Socialists and Scientific Authoritarianism

[Ecmandu]

If we are "excessively uniform" in the idea that we should not harm or kill people around us, I'm not sure what the problem is.

The problem is when you take what happens to be the best decision in one situation and apply it to all other situations (including those where it is not the best decision.) I believe that in reality in the great majority of cases the correct answer to a question of the form "What is the best thing to do?" is situation-dependent and thus different for different people. The current trend is to focus on finding the approach that when put into practice by everyone yields the best results.

Magnus doesn’t understand your point.

If EVERYONE decided not to hurt ANYONE.... what’s the problem with that?

Magnus literally didn’t comprehend what you said about that form of hypothetical uniformity.

And obviously he has no argument.

Magnus just mashed a bunch of words together that have NOTHING to do with what you said.

[Magnus Anderson]

If EVERYONE decided not to hurt ANYONE.... what’s the problem with that?

If everyone decided to act in a way that causes no harm (of any kind) to anyone else, man-made problems would no longer exist. There's nothing wrong with that. (Indeed, it's highly desirable.) But note that when I said "excessive uniformity" I was speaking of something else. The word "excessive" should be a tell. It refers to a kind of uniformity that HURTS other people.

Magnus doesn’t understand your point.

[..]

Magnus literally didn’t comprehend what you said about that form of hypothetical uniformity.

And obviously he has no argument.

Magnus just mashed a bunch of words together that have NOTHING to do with what you said.

And it might be the case that what you just wrote has nothing to do with what anyone said in this thread. (Alternatively, it might the case that dorky dude failed to understand what I said and thus offered a response that wasn't sufficiently related.)

[Ecmandu]

Ok,

I understand that you stated excessive uniformity is bad... but, I also saw DD state, “well what if the excessive uniformity is this?”

Of which DD is not incorrect.

[Magnus Anderson]

Each person should do what is truly best for them. That may or may not result in everyone doing one and the same thing. (Nonetheless, I am of the opinion that in most cases what is good for one is different from what is good for someone else.) However, when everyone is forced to behave in one and the same way when behaving in such a way is not the best course of action to take for many (if not most) people, then we're speaking of what I call "excessive uniformity".

[Gloominary]

Good points, you're right.

It's important to separate science the business, hobby or interest from scientism and technocracy the ideologies.

I was overreaching.

Okay, but in regard to authoritarianism...

...a form of government characterized by the rejection of political plurality, the use of a strong central power to preserve the political status quo, and reductions in the rule of law, separation of powers, and democratic voting. wiki

...be it theological, ideological, socialist, Communist, capitalist, libertarian, scientific, etc., how do we go about assessing our own moral and political value judgments?

From my frame of mind, moral and political objectivism begets an authoritarian frame of mind.

In other words, making a distinction between authority predicated on "might makes right" and authority predicated on "right makes might". With the former it's all basically about a dog-eat-dog, survival of the fittest mentality. With the latter it's more about one or another font from which is derived the most rational and virtuous behaviors. It might be God, it might be ideology, it might deontology. Or the "good" might be ascribed to Nature.

Which is why I would like to explore in more detail your own political value judgments.

In regard to this:

Is there a way for philosophers to dispense with ideology and come up with the most rational policies that a government -- any government -- are obligated to pursue?

What then of the arguments I make about the existential juncture that is identity, value judgments, conflicting goods and political power?

And:

...how do we go about dispensing with the "isms" in order to arrive at something in the general vicinity of the objective truth? Truths that all rational and virtuous men and women are obligated to accept.

To what extent do you construe your own reaction to liberal and left-wing policies from the perspective of authoritarianism? Or are you willing to accept that given new experiences, new relationships and access to new ideas, you might one day find yourself embracing liberal and left wing arguments. Re folks like David Brock or Arianna Huffington. Just as any number of former liberals switched to conservativism.

But: my focus is on how this is embedded existentially in the lives that people live. Embedded in dasein. As opposed to those who argue that intellectually, rationally, philosophically etc., an argument can be made that actually demonstrates why left wing or right wing value judgments are necessarily, inherently more reasonable.

In other words, that authoritarianism has more to do with human psychology than with whatever particular values the authoritarians happen to subscribe to "here and now" themselves.

All good points.

As I agree with them all, I don't have much to add.

