democracy and objectivism

For discussions of culture, politics, economics, sociology, law, business and any other topic that falls under the social science remit.

democracy and objectivism

Postby iambiguous » Sat Jan 23, 2021 7:38 pm

On another thread Gloominary noted this:

Gloominary wrote:Unfortunately, it may not be possible to get our democracies back without civil war, or at least extra extraordinary civil unrest.


That got me to thinking about democracy and the manner in which some construe it as moral and political objectivists and others more in the context of moderation, negotiation and compromise.

In other words, in regard to moral and political value judgments, there are those who do believe that the world is divided up between those who are "one of us" [the good folks] and those who are "one of them" [the evil folks]. They accept democracy insofar as they are willing to accept the rule of law and the institutions embedded in the democratic process. Thus they accept that both the "good" and the "evil" folks can, through elections, vie for power. If they lose the election they are no less convinced that their own moral narratives and political agendas are objectively true, but they accept a peaceful transition of power.

On the other hand, there are those who acknowledge that both sides of political spectrum are able to make reasonable arguments for their own point of view. That there is no objective truth that can be derived from the modern equivalent of the "philosopher-king". There can be no modern equivalent of Plato's Republic. And that only through "moderation, negotiation and compromise" can we sustain the "best of all possible worlds".

Now, I am more in sync "here and now" with those who embrace democracy and the rule of law. But only as someone who is "fractured and fragmented" given the arguments I have made on other threads.

And, in fact, those here that most fascinate me are the karpel tunnels. They are not "fulminating fanatics" on either the left or the right end of the ideological spectrum, but they are not nearly as drawn and quartered as "I" am.

At the same time, I still accept the arguments made by those like Marx and Engels in regard to political economy. I too believe in the existence of a "deep state" -- a "ruling class" -- here in America that [historically] transcends both the objectivist and perspectivist frames of mind.

This one: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... s#p2187045
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 41042
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: democracy and objectivism

Postby Gloominary » Sun Jan 24, 2021 5:51 pm

I'm not an objectivist, just there's a limit to how much authoritarianism I'm willing to put up with.
I'm not saying I've reached my limit, just that I may if we continue to go down this road.
The elite do everything they can to marginalize dissidents, making it more difficult for them to publicly vent their frustrations, it may be next to impossible for them to do so in the near future.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3503
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: democracy and objectivism

Postby Gloominary » Sun Jan 24, 2021 5:58 pm

Also, I'm not sure how much election fraud there is these days, maybe the whole thing is rigged.

I'm not a theist and I don't think value exists apart from psychology.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3503
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: democracy and objectivism

Postby iambiguous » Sun Jan 24, 2021 9:11 pm

Gloominary wrote:I'm not an objectivist, just there's a limit to how much authoritarianism I'm willing to put up with.
I'm not saying I've reached my limit, just that I may if we continue to go down this road.
The elite do everything they can to marginalize dissidents, making it more difficult for them to publicly vent their frustrations, it may be next to impossible for them to do so in the near future.


Okay, so in regard to the various issues that often fiercely divide liberals and conservatives here, are you willing [like me] to accept that your current value judgments are rooted subjectively in political prejudices that may change down the road given new experiences, new relationships and access to new information, knowledge and ideas?

Or are you more convinced that what you believe now comes much closer to the convictions that all rational and virtuous men and women are obligated to embrace?

See, the tricky thing here is that for the objectivists among us who share your own thinking on these issues, they won't accept you as "one of us" unless you do insist that their frame of mind is the one and the only "true path".

Go ahead, ask them.

You are either on it with them or you are scum. And, in fact, based on my own experiences as a far-left objectivist, sometimes those who didn't share the same left-wing thinking were actually hated even more than the right-wingers!

And, yes, we are both more or less on the same page in regard to the existence of a deep state elite that orchestrates the global economy in order to pursue their own nihilistic credo: show me the money

We just construe it from different "political" perspectives.

Although my own perspective is almost certainly more "fractured and fragmented" than yours.

As for an "authoritarian" frame of mind, we need a particular context. What does it mean to be an authority on government and race and gender and abortion and religion and animal rights and human sexuality? How much of that is assessable through science and philosophy?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 41042
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: democracy and objectivism

Postby Gloominary » Mon Jan 25, 2021 1:52 pm

iambiguous wrote:
Gloominary wrote:I'm not an objectivist, just there's a limit to how much authoritarianism I'm willing to put up with.
I'm not saying I've reached my limit, just that I may if we continue to go down this road.
The elite do everything they can to marginalize dissidents, making it more difficult for them to publicly vent their frustrations, it may be next to impossible for them to do so in the near future.


Okay, so in regard to the various issues that often fiercely divide liberals and conservatives here, are you willing [like me] to accept that your current value judgments are rooted subjectively in political prejudices that may change down the road given new experiences, new relationships and access to new information, knowledge and ideas?

The value part is strictly subjective, but my understanding of the world is not, strictly subjective.
I think I have a good understanding of how the world works sociopolitically.
People who disagree with me on the fundamentals probably have a poor understanding.
It's unlikely I'll change my mind on the fundamentals.

Or are you more convinced that what you believe now comes much closer to the convictions that all rational and virtuous men and women are obligated to embrace?

Yes, but my convictions are quite broad.
I'm a populist, and there's many aspects of both the populist right, and the populist left I agree with.

See, the tricky thing here is that for the objectivists among us who share your own thinking on these issues, they won't accept you as "one of us" unless you do insist that their frame of mind is the one and the only "true path".

I'm not certain of anything.
While I think it's unlikely, it's not impossible that I may change my mind on the fundamentals of my sociopolitical understanding.
I still try to be open to being corrected by others.
This tends to keep me from being what I consider to be arrogant with people.

Also in some cases, I don't think my understanding is necessarily better than others, rather one of several roughly equally good ways of understanding the world that happens to consistently resonate with me.
In some cases, I even prefer some variety in belief, makes the world more interesting, and some beliefs may work for some better than others, depending on who they are and their circumstances.

While I'm pretty confident in my understanding, I'm also a fairly humble person, some are stronger than others, but we all have our strengths and weaknesses, I try to cut others some slack, some leeway.

One oughta know when an impasse in the conversation has been reached, when things become incommensurable it's time to part ways, agree to disagree.
People believe what they will, trying to force others to change never works, you only alienate them from your position even more.

I don't think it's healthy for the people to fight amongst ourselves, most of my fellow plebs are being exploited unwittingly.
Whatever hatred I have, I try to reserve for our real enemies, the elite, the ones who're both ultra rich, and pushing fascistic candidates and policies on us, not the people.

You are either on it with them or you are scum. And, in fact, based on my own experiences as a far-left objectivist, sometimes those who didn't share the same left-wing thinking were actually hated even more than the right-wingers!

That's not me, I can be civil with those I disagree with, without abandoning all sense of objectivity in the sociopolitical realm.

And, yes, we are both more or less on the same page in regard to the existence of a deep state elite that orchestrates the global economy in order to pursue their own nihilistic credo: show me the money

We just construe it from different "political" perspectives.

