same hopeless frenzy of unchained technology and of the rootless organization of the average man..."

I think it's important to note that at least some of the salient criticisms of neoliberalism - coming from both the left and the right - are not preoccupied with questions like which type of economic system is the most efficient at satisfying individual desires, but instead with the reduction of human beings to atomistic consumers in a world understood primarily as a collection of exploitable resources; 'human resources', 'information resources', etc etc.

Again, this wider movement (hyperbolic as it may be) could take place under a free market or a communist one, but the guiding relationship to the world is largely one of calculation and exploitation, albeit under the more respectable guises of spreading democracy, advancing individual 'freedoms' and improving the quality of life of vast numbers of people around the globe.

As a descendant of rabble myself I'm not as quick to dismiss the emancipatory aspects of modernity as many previous critics of socialism, capitalism, liberal democracy, advanced technology and other such things have been.

Anyhow, this is one area where even these culturally 'conservative' thinkers may line up with more progressive left-wing types, to me at least, especially when it comes to things like environmental protection (deep ecology), educational reform, cultivating strong communal bonds, the role of the arts in society, etc.

In an ideal world we could appropriate the many material and other benefits of neoliberalism (technological advancements, medicine, etc.) while curbing some of the unfortunate consequences (e.g. individual alienation, the general cheapening of life, a narrow understanding of the purpose of education). Highly unlikely though.

I think you should start a thread on this : ) — StreetlightX

(Y)

I think I will fairly soon. Would love to get feedback and advice from the members here.

On a related note, I've been thinking quite a bit about points of possible convergence between Left and Right on this particular issue. I find it an extremely fertile ground of possibilities for a future political platform beyond the tax breaks and deregulation for the rich of the Right and the identity politics and cultivated resentments (many of which are understandable) of the Left. Very quickly, I'm of the opinion that genuine conservatism quite naturally aligns with many policies that are usually associated with progressives: removing money from the political process; revamping the educational system from the ground up; taking a position of stewardship rather than exploitation concerning the environment; and other related things.

Of course, those ambiguous and fluid terms describing the Right and the Left need to be qualified to a considerable extent in order to make this position somewhat intelligible, but I do feel as though those who (e.g.) take the formation of a virtuous character to be an essential component of the educational process (concerned with the development of a way of being so to speak in addition to learning a body of useful knowledge) will tend in the direction of looking at things from a long-term and communally-responsible standpoint. That perspective is contrasted with narrow and short-term understanding of what we take to be our self-interest as atomized individuals in competition with others for limited resources.

Not trying to create more confusion here, but as mentioned I think this is an area worth exploring as it has the potential to rally people of seemingly diverse backgrounds and perspectives together for the sake of a greater goal. This is a rough sketch, obviously, and while the specific details are very important these need to be guided by a sort of 'big picture' thinking that seems sorely lacking these days.

I don't see what's wrong with technology and consumerism if they are in a balanced environment. I don't think such a thing has existed for quite some time though, because of the nature of politics and tradition. — Jake Tarragon

I actually agree with you here for the most part. Ideally, we could appropriate the many benefits of technology while also ameliorating its potentially destructive aspects, which are many and varied.

Regarding consumerism, while I would never expect a voluntary decision in favor of collective austerity to take place - or even find it necessarily desirable if taken to the extreme - I do think a more thoughtful approach to the role that money and material goods play in our lives would be helpful. Right now it seems as though many of us are enslaved to a very narrow interpretation of what a successful life looks like, and we channel our energies in this direction at the expense of other, perhaps 'deeper' and more fulfilling possibilities of being.

The tremendous amount of money and effort that advertisers and businesses more generally expend to inculcate a certain contingent set of values and ideals in us is hard to offset through alternative narratives, especially when our entire 'system' seems subordinated to economic considerations (the goal of education being the most prominent example of this IMO). As children we lacked the requisite knowledge, awareness and life experience to challenge this set of dominant values, and once you reach a certain age they've become so internalized that they're typically taken for granted as obvious goals that are beyond question. Even on philosophy forums like this, for instance, you find many posters (probably even most) who mock pursuing a particular educational degree on the grounds that it doesn't usually lead to things like social respect, a high-paying job, etc.