Yes, even capitalism and libertarianism can be authoritarian, in the sense that a minority of people could try to impose capitalism and libertarianism on a majority of people, who would rather have centrism or something.

Actually I already hold some leftwing positions on the economy and environment, it's just in general I find myself agreeing more with the contemporary right, overall I find them to be more libertarian and populist.

[Gloominary]

I agree that openness to change, different opinions and nuance is key to being anti-authoritarian.

Over the years I have changed my positions, I used to be more left in some ways, and more right in others, and some of my positions could change again.

[Gloominary]

What I don't like is this idea that the scientific community, academia, MSM or the technocrats always have the whole truth and nothing but on their side, that the people or alternative institutions couldn't have any truth that the experts don't have, that we ought to always defer to them.
That is a kind of authoritarian elitism, and I'm completely against it.
Consider what the experts have to say, but they're not the be all and end all.

[Lorikeet]

Anti-ahjtoritarian personalities are typically the product of miscegenation and lost or weak father figures.
Usually such personalities turn to dead idols or abstractions to surrender to, because the shame is not as severe when you are submitting to an abstraction rather than to a real person.

Cultural and genetic miscegenating also creates a need to harmonize incompatible world-views, often resorting to obscurantism, mysticism and to hyperbole, such as the belief that science can, one day, attain omniscience.
Inexperience with a tangible authority with a shared heritage and a common objective leads to extremist presumptions, the mind imagining what it has minimal experience with in idealistic extremes.

[Urwrongx1000]

That also applies to most people "interested in philosophy", and what they mean by "philosophy" is quoting dead philosophers, rather than actually understanding and applying their arguments to others.

When authority is applied in real-time, like producing weak arguments or personal attacks (like on this forum), then again, they think it doesn't apply to them. It demonstrates their own lack of authority.

[Lorikeet]

Philosophy has been contaminated by personality worship - look at how they adore Trump, those who then claim to be anti-auhtoritarian.
It's a desire to surrender to what is worthy, what represents our highest ideals..... the powerless worship the powerful and the influential.
They worship what they hope to become.

Narcissism is for them a virtue, if it affects people....because they covet what they do not have.

Like those who get stuck on famous icons, movie stars, sports celebrities or philosophers, like Nietzsche. Its the effect on the masses they crave....
they would not give a shit about his opinions if they were not so influential among men-children....
Most often the cliché stands...father issues.
Lost boys attach themselves to iconic figures.

[obsrvr524]

Philosophy has been contaminated by personality worship - look at how they adore Trump, those who then claim to be anti-auhtoritarian.
It's a desire to surrender to what is worthy, what represents our highest ideals..... the powerless worship the powerful and the influential.
They worship what they hope to become.

Narcissism is for them a virtue, if it affects people....because they covet what they do not have.

Like those who get stuck on famous icons, movie stars, sports celebrities or philosophers, like Nietzsche. Its the effect on the masses they crave....
they would not give a shit about his opinions if they were not so influential among men-children....
Most often the cliché stands...father issues.
Lost boys attach themselves to iconic figures.

You finally display the limits of your wisdom - your ignorance of the reality.

Now I find you predictable - "pinned".

[Lorikeet]

It must bring you much joy...to think so.

Oh well.

[Lorikeet]

Part of modern psychosis is the "gotcha factor"...the need to find a flaw so as to not challenge established beliefs.
I call it the "power of nil"....as it uses the absolute as its standard and so nothing can ever match it so there's always a reason to dismiss and to remain as you were.
No need to change at all.....no need to alter your world-view, because nothing can ever meet the absolute criterion....all is flawed, so it's all a mater of finding what feels good and sticking with it.,...especially since there is no cost, not in a sheltered world.

Something I said must of hit home...
I think I know what it is...aren't you the one who worships that St. James guy? The affectance dude...
That would explain why you were so exposed by my words. personality worship, missing fathers...you had to dismiss me.
But who cares?
Does it disprove what I said?