Although my own perspective is almost certainly more "fractured and fragmented" than yours.

Well I think that's good you still have a perspective, that you haven't given up on having one altogether.
Right, we both agree big business and politics are corrupt.
I think for you, the conventional center-right tends to be more corrupt than the conventional center-left, but I don't think you're far left, whereas for me, both the conventional center-right and center-left are about equally corrupt.
I tend to prefer the unconventional center-right and center-left, 3rd parties, independents and outsider candidates within the major parties, they tend to be less corrupt, in my estimation.

As for an "authoritarian" frame of mind, we need a particular context. What does it mean to be an authority on government and race and gender and abortion and religion and animal rights and human sexuality? How much of that is assessable through science and philosophy?

For me, there are no authorities, perhaps especially in ethics, society and politics, but in anything really.
I think some people can substantiate their opinions better than others, but there are no absolutes, no one, and no institution has a monopoly on truth and justice.
I see things in shades of grey, rather than in black and white on the one hand, or in all grey on the other.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3503
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: democracy and objectivism

Postby iambiguous » Mon Jan 25, 2021 7:48 pm

Gloominary wrote:
iambiguous wrote:
Gloominary wrote:I'm not an objectivist, just there's a limit to how much authoritarianism I'm willing to put up with.
I'm not saying I've reached my limit, just that I may if we continue to go down this road.
The elite do everything they can to marginalize dissidents, making it more difficult for them to publicly vent their frustrations, it may be next to impossible for them to do so in the near future.


Okay, so in regard to the various issues that often fiercely divide liberals and conservatives here, are you willing [like me] to accept that your current value judgments are rooted subjectively in political prejudices that may change down the road given new experiences, new relationships and access to new information, knowledge and ideas?

The value part is strictly subjective, but my understanding of the world is not, strictly subjective.
I think I have a good understanding of how the world works sociopolitically.
People who disagree with me on the fundamentals probably have a poor understanding.
It's unlikely I'll change my mind on the fundamentals.


The only problem perhaps is that there are any number of others here and elsewhere who disagree with your own assessment of the "fundamentals". And yet make the same claim that you do. In other words, there are sophisticated minds all up and down the political spectrum able to make sophisticated arguments -- left and right, liberal and conservative -- in defense of any particular side of any particular issue.

Then it revolves [for me] around the extent to which I construe someone to either be or not to be an objectivist...given my own subjective assessment of that here and elsewhere.

You are a "populist". Okay, what are the factors in your life that brought you to this frame of mind? What if those factors had been very, very different? Is there a way for philosophers, logicians, epistemologists, ethicists, anthropologists, political scientists, sociologists, psychologists, etc., to arrive at the most rational assessment of populism in regard to a particular set of circumstances in which "conflicting goods" crop up given the actual existential reality of human interactions?

The people vs. the elite. As though either one was a monolithic entity that could be clearly grasped and easily separated. As though there was this precise, fundamental understanding of the role that government plays in sustaining one rather than another reality. As though anyone can have a complete understanding of and control over all the countless social, political and economic variables that go into the making of any specific "situation".

See, the tricky thing here is that for the objectivists among us who share your own thinking on these issues, they won't accept you as "one of us" unless you do insist that their frame of mind is the one and the only "true path".


Gloominary wrote: I'm not certain of anything.


Okay, but it seems that you do have as much confidence in the "fundamentals" here as those on the left. It's just a different set of assumptions in regard to the "human condition". Should the emphasis be more on the individual or the group? Should factors like race and gender and sexual orientation be grasped this way or that way? Is it more about genes or memes?

And then the part about political economy and the ruling class. What is the most fundamental understanding of this? The way you think about it, the way I do?

And then all the "social issues" like abortion, gun control, animal rights, hunting, capital punishment, drug policies, separation of church and state, health care issues, sexuality. What constitutes a fundamental understanding of them?

On the other hand, there are in fact any number of authorities out there in regard to issues in which someone can actually be an authority. In regard to the laws of nature, mathematics, the rules of language, empirical truths.

There are clearly authorities in the world of physics and chemistry and biology and geology and meteorology and engineering and technology.

But are there authorities when it comes to conflicting moral and political value judgments? No, in my view, there are only those who deem themselves authorities as objectivists and those more willing to accept the points that I make in the OP. At least in regard to the political process in our modern world.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 41042
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: democracy and objectivism

Postby Gloominary » Mon Jan 25, 2021 11:30 pm

iambiguous wrote:You are a "populist". Okay, what are the factors in your life that brought you to this frame of mind? What if those factors had been very, very different? Is there a way for philosophers, logicians, epistemologists, ethicists, anthropologists, political scientists, sociologists, psychologists, etc., to arrive at the most rational assessment of populism in regard to a particular set of circumstances in which "conflicting goods" crop up given the actual existential reality of human interactions?

I'm not saying there are no life factors, biological, experiential, psychosocial, circumstantial, that go into what I believe about ethics, society and politics, just that they're not the only factors.
I think I have a good, rational understanding of these subjects.
Many, but by no means all of my ideas also appeal to me on an instinctive and intuitive level, which I'm sure is true for many who hold opposing ideas.
We can't and don't have to figure out everything of importance linearly, where we're unable to, sometimes instinct and intuition oughta fill in some of the blanks.

Just because there is some diversity in belief on these subjects, doesn't mean becoming pro-establishment, or a 'centrist', or suspending judgment is the more rational thing to do.
I go with what makes the most sense to me, and where I think my interests lie, and I leave it at that.
Even you don't suspend judgment altogether, you just appear to have more reservations about your judgment than I have about mine, so for you it's a question of degrees and where you draw the line, is A level of confidence overconfident, is B or C?
If X level of confidence, why not W or Y?

When things are difficult to asses, suspending judgment may be the better course of action, on the other hand, if say the building you and others are staying in is burning down, while there may be no obvious path to take, some are going this and others that way, some jump out the window, others try to put the flames out, others try to find a way around or through them somehow, as the flames engulf the room you're residing in, oxygen is getting thin and C02 thick, the option to stay put and do nothing clearly becomes the worst one of all.
Sometimes nature, and society demands that we act, personally, and politically, no matter how uncertain we may be.

Presuming things continue to unravel sociopolitically, on the fence will become the most uncomfortable and untenable place to be.
This will bring us into conflict with our fellow man, unfortunately this conflict is becoming increasingly physical, as people protest and riot, but it can't always be helped, some conflict is inevitable, as people's worldviews, and interests clash.
As time persists, perhaps the one thing practically all of us will be able to agree on is drastic action and change is needed.

The people vs. the elite. As though either one was a monolithic entity that could be clearly grasped and easily separated. As though there was this precise, fundamental understanding of the role that government plays in sustaining one rather than another reality. As though anyone can have a complete understanding of and control over all the countless social, political and economic variables that go into the making of any specific "situation".

They're not monolithic entities, but they are entities nonetheless in my estimation.
My understanding of them can't and doesn't have to be perfect, and I'm willing to update and upgrade it as I go along.
I go with what makes the most sense to me at the time, if something better comes along, I will adjust, make modifications.