Anyhow these issues do deserve a much more detailed and nuanced analysis than what I presented here, as I didn't do justice to their complexity as it relates to our lives on both an individual and collective level. I would maintain, however, that a narrow fixation on the individual accumulation of wealth as a means of earning the respect of others is corrosive of more 'transcendent' social bonds that bind a community together in non-instrumental ways. Apologies for the word salad but hopefully you get the gist of the position.

I'll give the Russell essay a look.

I think you're probably right about this, unfortunately, and that there's little hope for the type of genuine change I'm referring to. Seems an obvious case of being up the creek without a paddle. But I'm also partial to the view that many people know, if only 'deep inside', that this global, technological, capitalist world order we find ourselves in is utterly corrupt and dehumanizing.

If someone - or some group of people (collaboration of artists, politicians, philosophers, etc.) - could tap into those intuitions and frame a vision of a more meaningful and humane world - one beyond the political Left and Right as they currently stand - then they may be able to awaken those latent possibilities and galvanize a sort of historically transitional and supra-political grassroots movement. Wishful thinking perhaps, but there's work to be done and this is the area I feel we should focus on.

Well, I haven't followed his posts much in that thread, but apart from you (and maybe some of the moderators), other posters found his behaviour totally anachronistic and unproductive. I'm not sure what "admirable" and "rare" qualities you saw in him. — Agustino

Most significantly, I found him to be extremely magnanimous in his ability to not take disagreements so personally, and to not let testy exchanges that he may have had with other posters affect his judgments of their arguments on threads of a different topic. IMO this isn't always an easy thing to do, and those hard feelings can linger on and make us extremely uncharitable towards these perceived personal adversaries after some initial hostility has commenced. I'll include myself in this petty and vindictive group.

I also noticed a related generosity of soul in Sand on occasion in his dealings with others, along with a certain sincerity that came out every so often. I may not be articulating this well, and as mentioned he did have many flaws (e.g. his annoying tendency to cut people off from further debate and to engage in petty insults), but I do believe he was a decent guy whose intent was more playful than malicious. Just my impression, of course, and I may have been entirely wrong about him.

I'll admit it, I developed a soft spot for Sand after initially loathing the guy. I think we developed a camaraderie of sorts in the 'Post Truth' thread that clearly biased the way I perceived him.

Along with his many flaws, I think he had a couple very good character traits that I found admirable and rare.

Ah I didn't realize that about TGW. Totally understandable that he got banned if he refused to follow simple forum guidelines. Strange that he would be so obstinate concerning such a seemingly trivial matter.

Anyhow more respect earned for your integrity in not making exceptions to the rules, even for high quality contributors like TGW. I've become a stickler in my old(er) age when it comes to the importance of promulgating rules and expectations and then abiding by them impartially.

I think the primary issue contributing to the the demise of the US - and possibly the West and the entire world more generally - is the system of values we adhere to at the moment: Unrestrained consumerism is perceived as the highest form of life, with the most 'successful' among us almost always being understood as those with the most money, the most things, the most power, etc.

These guiding values then frame the way we design our educational system; the way we cultivate self-serving calculative and instrumental relationships with other people and things (e.g. exploitation of the environment); the way we pursue careers that will make us the most money regardless of what we have to do to get it; the way we flee from this alienating scenario into mind-numbing distractions and entertainment; etc.

Donald Trump is a complete jackass, make no mistake about that, but he didn't create this 'world' or the tacitly assumed values we average folk admire so much. This being the case, a shift in those dominant guiding values is far more essential than removing Trump, IMO, although that would be nice too.

I've yet to find a politician in the US who thinks along these lines, unfortunately.

I'm not around TPF much, but based upon my limited experience here I'd say the moderators have done an outstanding job overall.

I specifically haven't noticed (pace Thorongil) the biases of those in charge of this forum having much of an impact on their moderating decisions, whether it be deleting posts and/or banning members. Thanatos Sand, for example, was banned despite holding many views that I'm pretty sure most (if not all) of the mods found extremely congenial to their own.

On the flip side, Agustino has been a respected member here for quite some time while pushing certain positions that I'm almost positive most of the moderators find abhorrent.