[Lorikeet]

See, this is what I meant by the "power of nil", or how nihilism is a defence against being exposed to others as what one fears one is compared to them.
Nihilism used the absence of an absolute perfect state as an excuse to dismiss anything that comes close to the heart. A negating concealment.
Not covering the world, but oneself from it.
Self-consciuosness exposes the mind to the anxiety of being seen by another....and this is why it develops all these spiritual and secular ideologies that arbitrarily negate.
This is the source no other species can experience - the anxiety, the pain, of knowing the others knows who and what you are. So, creating an impressive or formidable image is essential....to conceal oneself in pretences.
Icons, in lieu of fathers, are a source of image creation. Young men imitate their chosen mentors trying to replicate the effect...just as they would if their father's were formidable or alive or present.
The s is that dead icons cannot be overcome, as a father can be...there is no rite of ascent from adolescence to maturity, so men-children become trapped in a perpetual state of adolescence - forever rebelling against a father figure they cannot overcome.

[obsrvr524]

I think you might want to consider exposing your thoughts a little slower. Attention deficiency is caused by over anxiousness to respond - no time to listen and attend to the actual, deeper environment.

[Urwrongx1000]

Authoritarianism is rooted in the father-child relationship, and innately exposes personal relationships of individuals, whether intentional or not.

In this Modern-Post-Modern Western world, I agree with Lorikeet on one main thing. Western society/culture does *NOT* advocate for, and it even censors the idea, of child surpassing the father, which is the case of more Conservative/Traditional cultures. Western Civilization/USA is more about detachment, removing and destroying family connections, where the child stays forever prepubescent or infantile. This is a political and cultural attitude.

For evidence and proof of this, do a simple exercise. Watch popular movies, media, and television shows from the 1970s to now, compare & contrast their messages of morality. Show how they have gotten better or worse, more or less relevant than before. Why are the Marvel movies so popular, why the fixation on superheroes? Why is politics and news media obsessed with Trump? Consider the last several Presidents, how many had sons? How many had daughters? Is it a coincidence that Liberal Presidents have daughters and Conservative Presidents have sons?

Lots of legitimate questions and answers, yet nobody has dug into the philosophy around here. Why not?

[obsrvr524]

Authoritarianism is rooted in the father-child relationship,

It seems to me to be far more of a Master-Slave relationship. A parent implies a degree of concern for the well being of the child. I am not seeing that. What I am seeing is commands being dictated, profits being extorted, and punishments for not obeying. If that is a parent, I sure would hate to be in that gene pool.

Lots of legitimate questions and answers, yet nobody has dug into the philosophy around here. Why not?

Such as?

[Urwrongx1000]

The Father-Child relationship is not akin to the Master-Slave dialectic, this is actually a big problem.

Many people conflate the two, and that "Authoritarianism automatically means Fascism/Tyranny". It doesn't. Again, some fathers are good fathers, other fathers are bad fathers, some are absent and not present at all. So how the personal relationship is abstracted to Politics, or in this case Scientific Authoritarianism, doesn't necessarily mesh together or agree. This is why many people are threatened by Trump, like the liberal-left, and others are not, like the conservative-right. The threat is a resemblance of how a father has dominion over a family.

If a father is abusive, then this taints the perception, and then that perception will be abstracted politically.


That's the larger point.

To say that "All Authoritarianism is Fascist and Totalitarianism" is the equivalent to claiming "All fathers are bad fathers".


Scientific Authority is quite simple. If Scientists can reliably and consistently reproduce Experiments and Results, then that constitutes "Scientific Authority". There is less 'morality' in Science than there would be in, say, Religious Authority. A different type of system, and means of gaining and maintaining status of Authority.

"Who is the Authority" on what?

[Urwrongx1000]

And why?

[Lorikeet]

The natural rites of ascent were between a flesh and blood father figure and his sons.

1- At first the boy worships his father as a god like figure. His father can do no wrong, the child hangs from his every word.
2-Then, around adolescence, the child begins to see the father's flaws, his humanity....his imperfections.
He rebels, becomes disillusioned, disappointed in a father he idolized.
3- Then the boy goes into the world can realized there is no perfect man, no perfect woman, no perfect anything...he now begins to appreciate his father flaws and all...as but a representation of his heritage his identity.

This does not occur in modern systems.
first because ideas are defined 'out of existence", i.e., made into supernatural, vague, perfect entities, clouded in mysticism and validate by obscurantism.
The boy cannot finish the process towards maturity, and is stuck in idol worship or in rebelliousness, never being able to surpass what is perfect and absolute and faceless....unreal.