See, the tricky thing here is that for the objectivists among us who share your own thinking on these issues, they won't accept you as "one of us" unless you do insist that their frame of mind is the one and the only "true path".

Well I'm not like that, I think I'm a bit more nuanced than that.
I try to stay on at least okay terms with everyone, find at least a little common ground, most of the time, but then you run into the hardliners you also disagree with a lot, and it becomes too much.

Okay, but it seems that you do have as much confidence in the "fundamentals" here as those on the left.

I should say that I don't expect to change my mind on the fundamentals...much.
Actually I'd be surprised if I didn't change my mind on them at all, but I'd be much more surprised if I took an immediate, or incremental 180 or even a 90 degree turn from where I am now.
If that were to happen, perhaps I'd find myself in similar position you're in, torn, fragmented and all of that, perhaps totally disinterested in ethics, society and politics, maybe art would become my thing, or maybe I'd be more interested in ethics and so on from a psychological point of view like you are.
I'll let the future tend to itself, for now at least, this's where I'm at.

On the other hand, there are in fact any number of authorities out there in regard to issues in which someone can actually be an authority. In regard to the laws of nature, mathematics, the rules of language, empirical truths.

There are clearly authorities in the world of physics and chemistry and biology and geology and meteorology and engineering and technology.

As both an individualist and a populist, I only accept two authorities, the authority of the individual over himself, and the authority of communities, figuring out what they believe and what they're going to do democratically, over themselves.
Where these two authorities conflict, collaboration and compromise oughta be sought, insofar as it's possible, it's not always.
As for climatologists, physicians and so on, they have about as much value as I assign them, for me.
I think their value is overestimated.

But are there authorities when it comes to conflicting moral and political value judgments? No, in my view, there are only those who deem themselves authorities as objectivists and those more willing to accept the points that I make in the OP. At least in regard to the political process in our modern world.

And yet people conflate climatology and virology with ethics, society and politics.
They think if a climatologist or virologist tells us to do X, or imposes some law on us, he's somehow not moving from the strictly climatological or virologic realm into the political realm.
Climatologists and virologists are becoming activists and politicians, but they want to keep all the authority the masses think they have when they're strictly doing climatology and virology.
That's bullshit and antidemocratic, but at this point, anything more from the political class would be too much to hope for, if anything we should expect even less.

The way I see it, there's a time for everything, a time for some individuals, and society to be more sociopolitically resolute, a time for other individuals, and society to be more irresolute.
In time, some from the former camp may join the latter, and vice versa.
There's no right or wrong way to be here, ahistorically.

I mean are we to just roll the die then, on ethical and sociopolitical matters?
Isn't there still value in trying to figure things out as best we can, in debate and discussion, even if we end up disagreeing on some things?
Do we not learn things from others occasionally, do we not correct others and plant seeds for future development?
Can our understanding of such matters not improve through serious reflection, debate and discussion?
It most definitely can, and does.
And just as our individual understanding of these matters tends to improve when we put in the effort, our collective understanding tends to improve, when each individual and community puts in the effort to assess these matters as best they can rather than apathetically acquiescing to moral and social chaos.
Or if it doesn't ultimately improve, it at least makes necessary adaptations to a changing world.

Is an individual or community who picks their ethical and sociopolitical positions out of a hat likely to be as functional as one who picks them after careful consideration?
Careful consideration gives us a better chance of understanding the ethical and sociopolitical world and how we feel about it subjectively, what outcomes are possible, what outcomes we always or tend to prefer.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3503
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: democracy and objectivism

Postby iambiguous » Tue Jan 26, 2021 7:39 pm

Gloominary wrote:
iambiguous wrote:You are a "populist". Okay, what are the factors in your life that brought you to this frame of mind? What if those factors had been very, very different? Is there a way for philosophers, logicians, epistemologists, ethicists, anthropologists, political scientists, sociologists, psychologists, etc., to arrive at the most rational assessment of populism in regard to a particular set of circumstances in which "conflicting goods" crop up given the actual existential reality of human interactions?


I'm not saying there are no life factors, biological, experiential, psychosocial, circumstantial, that go into what I believe about ethics, society and politics, just that they're not the only factors.
I think I have a good, rational understanding of these subjects.


Okay, let's focus in on conflicting attitudes those on the left and the right have in regard to both the size and the role of government in our lives.

My point is that those on both ends of the political spectrum come to embody particular "biological, experiential, psychosocial, circumstantial" etc. "selves". Conflicting identity politics based on existential trajectories that are derived from very, very different lives.

So, as a philosopher, a political scientist, and/or an ethicist, what are the factors that transcend these existential parameters, allowing someone to arrive at the most rational assessment that can be made regarding the size and the role of government in our lives.

Gloominary wrote: Many, but by no means all of my ideas also appeal to me on an instinctive and intuitive level, which I'm sure is true for many who hold opposing ideas.


Yes, we all come into the world hard-wired biologically to have instincts and intuitions about the world around us. Both liberals and conservatives. But how are the extant manifestations of this not going to be profoundly influenced by the particular historical, cultural and circumstantial context that we are "thrown" into fortuitously at birth? And then brainwashed for years as children to view a particular government in a particular way? And then as adults have a unique set of experiences with that government, shaping and molding our attitudes about government in general in different ways?

Again, taking all of this into account -- the part I root in dasein -- how are we to subsume all of vast and varied paths that individuals might be on into the one true path that all rational and virtuous men and women are obligated to be on.

Why must it be your own rendition of it or my own rendition of if and not those who disagree with us? Don't they have access to instinct and intuition as well?

Gloominary wrote: Just because there is some diversity in belief on these subjects, doesn't mean becoming pro-establishment, or a 'centrist', or suspending judgment is the more rational thing to do.
I go with what makes the most sense to me, and where I think my interests lie, and I leave it at that.


You just "leave it at that"?

Right, like all of those who disagree with your own political prejudices aren't making the same point.

Then [for me] it comes down to the extent to which they insist on leaving it like that because they have so much invested psychologically in one or another rendition of this:

1] For one reason or another [rooted largely in dasein], you are taught or come into contact with [through your upbringing, a friend, a book, an experience etc.] a worldview, a philosophy of life in regard to the size and the role of government.

2] Over time, you become convinced that this perspective on the size and the role of government expresses and encompasses the most rational and objective truth. This truth then becomes increasingly more vital, more essential to you as a foundation, a justification, a celebration of all that is moral as opposed to immoral, rational as opposed to irrational.

3] Eventually, for some, they begin to bump into others who feel the same way about the size and the role of government; they may even begin to actively seek out folks similarly inclined to view the world in a particular way.

4] Some begin to share this philosophy of the size and the role of government with family, friends, colleagues, associates, Internet denizens; increasingly it becomes more and more a part of their life. It becomes, in other words, more intertwined in their personal relationships with others...it begins to bind them emotionally and psychologically.

5] As yet more time passes, they start to feel increasingly compelled not only to share their Truth about the size and the role of government with others but, in turn, to vigorously defend it against any and all detractors as well.

6] For some, it can reach the point where they are no longer able to realistically construe an argument that disputes their own about the size and the role of government as merely a difference of opinion; they see it instead as, for all intents and purposes, an attack on their intellectual integrity....on their very Self.