But again, Thorongil frequents this place much more than I do, and I respect his judgement, so I'll assume I've missed some relevant happenings on this front. I am bummed that TGW has apparently been banned again (like the old PF). I don't get it with him since I've always found him to be fairly non-confrontational and his contributions to be valuable.

I find the idea of government or business relations being (necessarily) a sort of zero sum game to be extremely questionable. But that antagonistic perspective--in which individual actors try to maximize their advantages at the expense of others by any means necessary--seems to be what guides Agustino's views on many things.

I find it not only morally suspect, but also not always true from a more practical standpoint. The best (and most financially successful) companies that I've worked for, for instance, cared about their employees (and customers, vendors, etc.) and treated them very well. Morale was high, productivity was good, customer satisfaction was through the roof, etc. That's a solid business model that unfortunately seems a bit old-school within our current, short-term and money-obsessed consumer culture.

Anyhow I appreciate your posts but this excessive cynicism is not at all more 'realistic' than other positions. I know I'm probably misrepresenting your views a bit but this is the impression they've left on me. You create these stark contrasts then privilege one side as being superior without considering more nuanced and moderate alternatives. Again that's just my (probably mistaken) impression and I do respect you as a thinker.

@Agustino

If you get rid of government then you'll likely have anarchy (by definition obviously). That may not be good for anyone, rich or poor.

I'm beginning to incline towards Hegel's overall positive view of the state, at least in theory, which runs counter to the 'necessary evil' (not to mention unnecessary evil) narrative: genuine freedom (as contrasted with license and a lack of self-restraint) is only found within the state and under the rule of law, in which the individual freely places himself or herself under the universal.

Now of course the modern coercive state, dominated by large corporate interests, is a perversion of this more 'natural' political association. But the goal shouldn't be to rid ourselves of government entirely, but rather to make it conform to those authentically democratic principles which it currently works against.

I've read that, and I don't agree with it. I see nothing wrong with making a lot of money in and of itself. It depends what the person does with that money. But I don't think the state should force them to surrender that money so that greedy and stupid politicians can redistribute it to "the people", meaning in truth to things like banks, insurance companies, Wall Street, military companies, and the like.

I much agree with Tolkien's political views. The government is to a great degree an unnecessary evil. — Agustino

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your position. Think about it from a different angle: if "the people" are not represented by the current government (one of Trump's claims)--by the (Deep) State--but government has instead been infiltrated by those already possessed of large amounts of wealth, then these can buy off politicians and bend policy to their will, getting even richer, more powerful, and thus more politically-influential in the process. This is a problem whose only remedy is more rather than less democracy.

So politicians no longer represent the will of "the people", they represent the banks, insurance companies, Wall Street, military companies, etc. who then use the levers of government to their advantage. They're obviously not going to tax themselves at a higher rate but are instead going to place that burden on the middle and lower classes. You think that's fair? Is this a straw man? I do want to understand your views on the topic.

I also think it's a bit of an exaggeration to juxtapose poor people and rich people as you seem to be doing. Most of the rich people I know have been the beneficiaries of significant advantages and most definitely not self-made. On the other hand, I know a lot of people who are either poor or of extremely modest means who work their assess off to simply survive. And contrary to stereotypes (perpetuated by the often undeserving and idle rich no doubt) they're not always stupid or totally lacking in self-restraint.

I'm all for rewarding hard work and talent to a certain extent, but this simplistic economic narrative-- which rationalizes greed and selfishness--is, in my estimation, largely BS. You can obviously point to examples which support this Randian position, but there are too many counter-examples these days to make it compelling.

Finally, I'm not familiar with Tolkien's political views, but if that's how he felt then I'd have to disagree with him. What alternative view of social organization did he recommend? What historical examples did he draw from as showing themselves superior to some form of government?