Such boys usually lack a tangible experience with a real man, a real fahter....so they idolize the concept of father. The missing father becomes scarified, deified....conceptualized as this perfect being
Some remain submissive children to authority, others progress to a state of perpetual adolescence, continuously rebelling against authority because no earthly authority can ever live up to the ideal; no real tangible authority figure is ever worthy of respect because none can match the imagined one.

If Nietzsche were alive these men-children who worship him would quickly lose interest in him...it is in death where the dead attain perfection, like Jesus did to be resurrected as purified sanctified ideal.
Such minds are easily manipulated by charlatans who offer them a surreal, a supernatural, paternal figure....but such magical spells quickly dissolve in the light....like vermin scurry into the corners when the lights are turned on, and shadows dissipate and retreat when the sun rises...
Shadows are required for superstitions to survive. Some, like the guy in Plato's cave, refuse to leave the shadow world...the shadows are comforting...concealing....
In the dark all merge and synthesize, everything becomes larger more terrifying...more awe inspiring...boundaries fade and you cannot clearly distinguish nor discriminate, you cannot differentiate.
In the dark all is one and the same, allowing the mind to turn inwards to its dreams, to its fantasies, to its inner light, such as it is.

The dynamic is a bit different with women...but that's a topic for another day.

[Gloominary]

For me, there are two authorities, the individual, and the people.
I tend to emphasize individualism a bit more than populism, but they ought to share power.
There is no autocratic, or oligarchic authority, whether it's minorities on the left hand, or corporations, technocrats or theocrats on the right.
Elected leaders should be given a bit of leeway to exercise their own judgment independently of the people, but fundamentally or mostly, they should carry out what the people elected them to do, or they're bad leaders.
I don't look at society the way I look at a family.
Humans aren't eusocial, like the eusocial insects, our societies are much more contrived and genetically heterogeneous than theirs.
If you give one or a handful of men power, in all likelihood they will put their interests way ahead of the people, whose interests they may not even understand, let alone care much, if at all about.
The individual, and the people have to took out for themselves, they can't expect anyone else to.

[Lorikeet]

Traditional societies, based on ethnicity, are homogenous ....the Spartan respected his leaders because he shared genes and memes - bloodlines and a culture.
His leader was a representation of himself.
Modern systems are increasingly heterogeneous....like the US. No common ethnicity, no common racial or cultural foundation ...all based on an idea, i.e., liberty, salvation.
This is alienating...just as a worker in alienated from the product of his labour, in Marxist theory.
The individual feels no pride in a shared goal, a common past...all he is given is a product to consume and to participate in producing. So, he seeks pride elsewhere...in fantasy, in delusion, in nullification... a slave having lost all sources of pride feels proud of his enslavement, in his servitude, in his submission.

[iambiguous]

Good points, you're right.

It's important to separate science the business, hobby or interest from scientism and technocracy the ideologies.

I was overreaching.

Okay, but in regard to authoritarianism...

...a form of government characterized by the rejection of political plurality, the use of a strong central power to preserve the political status quo, and reductions in the rule of law, separation of powers, and democratic voting. wiki

...be it theological, ideological, socialist, Communist, capitalist, libertarian, scientific, etc., how do we go about assessing our own moral and political value judgments?

From my frame of mind, moral and political objectivism begets an authoritarian frame of mind.

In other words, making a distinction between authority predicated on "might makes right" and authority predicated on "right makes might". With the former it's all basically about a dog-eat-dog, survival of the fittest mentality. With the latter it's more about one or another font from which is derived the most rational and virtuous behaviors. It might be God, it might be ideology, it might deontology. Or the "good" might be ascribed to Nature.

Which is why I would like to explore in more detail your own political value judgments.

In regard to this:

Is there a way for philosophers to dispense with ideology and come up with the most rational policies that a government -- any government -- are obligated to pursue?

What then of the arguments I make about the existential juncture that is identity, value judgments, conflicting goods and political power?

And:

...how do we go about dispensing with the "isms" in order to arrive at something in the general vicinity of the objective truth? Truths that all rational and virtuous men and women are obligated to accept.

To what extent do you construe your own reaction to liberal and left-wing policies from the perspective of authoritarianism? Or are you willing to accept that given new experiences, new relationships and access to new ideas, you might one day find yourself embracing liberal and left wing arguments. Re folks like David Brock or Arianna Huffington. Just as any number of former liberals switched to conservativism.