7] Finally, a stage is reached [again for some] where the original philosophical quest for truth, for wisdom regarding the size and the role of government has become so profoundly integrated into their self-identity [professionally, socially, psychologically, emotionally] defending it has less and less to do with philosophy at all. And certainly less and less to do with "logic".


Gloominary wrote: Even you don't suspend judgment altogether, you just appear to have more reservations about your judgment than I have about mine, so for you it's a question of degrees and where you draw the line, is A level of confidence overconfident, is B or C?
If X level of confidence, why not W or Y?


Considerably more reservations when your own "I" is "fractured and fragmented". But not in regard B or C or X or W or Y. In regard to any number of actual conflicting goods that have rent the species down through the ages. I no longer have your own instinctive, intuitive certainty about the size and role of government in my life. A seeming certainty that you keep assuring us is not the same thing as being an objectivist.

In the political process, are you willing to admit [as I am] that you might be wrong about your own value judgments here? That in regard to government and individualism and populism, you might have new experiences that change your mind? Thus if the liberals win the elections [as they have here in America] and their views on government come to prevail, you'll accept that because, after all, they might be right? You're not at all like the "fulminating fanatics" here who hold in contempt anyone who does not think exactly like they do about government?

The people vs. the elite. As though either one was a monolithic entity that could be clearly grasped and easily separated. As though there was this precise, fundamental understanding of the role that government plays in sustaining one rather than another reality. As though anyone can have a complete understanding of and control over all the countless social, political and economic variables that go into the making of any specific "situation".


Gloominary wrote: They're not monolithic entities, but they are entities nonetheless in my estimation.
My understanding of them can't and doesn't have to be perfect, and I'm willing to update and upgrade it as I go along.
I go with what makes the most sense to me at the time, if something better comes along, I will adjust, make modifications.


Okay, then let's focus here on this:

Noting that when someone does change their moral and political frame of mind [about the size and the role of government], they are acknowledging that they were wrong about it. And that, once they acknowledge this, they are acknowledging in turn they may well be wrong about other things. Finally, they are acknowledging that, yes, given new experiences, new relationships and access to new information, knowledge and ideas, they might be prompted to change their minds again. And again.


In regard to the role of government in the lives of citizens, how have your life experiences shaped and molded your current views? Did you once think differently about it? And, if you did change your mind about it, aren't you acknowledging that you were once wrong about it? And, if you are admitting that, aren't you admitting that, given more new experiences, you might come to believe that you are wrong "here and now" as well?

Again, from my frame of mind, what is needed here is a definitive understanding of what you call the "fundamentals" in grasping one's reaction to government. And to individualism intertwined in populism. Beliefs that are so undeniably true that no new experiences could possibly change the minds of anyone. Why? Because this understanding is rooted in one or another objective font: God, Reason, ideology, deontology, nature itself.

And I'm not arguing that this "fundamental" truth about government does not exist. Only that "here and now" "I" am not privy to it.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 41042
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: democracy and objectivism

Postby Gloominary » Wed Jan 27, 2021 12:00 am

iambiguous wrote:
Gloominary wrote:
iambiguous wrote:You are a "populist". Okay, what are the factors in your life that brought you to this frame of mind? What if those factors had been very, very different? Is there a way for philosophers, logicians, epistemologists, ethicists, anthropologists, political scientists, sociologists, psychologists, etc., to arrive at the most rational assessment of populism in regard to a particular set of circumstances in which "conflicting goods" crop up given the actual existential reality of human interactions?

I'm not saying there are no life factors, biological, experiential, psychosocial, circumstantial, that go into what I believe about ethics, society and politics, just that they're not the only factors.
I think I have a good, rational understanding of these subjects.

Okay, let's focus in on conflicting attitudes those on the left and the right have in regard to both the size and the role of government in our lives.

My point is that those on both ends of the political spectrum come to embody particular "biological, experiential, psychosocial, circumstantial" etc. "selves". Conflicting identity politics based on existential trajectories that are derived from very, very different lives.

So, as a philosopher, a political scientist, and/or an ethicist, what are the factors that transcend these existential parameters, allowing someone to arrive at the most rational assessment that can be made regarding the size and the role of government in our lives.

There are none.
You interact, interpret and intuit, research and reason to the best of your ability.
Out of all that, comes your worldview.
Our worldviews more or less differ, and they always will, in part because some people are better at doing the above than others, and in part because we're just different, different preferences and ways of processing information, not necessarily wiser, and our life experiences and circumstances are just different.
How do you determine who's wiser?
By doing the above, there's no other way, unless you're superstitious and I'm not.
To the best of my ability, I think individualism and populism, as I conceive them, are the way, they think international fascism or communism, as I conceive them, are the way, and that's that.
I could be wrong, but I don't think I am, they could be wrong, but they don't think they are.
These subjects, ethics, sociopolitical philosophy and so on, are complex, no one has it all figured out, we could all be wrong, sometimes we can learn things from those with opposing views, nonetheless I'm taking a stand.

iambiguous wrote:
Gloominary wrote:Many, but by no means all of my ideas also appeal to me on an instinctive and intuitive level, which I'm sure is true for many who hold opposing ideas.

Yes, we all come into the world hard-wired biologically to have instincts and intuitions about the world around us. Both liberals and conservatives. But how are the extant manifestations of this not going to be profoundly influenced by the particular historical, cultural and circumstantial context that we are "thrown" into fortuitously at birth? And then brainwashed for years as children to view a particular government in a particular way? And then as adults have a unique set of experiences with that government, shaping and molding our attitudes about government in general in different ways?

Again, taking all of this into account -- the part I root in dasein -- how are we to subsume all of vast and varied paths that individuals might be on into the one true path that all rational and virtuous men and women are obligated to be on.

Why must it be your own rendition of it or my own rendition of if and not those who disagree with us? Don't they have access to instinct and intuition as well?

I never said my rendition must be right, I just said to the best of my ability, I think it's right.

iambiguous wrote:Considerably more reservations when your own "I" is "fractured and fragmented". But not in regard B or C or X or W or Y. In regard to any number of actual conflicting goods that have rent the species down through the ages. I no longer have your own instinctive, intuitive certainty about the size and role of government in my life. A seeming certainty that you keep assuring us is not the same thing as being an objectivist.

I never said I was certain, I used the words likely and probable.
Notice how I also use terms like 'I think' a lot, and 'in my view', and 'the way I see it'.
I'm always mindful of myself, and my perspective/point of view, when talking about these subjects.

In the political process, are you willing to admit [as I am] that you might be wrong about your own value judgments here? That in regard to government and individualism and populism, you might have new experiences that change your mind? Thus if the liberals win the elections [as they have here in America] and their views on government come to prevail, you'll accept that because, after all, they might be right? You're not at all like the "fulminating fanatics" here who hold in contempt anyone who does not think exactly like they do about government?