And I don't really agree with super high taxes for the rich. For example, I'm someone who spends a lot of time working, studying and learning. If in 20-30 years time I happen to be lucky to be a rich person, I don't want high taxes, because why should I pay high taxes? I spent my time working while other people were laughing the days away, drinking, partying, etc. Why should my money be taken by the state to go towards financing them?! While they were working 8 hours a day, I worked 12! I worked weekends too! I dedicated myself to learn a lot, become productive for society, and give back something of value to the world. In the meantime they dedicated their time to who knows what, buying cigarettes, buying alcohol, living the life of a consumer, watching TV etc. — Agustino

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/09/05/opinion/rich-getting-richer-taxes.html?referer

Read this today. Shocked about Mitt Romney's father being so high-minded when it came to business affairs. We could definitely use much more of that sort of perspective right now, that voluntary desire to think beyond one's own narrow financial self-interest and towards the greater common good. Being a social conservative, I'd imagine you'd find that 'virtuous' approach to social, political and economic relations congenial just as I do.

I think a possible Pro is that his election may have demonstrated that the electoral influence of people of lower socio-economic status has been greatly underestimated. That may open the door to endorsed candidates with policies that up until now were regarded as political suicide in the US, like meaningful measures to reduce inequality and curbs on plutocratic power. The popularity of Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn are other signs of this, but those signs are not nearly as persuasive as the fact that people were prepared to elect a recognised narcissistic, bullying, misogynist, racist, neo-fascist ignoramus, simply because they were so desperate for a change from the status quo, and saw no hope of that in the current establishment candidates (once Sanders was gone).

I got this as wrong as anybody else. I really liked Sanders' policies but wanted Clinton to get the nomination because I thought Sanders was unelectable. Now I've come to the opinion that Sanders would probably have beaten Trump (although as a philosopher that statement makes me blush, as I know that counterfactuals like that are meaningless).

If we can get through the rest of the term without him managing to do too much permanent damage then I think there's a serious possibility that we may see the election of a genuine champion of the working class (rather than this current pretend one) in 2020. And then, maybe, the working poor of the US will be able to start to claw their way out of the misery they've been subjected to for the last couple of decades. — andrewk

(Y)

I think the one positive thing he managed to do was to make oft-maligned working class white Republican voters aware of the fact that the 'establishment' wing of the party did/does not represent their economic interests. The consciousness of this fact will be important moving forward, I think, and if Democrats can craft an inclusive economic message--i.e. not one primarily focused on an exclusionary friend/enemy form of identity politics--then this demographic may be ripe for the taking next time around.

The perception of this group is obviously extremely negative at the moment, and perhaps rightly so, but I also feel that the racism, xenophobia, etc. has been a bit exaggerated. I'd also even suggest that it's at least partly a reaction to the Left's continued fixation on identity politics; they can hardly contain their glee at the thought of the coming demographic shift in the US which is going to make POC the dominant voice in politics.

That's not meant to suggest that lingering racism isn't something we as a nation need to sincerely address, but only that it should be done more tactfully than is being done at present--preferably through opening up constructive mutual dialogue and without demonizing a particular group.

Too many cons to list.

Yes, he would have been right if I made that assertion in a context which leaned itself to be interpreted as a categorical statement. But in the context of the rest of the writing, which is just exaggerated for polemical and rhetorical effect, it cannot be interpreted as anything else but hyperbolic. — Agustino

Perhaps others have a different opinion, but for me hyperbole tends to significantly lessen an argument's overall effect. Maybe among the general populace it works better than moderation and subtlety, but I'd imagine it's unnecessary and even counter-productive here.

I also vaguely recall the debate form which these quotes were drawn, and remember thinking to myself something along the lines of, "This is unfortunate since I really respected the intelligence and character of this guy."

But anyway, I think you're a great poster overall, and I can appreciate those like you who challenge dominant values and beliefs. JS Mill's On Liberty has always resonated with me a great deal, and I appreciate seeing ideas defeated rather than silenced.

I'll check it out. Thanks for the heads up.

Yeah no argument from me here since that's the exact position I've taken from the start.

I'd go with the likes of Heraclitus, Socrates, Nietzsche and Wittgenstein.

Dedication to truth regardless of the social consequences, basically, and while I couldn't personally achieve that level of commitment I can at least admire it from afar.

I also respect the 'normal' person who fulfills his or her domestic and social responsibilities, and in a vast majority of cases without gaining anything of significance that the world values (money, fame, material goods, etc.). Unfortunately these types don't typically make it into the history books but I'd imagine most of us know at least a few of them in 'real' life.