But: my focus is on how this is embedded existentially in the lives that people live. Embedded in dasein. As opposed to those who argue that intellectually, rationally, philosophically etc., an argument can be made that actually demonstrates why left wing or right wing value judgments are necessarily, inherently more reasonable.

In other words, that authoritarianism has more to do with human psychology than with whatever particular values the authoritarians happen to subscribe to "here and now" themselves.

All good points.

As I agree with them all, I don't have much to add.

Yes, even capitalism and libertarianism can be authoritarian, in the sense that a minority of people could try to impose capitalism and libertarianism on a majority of people, who would rather have centrism or something.

Actually I already hold some leftwing positions on the economy and environment, it's just in general I find myself agreeing more with the contemporary right, overall I find them to be more libertarian and populist.

Okay, I'm just ever and always exploring the extent to which someone's moral and political convictions are recognized to be existential fabrications rooted subjectively in dasein...or are instead thought to be derived from one or another objectivist font: God, political ideology, Reason, Kantian deontology, assessments of Nature etc.

After all, to the extent that someone is an objectivist, they might have an argument that allows me to yank myself up out of this:

If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values "I" can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction...or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then "I" begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.

My point is that whatever one thinks is right or wrong in regard to "Socialists and Scientific Authoritarianism" here and now, a new experience, a new relationship or access to new information, knowledge and ideas, could very well manage to change their minds.

On the other hand, the more rabid objectivists among us, liberal or conservative, left wing or right wing, are pretty much convinced only the manner in which they argue about, well, everything, reflects the actual Truth about it.

This part in other words: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=185296

[Gloominary]

Okay, I'm just ever and always exploring the extent to which someone's moral and political convictions are recognized to be existential fabrications rooted subjectively in dasein...or are instead thought to be derived from one or another objectivist font: God, political ideology, Reason, Kantian deontology, assessments of Nature etc.

After all, to the extent that someone is an objectivist, they might have an argument that allows me to yank myself up out of this:

If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values "I" can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction...or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then "I" begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.

My point is that whatever one thinks is right or wrong in regard to "Socialists and Scientific Authoritarianism" here and now, a new experience, a new relationship or access to new information, knowledge and ideas, could very well manage to change their minds.

On the other hand, the more rabid objectivists among us, liberal or conservative, left wing or right wing, are pretty much convinced only the manner in which they argue about, well, everything, reflects the actual Truth about it.

This part in other words: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=185296

As I'm an agnostic, I don't derive my values or politics from God.
I don't derive them from philosophical abstractions like Kantianism or Platonism either.
Nonetheless, my values and politics aren't wholly subjective, nor wholly objective.

I derive them from what I believe is my mostly rational (altho some may argue irrational), and intuitive understanding of the world, how it was, is and could be, as well as my feelings, my preferences for what ought to be.
Hindsight is relatively 20/20, foresight gives you a list of possibilities, plausibilities and probabilities.
My reason, and intuition tell me which courses of action are possible, and the likely consequences of them, that's the more-or less objective part, my feelings tell me which consequences I prefer, that's the subjective part.
I take the course of action whose consequences I prefer.
If I take x action in x situation, get the consequences I was expecting, and like the consequences, I'm more likely to take that or similar actions in the same or similar situations in the future.
Conversely, if I take x action in x situation, don't get the consequences I was expecting, and don't like the consequences, I'm less likely to take that or similar actions in the same or similar situations in the future.

Overtime, I am able to figure out which actions are most likely to get me the best results, the ones I like.
I may recommend others, who're similar to me and in similar situations, take similar actions, and these recommendations to myself, and others become my values.
I also learn from others, which actions will likely yield the best results.
Sometimes I learn from others negatively, that guy did that and he got bad results.

[Magnus Anderson]

What I don't like is this idea that the scientific community, academia, MSM or the technocrats always have the whole truth and nothing but on their side, that the people or alternative institutions couldn't have any truth that the experts don't have, that we ought to always defer to them.
That is a kind of authoritarian elitism, and I'm completely against it.
Consider what the experts have to say, but they're not the be all and end all.

They may as well be right about everything. I don't think that's the problem.