I very well could be wrong, but that still doesn't mean I'm willing to accept anything.
If you want to know who the real fanatics are, you needn't look any further than the current occupant of the white house and his administration.
For the American 'liberal' and 'neocon' i.e. international fascist elite, anyone who doesn't think exactly the way they do on basically everything, is a fascist, Nazi or Russian agent.
They think Antifa and BLM has the right to riot, tear down monuments and terrorize communities.
The war on drugs, the war on terror and the patriot act, banker bailouts, corporatism, mass (illegal) immigration, offshoring, misandry, 'reverse' racism, radical social engineering, draconian covid laws and lockdowns, perhaps legal, but nonetheless unethical mass censorship, and surveillance, impeachments without evidence...
I'm not calling for violence, but what goes around comes around.
Whatever happens to them, they had it coming.

Okay, then let's focus here on this:

Noting that when someone does change their moral and political frame of mind [about the size and the role of government], they are acknowledging that they were wrong about it. And that, once they acknowledge this, they are acknowledging in turn they may well be wrong about other things. Finally, they are acknowledging that, yes, given new experiences, new relationships and access to new information, knowledge and ideas, they might be prompted to change their minds again. And again.


In regard to the role of government in the lives of citizens, how have your life experiences shaped and molded your current views? Did you once think differently about it? And, if you did change your mind about it, aren't you acknowledging that you were once wrong about it? And, if you are admitting that, aren't you admitting that, given more new experiences, you might come to believe that you are wrong "here and now" as well?

Again, from my frame of mind, what is needed here is a definitive understanding of what you call the "fundamentals" in grasping one's reaction to government. And to individualism intertwined in populism. Beliefs that are so undeniably true that no new experiences could possibly change the minds of anyone. Why? Because this understanding is rooted in one or another objective font: God, Reason, ideology, deontology, nature itself.

And I'm not arguing that this "fundamental" truth about government does not exist. Only that "here and now" "I" am not privy to it.

When I was younger, I often changed my mind on these matters, as I'm getting older, my beliefs are solidifying, of course I'm not alone in that, most go through a similar process.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3503
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: democracy and objectivism

Postby Gloominary » Wed Jan 27, 2021 7:04 pm

There's some things I'm more black and white on, and some things I'm more shades of grey on.
The bottom line for me is, in the anglosphere, the 'liberal' and 'neocon' establishment has to go.
It's been a long time coming, their time is up, their departure, long overdue.
As to what they should be replaced with, that I'm more openminded about.
I'm open to replacing them with ideas and ideals from the populist right, and the populist left.
Electing Biden was a massive step back, we need to move forward.
We need a real reset, not a fake one where we get even more of the same establishment who got us into this mess in the 1st place.
It's time for a complete overhaul.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3503
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: democracy and objectivism

Postby iambiguous » Thu Jan 28, 2021 7:52 pm

iambiguous wrote:Okay, let's focus in on conflicting attitudes those on the left and the right have in regard to both the size and the role of government in our lives.

My point is that those on both ends of the political spectrum come to embody particular "biological, experiential, psychosocial, circumstantial" etc. "selves". Conflicting identity politics based on existential trajectories that are derived from very, very different lives.

So, as a philosopher, a political scientist, and/or an ethicist, what are the factors that transcend these existential parameters, allowing someone to arrive at the most rational assessment that can be made regarding the size and the role of government in our lives.


Gloominary wrote: There are none.
You interact, interpret and intuit, research and reason to the best of your ability.
Out of all that, comes your worldview.


Okay, then here we are both on the same page. But if I were to propose that to those like urwrongx, obsrvr, Wendy and their equivalent on the left, would they agree? Would they accept that given new experiences, relationships and access to ideas, their own worldviews could change. Even as, with some, into the opposite? Those liberals who have become conservatives -- https://conservapedia.com/List_of_former_liberals -- and those conservatives that became liberals -- https://www.quora.com/Who-are-some-cons ... way-around

My point however is all the more disturbing to the objectivists here. Those who embrace either God, political ideology, deontology or nature. Why? Because I suggest human identity, when grasped as "I" in the realm of moral and political value judgments, is "fractured and fragmented". That in a No God world this is a reasonable frame of mind.

I then challenge them to take one of their own political prejudices and examine it as I have proposed on other threads. Which by and large they refuse to do.

But, come on, how far removed are you from objectivism when you argue this...

Gloominary wrote: Our worldviews more or less differ, and they always will, in part because some people are better at doing the above than others, and in part because we're just different, different preferences and ways of processing information, not necessarily wiser, and our life experiences and circumstances are just different.


So, your views on the size and the role of government, on the relationship between the individual and the group [in any particular context] just happens to coincide with the "better" frame of mind.

Just as those on the left will agree with you that there is in fact a better set of assumptions. It just happens to be their own however.

So, given my point in the OP, these particular liberals and conservatives may not be willing to share power with the "enemy" given election results. They might storm the Capitol instead in order take over the government in order that their own "better" arguments prevail.

Gloominary wrote: How do you determine who's wiser?
By doing the above, there's no other way, unless you're superstitious and I'm not.


My point however is that both sides are able to make reasonable arguments in regard to the size and the role of government. No one side is inherently, necessarily wiser. Therefore the "best of all possible worlds" in my view revolves around moderation, negotiation and compromise: a government with elements of socialism and capitalism.

Only there is the reality of political economy. And the fact that we both seem to agree that behind the curtain there is in fact a "deep state"/"ruling class" that, through economic and political power, enforce policies that sustain their own "10% of the population" interests above and beyond the 90% that is the rest of us.

In any event, in my view, you are more inclined to "take a stand" a hell of a lot closer to what I construe to be objectivism than the torn and tattered "I" that makes sense to me given the arguments I make in my signature threads.

iambiguous wrote:Yes, we all come into the world hard-wired biologically to have instincts and intuitions about the world around us. Both liberals and conservatives. But how are the extant manifestations of this not going to be profoundly influenced by the particular historical, cultural and circumstantial context that we are "thrown" into fortuitously at birth? And then brainwashed for years as children to view a particular government in a particular way? And then as adults have a unique set of experiences with that government, shaping and molding our attitudes about government in general in different ways?

Again, taking all of this into account -- the part I root in dasein -- how are we to subsume all of vast and varied paths that individuals might be on into the one true path that all rational and virtuous men and women are obligated to be on.

Why must it be your own rendition of it or my own rendition of if and not those who disagree with us? Don't they have access to instinct and intuition as well?


Gloominary wrote: I never said my rendition must be right, I just said to the best of my ability, I think it's right.


Again, as opposed to the objectivists here [left and right] who insist that either the liberals or the conservatives are scum if they dare not share their own basically authoritarian political dogmas.

iambiguous wrote:Considerably more reservations when your own "I" is "fractured and fragmented". But not in regard B or C or X or W or Y. In regard to any number of actual conflicting goods that have rent the species down through the ages. I no longer have your own instinctive, intuitive certainty about the size and role of government in my life. A seeming certainty that you keep assuring us is not the same thing as being an objectivist.


Gloominary wrote: I never said I was certain, I used the words likely and probable.
Notice how I also use terms like 'I think' a lot, and 'in my view', and 'the way I see it'.
I'm always mindful of myself, and my perspective/point of view, when talking about these subjects.