Activists for their cause--one greater than themselves--are also admirable as long as they're consistent and don't compensate for their complete inability to act decently a personal level with a more abstract theoretical goodness. But if you're willing to forego comforts for a noble cause then that's clearly an admirable trait, even if you're an otherwise flawed human being. In certain ways those 'defects' makes them even more admirable in my eyes.

I guess I'm pretty conservative in my opinions on this matter. Not much originality or insight here.

It seems perfectly reasonably to list these things within the context of this discussion on whether or not we're in a post-truth age. The topic was not originally intended to be about Trump but rather about a wider social phenomena; one which apparently began in academia and has continued to spread throughout society.

This phenomena may have culminated in Donald Trump, but it neither originated with, nor was it intended to be confined to him. But it very quickly and predictably moved in that direction here--with perhaps media allies like Breitbart being seen as 'fake news' accomplices.

Quite a few posters have tied their belief that we're only now in a post-truth world entirely with the person of Donald Trump--an argument which clearly implies that the political world preceding him can accurately be described as one dedicated to truth.

Now I definitely agree with your analysis if the point of the debate were to determine which party represents the lesser of two evils for the majority of Americans--or even the world more generally--but we're addressing the distinction between truth and post-truth, and whether or not a sharp break has occurred.

The contention of some (Thanatos most noticeably) is that politicians have lied throughout history, and they have done so egregiously over the past 40-50 years. If this is indeed the case then positing a post-truth political world, especially without making what would seem to be the necessary conceptual distinctions, is a deeply flawed position to take.

That's the context as I understand it. We're talking about these things as they relate to 'truth' vs 'post truth' (a stark contrast) and not with a primary focus on the more nuanced one concerning which party's ideas and actions have been, let's say, less detrimental to the average American.

And it's Thantos and I who are suggesting that this particular discussion on truth vs post-truth needs more nuance than that simple dichotomy would have us believe. I think he's shown it's an oversimplified contrast with his numerous examples of deception, outside influence (money and corporate power) and intrigue predating Trump which have adversely impacted truth in American politics.

Couldn't we also point to the Dems failure to do anything of significance to prevent the dangerous concentration of wealth and power that emerging monopolies (e.g. Amazon, Google..) represent?

I'd suggest those who feel we've only recently moved into a post-truth world check out James Madison's famous Federalist No. 10, written in 1787, in which he briefly outlines the positive role that factions (e.g. political parties) play in securing a nation's precarious political stability.

Taken separately, factions work to advance particular group interests (typically self-interest is aligned with class-interests) at the expense of anything resembling the common good. In a large and diverse nation, however, the various factions can offset and 'check' each other. So rather than being a burden they're actually a blessing.

The relevance of this, as I see it, is to show that mine, Thanatos' and others' cynicism on the matter is justified on historical grounds, and at the very inception of the USA the more astute thinkers were already taking what they felt were necessary precautions against the deception and selfishness so prevalent in politics (and elsewhere).

I wonder if there's ever been a society in which the overwhelming majority of citizens willingly set aside what they perceived to be their particular interests, gathered together all the relevant facts pertaining to public affairs, looked at things from as many perspectives as possible in the most charitable way, and actively tried to bring about policies deemed beneficial to the whole of society?

The whole idea of 'checks and balances' thing underlying the US political system is predicated upon this extremely cynical view of human beings. Politicians will generally sacrifice truth or justice or any other professed principle if they feel it serves their interests to do so.

As Madison put it, "as long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other; and the former will be the objects to which the latter will attach themselves."

So it bears repeating that if there's never been a "truth" world (in the political realm especially), then post-truth makes no sense either. There may one characterized b reletively more truth, or another by less truth (where we're at now, perhaps), but never one wholly concerned with truth and completely free from other, less-elevated considerations.

I'd also mention, once again, the supreme value placed on rhetoric in ancient Greece, as you all know, as a means of securing one's advantage in both public and private affairs. Sophistry and politics are practically synonymous, and have been so for thousands of years.