Okay, then the next time you are in an exchange with urwrongx or obsrvr or Wendy and you agree with a particular point of theirs, note this to them. See how they react.

Same with those here on the left. To the extend that we share the same political prejudices doesn't make my arguments go away. Thus to the extent that they are convinced their own value judgments reflect the equivalent of a "core self" inherently in sync with the "right thing to do" they are no less objectivists to me.

In the political process, are you willing to admit [as I am] that you might be wrong about your own value judgments here? That in regard to government and individualism and populism, you might have new experiences that change your mind? Thus if the liberals win the elections [as they have here in America] and their views on government come to prevail, you'll accept that because, after all, they might be right? You're not at all like the "fulminating fanatics" here who hold in contempt anyone who does not think exactly like they do about government?


Gloominary wrote: I very well could be wrong, but that still doesn't mean I'm willing to accept anything.
If you want to know who the real fanatics are, you needn't look any further than the current occupant of the white house and his administration.


All I'm asking anyone to accept is that their current political prejudices in regard to things like the size and the role of government are rooted as much in dasein as in anything that philosophers, political scientists and ethicists can establish as the optimal or the only rational manner in which to view it. And that, given new experiences, relationships and access to information, knowledge and ideas, they might change their minds. And that to the extent that they are objectivists it is rooted psychologically in the points I bring up here: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=185296

Including you.

After all, this sort of thinking...

Gloominary wrote: For the American 'liberal' and 'neocon' i.e. international fascist elite, anyone who doesn't think exactly the way they do on basically everything, is a fascist, Nazi or Russian agent.
They think Antifa and BLM has the right to riot, tear down monuments and terrorize communities.
The war on drugs, the war on terror and the patriot act, banker bailouts, corporatism, mass (illegal) immigration, offshoring, misandry, 'reverse' racism, radical social engineering, draconian covid laws and lockdowns, perhaps legal, but nonetheless unethical mass censorship, and surveillance, impeachments without evidence...
I'm not calling for violence, but what goes around comes around.
Whatever happens to them, they had it coming.


...comes awful close to the "fulminating fanatics" like urwrongx who seem pretty intent on making it an ideological dividing line between "one of us" [the heroes] and "one of them" [the villains].

Okay, then let's focus here on this:

Noting that when someone does change their moral and political frame of mind [about the size and the role of government], they are acknowledging that they were wrong about it. And that, once they acknowledge this, they are acknowledging in turn they may well be wrong about other things. Finally, they are acknowledging that, yes, given new experiences, new relationships and access to new information, knowledge and ideas, they might be prompted to change their minds again. And again.


In regard to the role of government in the lives of citizens, how have your life experiences shaped and molded your current views? Did you once think differently about it? And, if you did change your mind about it, aren't you acknowledging that you were once wrong about it? And, if you are admitting that, aren't you admitting that, given more new experiences, you might come to believe that you are wrong "here and now" as well?

Again, from my frame of mind, what is needed here is a definitive understanding of what you call the "fundamentals" in grasping one's reaction to government. And to individualism intertwined in populism. Beliefs that are so undeniably true that no new experiences could possibly change the minds of anyone. Why? Because this understanding is rooted in one or another objective font: God, Reason, ideology, deontology, nature itself.

And I'm not arguing that this "fundamental" truth about government does not exist. Only that "here and now" "I" am not privy to it.

Gloominary wrote: When I was younger, I often changed my mind on these matters, as I'm getting older, my beliefs are solidifying, of course I'm not alone in that, most go through a similar process.


Actually, for most it would seem to be the other way around. In their youth the world around them was black and white. It's not for nothing that the overwhelming preponderance of those who stormed the Capitol or participated in left wing demonstrations were young. Young men especially. The older we get and the more responsibilities we take on [like raising a family] the more complicated the world often becomes. I just happened to go off the deep end here given the arguments "I" make regarding the "self" at the existential junction of identity, value judgments and political power.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 41042
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: democracy and objectivism

Postby Gloominary » Sun Jan 31, 2021 4:40 pm

Yea, I think it's pretty clear playing lesser of two evil politics at best only slows your descent into evil.
I don't think I'm going out on much of a limb by saying it's time to ditch (establishment) republicrats (libcons in Canada) and support right or left populists, which's all I'm saying, what I'm saying is not partisan at all.
Last edited by Gloominary on Sun Jan 31, 2021 5:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3503
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: democracy and objectivism

Postby Gloominary » Sun Jan 31, 2021 4:56 pm

In any case, here's something we may both agree on.
In America, and the rest of the west too, there's no longer much, if any consensus on what constitutes a fanatic.
Close to half the country believes close to half the country are fanatics.
How're we to determine who the fanatics are in such a climate?
Are Trump supporters fanatics?
Are those labeling Trump supporters fanatics, fanatics?
Is what dems allowed to happen, or generated last summer and fall, fanatical?
Are those defending what dems did or failed to do, fanatics?
Or Are those accusing them of fanaticism, fanatics?
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3503
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: democracy and objectivism

Postby iambiguous » Mon Feb 01, 2021 6:47 pm

Gloominary wrote:Yea, I think it's pretty clear playing lesser of two evil politics at best only slows your descent into evil.
I don't think I'm going out on much of a limb by saying it's time to ditch (establishment) republicrats (libcons in Canada) and support right or left populists, which's all I'm saying, what I'm saying is not partisan at all.


Again, however, my point revolves more around those who will reconfigure words of this sort into an examination of an actual context in which there are clearly conflicting assessments of good and evil. Whether that be in regard to the size and the role of government or abortion or race or gender politics or human sexuality.

The religionists, the political ideologues, the deontologists among us believe that there does exist an objective evil. And they know this is true because they believe that it is true. And they believe that it is true because they are at one with their own true self or their very soul. A staunch and solid sense of identity that is able to make the dogmatic and authoritarian distinctions between "one of us" [the heroes] and "one of them" [the villains].

Note to urwrongx and Wendy and their ilk here: Explain this to him.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 41042
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: democracy and objectivism

Postby Gloominary » Tue Feb 02, 2021 12:24 pm

For me, the only villains, if there are any, are the deep state.
The deep state is made up of sociopaths, and elitists.
Elitism isn't necessarily a lack of ethics, but they're not being upfront about their real ethics.
And they don't play by the rules, they undermine our constitutions, laws and democracy.
But, the people are responsible for not standing up to them.

As for the people, different individuals and groups have different ethics and interests.
If the people started standing up for their ethics and interests, while rejecting the cryptocracy's attempts to exaggerate our differences, I think we'd find we have more in common than we suppose...or maybe not, maybe we'd rather be ruled by the shadow government than compromise with one another.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3503
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: democracy and objectivism

Postby Gloominary » Tue Feb 02, 2021 12:41 pm

Maybe Hobbes was right, perhaps only a Leviathan, an autocracy or oligarchy, whether it's out in the open, or behind the scenes, can keep civilization from falling apart, keep the rabble from rabbling.
If that's the case, then it's just a question of what sort of Leviathan we're going to get.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3503
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: democracy and objectivism

Postby iambiguous » Wed Feb 03, 2021 1:05 am

Gloominary wrote: For me, the only villains, if there are any, are the deep state.
The deep state is made up of sociopaths, and elitists.


Of course any number of those sociopaths who own and operate the deep state will snicker at those who see human interactions in terms of good and evil, heroes or villains. And they will snicker at them all the way to the bank.

And then there are those elitists who divide the world up between the masters and the slaves. Here, in or not in the name of the Übermensch. They too will scornfully snicker at the suckers hooked on their objectivist moral and political virtues.

Or whatever it is that you call your own value judgments. Somewhere [perhaps] between urwrongx's fiercely dogmatic authoritarian claptrap and my own grimly cynical "I" ever and always fractured and fragmented?

Gloominary wrote: As for the people, different individuals and groups have different ethics and interests.


True. But: to what extent are their individual ethics and interests derived more from the arguments that "I" make rather than the points raised by the objectivists that, in my view, delude themselves into believing they really are in sync with Who They Are in sync further with The Right Thing To Do.


Gloominary wrote: If the people started standing up for their ethics and interests, while rejecting the cryptocracy's attempts to exaggerate our differences, I think we'd find we have more in common than we suppose...or maybe not, maybe we'd rather be ruled by the shadow government than compromise with one another.


Okay, note an issue that is debated here and describe what in your view a true populist would see as that which "the people" would find ethical or more in their interest.

How could this not be but a political prejudice rooted subjectively in the particular life that they lived. A prejudice that could be just the opposite if their life had been very different. What I call the "Song Be Syndrome."
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 41042
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: democracy and objectivism

Postby Gloominary » Wed Feb 03, 2021 12:07 pm

iambiguous wrote:
Gloominary wrote: For me, the only villains, if there are any, are the deep state.
The deep state is made up of sociopaths, and elitists.


Of course any number of those sociopaths who own and operate the deep state will snicker at those who see human interactions in terms of good and evil, heroes or villains. And they will snicker at them all the way to the bank.

And then there are those elitists who divide the world up between the masters and the slaves. Here, in or not in the name of the Übermensch. They too will scornfully snicker at the suckers hooked on their objectivist moral and political virtues.

Or whatever it is that you call your own value judgments. Somewhere [perhaps] between urwrongx's fiercely dogmatic authoritarian claptrap and my own grimly cynical "I" ever and always fractured and fragmented?

Gloominary wrote: As for the people, different individuals and groups have different ethics and interests.


True. But: to what extent are their individual ethics and interests derived more from the arguments that "I" make rather than the points raised by the objectivists that, in my view, delude themselves into believing they really are in sync with Who They Are in sync further with The Right Thing To Do.


Gloominary wrote: If the people started standing up for their ethics and interests, while rejecting the cryptocracy's attempts to exaggerate our differences, I think we'd find we have more in common than we suppose...or maybe not, maybe we'd rather be ruled by the shadow government than compromise with one another.


Okay, note an issue that is debated here and describe what in your view a true populist would see as that which "the people" would find ethical or more in their interest.

How could this not be but a political prejudice rooted subjectively in the particular life that they lived. A prejudice that could be just the opposite if their life had been very different. What I call the "Song Be Syndrome."

Yea, it's not that hard.
How many working and middleclass people do you know that want both a welfare state, and the vast majority of that welfare to go to big business?
None of them do, but that's the economy we have, the rich get the most welfare, and pay the least tax.
Establishment republicrats in the US, libcons in Canada don't serve their constituents, they serve the rich and powerful, but people are misinformed, uninformed and creatures of habit, so they keep voting them in, contrary to their interests.

A lot of boomers are comfortable in life, they're fairly well off financially and in other ways, they know 10 times more about sports or the latest celebrity gossip than they do about politics, so they prefer the devil they know, these old, rich cocksuckers who've been in there for decades, they prefer not to rock the boat, but boomers are on their way out, and I suspect the younger generations are going to vote for more antiestablishment candidates both on the left, and the right.

Most people are sick and tired of preemptive and regime change wars too, the people got absolutely nothing out of them except dead friends, relatives and the migrant crisis, and most are sick and tired of PC/SJW culture, even minorities, perhaps especially minorities, yet deflective, divisive identity politics are front and center in the lamestream media, which continues to lose ground to alt media, despite all attempts to marginalize it.
PC/SJW culture is an upper middleclass or upperclass thing, same with a lot of this climate alarmism shit.

Dissidents republicrats like Bernie and Trump gained some ground, and within the coming decades I predict dissidents will continue to, but the elite won't give up without a fight, they'll continue to manufacture crises to herd the sheeple back into the direction they want them to go, so we'll see what happens.
A vote for a dissident republicrat, 3rd party or independent is never wasted, as establishment republicrats differ little from one another, and even if your antiestablishment candidate doesn't get in, they take votes, donations and activism away from establishment candidates, compelling establishment candidates to adopt some antiestablishment policies.

People argue over capitalism and socialism, but neither are really on the menu, when it comes to the establishment, banksterism, corporatism and cronyism are, and no one wants that save the elite.

Across the board, people want protectionism too, they don't want their job shipped overseas, they don't want foreigners buying our housing and land, inflating prices.
They don't want to lose their job to an illegal either.
That's something Bernie and Trump had in common, they were both protectionists.
Bernie and Trump both attempted to address the illegal dilemma, just in different ways, whereas establishment republicrats swept it under the rug.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3503
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: democracy and objectivism

Postby Gloominary » Wed Feb 03, 2021 4:09 pm

Poll after poll shows most people lean left on fiscal issues and right, conservative or libertarian on social issues, but the dinosaur, legacy media and politicians don't reflect that, altho at times they feign to, they're far corporate fascist right on fiscal issues and far liberal fascist left on social issues, they're miles away from where we are, and until we ditch them in droves, nothing will ever change.
And across the board, no one wants war, but history shows dems are every bit as ultra hawkish as reps.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3503
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: democracy and objectivism

Postby Gloominary » Wed Feb 03, 2021 4:25 pm

You could say postmodernism, being ambivalent, or apathetic about society, government and ethics, is a bourgeois thing too, like PC/SJW and climate culture, but every year, the working poor demographic expands at the expense of the bourgeois demographic, so we'll see how long these currents last.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3503
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: democracy and objectivism

Postby Gloominary » Wed Feb 03, 2021 4:41 pm

Conspiracism on the other hand, that tends to appeal far more to the working class, because it's real.
It's bourgeois to think people in high places are looking out for you.
I think everything that happened in 2020 was a distraction from real issues, from covid to the Antifa/BLM riots, a reaction to populism.
The vast majority of PC/SJW activists are bourgeois and white.
It had the backing of big business, the dinosaur, legacy media and politicians.
Like the war on drugs and terror, the war on covid, or rather viruses, cause there'll be more of them, will never end, it'll be used to deflect, distract and divide, further impoverish us and take more of our freedoms.
People need to wake up, the elite are the virus.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3503
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: democracy and objectivism

Postby iambiguous » Wed Feb 03, 2021 5:16 pm

Democracy
From the Ayn Rand Lexicon

Okay, here we go. Democracy construed not only by an objectivist as I have come to describe it, but by a woman who actually called her own "philosophy of life" Objectivism with a capital O.