I think you're right in many ways, but I have no problem referring to someone as a terrorist when the negative association attached to that term is warranted by their (or their group's) actions. I'm thinking of things like state-sponsored violence specifically targeting civilians or non-combatants, the hideous behavior of drug cartels (even though lacking a larger political agenda), etc.

It does seem like the standard definition is one conveniently created by powerful nations in order to delimit and discredit those who stand in the way of their designs: from an imperialist power like the USA in its dealings with other recalcitrant nations to a brutal dictator of a smaller nation trying to expand or hold on to power against a resistant segment of his or her own population.

But I also feel like anyone who purposely targets children and other innocents is rightly described as a terrorist, no matter how worthy or just they (or others) feel their cause is.

So my amateur recommendation would be to expand the term to include any individuals or groups who employ horrific tactics against human beings to pursue their ends, rather than eschewing the term altogether because it's been appropriated and exploited by the powerful in the ways it has up to this point.

There's still much ambiguity here, but that's a start and IMO the proper direction to take the matter.

Let's say he's the Continetal version of Gassendi, as the latter was an obvious partisan of Analytic Philosophy and dismissive of any who didn't share his views.

But perhaps you had a much better understanding of his personality and philosophical positions than I did.

He's no Gassendi. — Banno

I'm not going to speak ill of the dead, but I think he's every bit as knowledgeable as Gassendi.

Apologies for that. I was crafting a tactful response and didn't see this warning.

Like I said, I think I tried to judge him according to normal standards when in fact his personality is a bit idiosyncratic.

He reminds me a bit of Gassendi from the old PF. A somewhat cranky dude who was prone to be dismissive of others but slowly gained the respect of everyone there.

I interpreted Wayfarer's remark to Thantos to be a bit condescending. I say that as someone who likes Wayfarer as a generally thoughtful and kind poster whose positions (other than here) are often very congenial to my own.

I should also add that I had my own rather ugly spat with Thanatos a couple weeks ago after being absent here for a bit and not getting an immediate 'feel' for his style. I was accused of being a racist and cut off from further discussion in the thread, which prompted an ugly outburst from me.

But after bouncing around the forums and seeing a bunch of his posts, I noticed that he was very knowledgeable, and could even be very gracious towards his interlocutors.

I'm only adding to this gossip because I've seen a lot of posters here calling for his ban lately, under some idea that he's a troll.

That's clearly not the case, and I hope he doesn't get banned. I think the next go around I have with him--and I'm sure we won't always be in agreement like we are here--I'll have a frame of reference and won't get too upset if he decides to end the particular conversation.

In other words I won't take it as personally as I did last time but only as a practical means of ending a pointless going around in circles.

Just my opinion if any moderators happen to look into this issue. I understand where you guys are coming from but also think the forum benefits from his presence as a professional academic (I think)--even if he occasionally comes across as rude and dismissive.

But we should get back to the topic...

The following is a series of short conversations between a Soviet military adviser and an Egyptian general which took place during the Yom Kippur War (aka October War) of 1973. To give a little context, the Egyptians made significant territorial gains through a surprise attack which caught the Israelis off guard, but then faced a vigorous counterattack.

Egyptian General: We're getting pushed back, what should we do?
Soviet Adviser: Retreat!

Egyptian General: We've lost all the territory we'd originally gained, what should we do?
Soviet Adviser: Retreat!

Egyptian General: The Israelis have now advanced well inside our borders, what should we do?
Soviet Adviser: Retreat!

Egyptian General: We run the risk of being completely overwhelmed, and having our entire nation come under Israeli occupation, what should we do now that retreat is no longer an option?!
Soviet Adviser: Now......we wait for winter!


Yeah, I know, pretty lame.

That'll work. 8-)

Well, are you familiar with Heidegger's notion of truth as alethia? Huh?

Being is historical, and therefore Truth (as unconcealment) is historical. There's no Being without Truth and no Truth without Being. (capitalizing for dramatic effect)

But please give my previous recommendation a read and get back to me on this.

I'm sincerely interested in your opinion.

But you may have much better insight into this particular issue than I do, Thanatos.

I'm not nearly as familiar with the theological dimension of Heidegger's thinking as you probably are, given your previous mention of having studied under Jesuits and therefore being aware of those typically (but not always) unmentioned influences on his work.