“Democratic” in its original meaning [refers to] unlimited majority rule . . . a social system in which one’s work, one’s property, one’s mind, and one’s life are at the mercy of any gang that may muster the vote of a majority at any moment for any purpose.


Immediately a paradox from my frame of mind. When it comes to moral and political value judgments pertaining to any number of human interactions relating to social, political and economic relationships, those who call themselves Objectivists are entirely obligated to accept that which Rand herself deems to be rational and moral.

So, where does anything relating to individualism come into play here? It's not like others are allowed to discuss and debate and then to vote on her own policy prescriptions and proscriptions. At least in the democracy that she detests one person doesn't get to insist that all others must share his or her own point of view or be deemed necessarily irrational and immoral.

Indeed, democracy in the manner in which I describe it in the OP revolves around one person's assumption that there is a necessarily rational and moral frame of mind/political policy...but that elections account for conflicting assessments of it. Or another person's assumption that there is no objective frame of mind/political policy...but that through elections something in way of "moderation, negotiation and compromise" can result in most of us getting something but few of us getting all.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 41042
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: democracy and objectivism

Postby iambiguous » Fri Feb 05, 2021 7:29 pm

iambiguous wrote:
Okay, note an issue that is debated here and describe what in your view a true populist would see as that which "the people" would find ethical or more in their interest.

How could this not be but a political prejudice rooted subjectively in the particular life that they lived. A prejudice that could be just the opposite if their life had been very different. What I call the "Song Be Syndrome."


Gloominary wrote: Yea, it's not that hard.
How many working and middleclass people do you know that want both a welfare state, and the vast majority of that welfare to go to big business?
None of them do, but that's the economy we have, the rich get the most welfare, and pay the least tax.


Okay, but, again, my point is not to focus on what people want in regard to the role of government, crony capitalism and the deep state, but to focus instead on the manner in which what they come to think that they want here is rooted historically, culturally and circumstantially in the subjective and subjunctive parameters of dasein.

You, me and others here.

As opposed to a frame of mind that philosophers, political scientists and ethicists can come to agree reflects the optimal or the only rational frame of mind.

And there is still this part:

Of course any number of those "show me the money" sociopaths who own and operate the government, crony capitalism and deep state will snicker at those who see human interactions in terms of good and evil, heroes or villains. And they will snicker at them all the way to the bank.

And then there are those elitists who divide the world up between the masters and the slaves. Here, in or not in the name of the Übermensch. They too will scornfully snicker at the suckers hooked on their objectivist moral and political virtues.


Now, given the existential trajectory of your own life, you have come to think this:

Gloominary wrote: Establishment republicrats in the US, libcons in Canada don't serve their constituents, they serve the rich and powerful, but people are misinformed, uninformed and creatures of habit, so they keep voting them in, contrary to their interests.

A lot of boomers are comfortable in life, they're fairly well off financially and in other ways, they know 10 times more about sports or the latest celebrity gossip than they do about politics, so they prefer the devil they know, these old, rich cocksuckers who've been in there for decades, they prefer not to rock the boat, but boomers are on their way out, and I suspect the younger generations are going to vote for more antiestablishment candidates both on the left, and the right.

Most people are sick and tired of preemptive and regime change wars too, the people got absolutely nothing out of them except dead friends, relatives and the migrant crisis, and most are sick and tired of PC/SJW culture, even minorities, perhaps especially minorities, yet deflective, divisive identity politics are front and center in the lamestream media, which continues to lose ground to alt media, despite all attempts to marginalize it.
PC/SJW culture is an upper middleclass or upperclass thing, same with a lot of this climate alarmism shit.

Dissidents republicrats like Bernie and Trump gained some ground, and within the coming decades I predict dissidents will continue to, but the elite won't give up without a fight, they'll continue to manufacture crises to herd the sheeple back into the direction they want them to go, so we'll see what happens.
A vote for a dissident republicrat, 3rd party or independent is never wasted, as establishment republicrats differ little from one another, and even if your antiestablishment candidate doesn't get in, they take votes, donations and activism away from establishment candidates, compelling establishment candidates to adopt some antiestablishment policies.

People argue over capitalism and socialism, but neither are really on the menu, when it comes to the establishment, banksterism, corporatism and cronyism are, and no one wants that save the elite.

Across the board, people want protectionism too, they don't want their job shipped overseas, they don't want foreigners buying our housing and land, inflating prices.
They don't want to lose their job to an illegal either.
That's something Bernie and Trump had in common, they were both protectionists.
Bernie and Trump both attempted to address the illegal dilemma, just in different ways, whereas establishment republicrats swept it under the rug.


Others here like Peter Kropotkin and d0rkyd00d have their own [at times] very different narratives in regard to these relationships. My own interest then is more in examining the creation of the narratives themselves. Why some go in one direction and others in another direction. Is it more because of the points I raise in my signature threads about identity -- "I" -- in the is/ought world, or, on the contrary, is the liberal/left narrative or the conservative/right narrative actually able to be demonstrated as the most rational and virtuous frame of mind?

Again, the staunch objectivists on one end of the spectrum here and the staunch moral and political nihilists on the other end.

With respect to their value judgments, how do people here see themselves in regard to 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.

Those on the left can attack those on the right attacking those on the left here regarding any number of "conflicting goods".

But they are not "fractured and fragmented" as "I" am.

And that is always the focus of my own posting here: is there a way for me to yank myself up out of the hole I have dug myself into such that I too can go back to being an objectivist myself.

On the right side of course.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 41042
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: democracy and objectivism

Postby d0rkyd00d » Mon Feb 08, 2021 6:18 pm

Perhaps you would enjoy some of thoughts on this subject from Isaiah Berlin, if you haven't read them already. These are excerpts from his essay "Does Political Theory Still Exist?"

....Among the problems which form the core of traditional political
theory are those, for instance, of the nature of equality, of rights, law,
authority, rules. We demand the analysis of these concepts, or ask how
these expressions function in our language, or what forms of behaviour
they prescribe or forbid and why, or into what system of value or
outlook they fit, and in what way. ....

...When we ask why a man should
obey, we are asking for the explanation of what is normative in such
notions as authority, sovereignty, liberty, and the justification of their
validity in political arguments. These are words in the name of which
orders are issued, men are coerced, wars are fought, new societies are
created and old ones destroyed - expressions which play as great a part
as any in our lives today. What makes such questions prima facie
philosophical is the fact that no wide agreement exists on the meaning
of some of the concepts involved....

...Indeed,
it seems clear that disagreements about the analysis of value concepts, as
often as not, spring from profounder differences, since the notions of,
say, rights or justice or liberty will be radically dissimilar for theists and
atheists, mechanistic determinists and Christians, Hegelians and empiricists, romantic irrationalists and Marxists, and so forth. It seems no
less clear that these differences are not, at least prima facie, either logical
or empirical, and have usually and rightly been classified as irreducibly
philosophical....
"So long as the people do not care to exercise their freedom, those who wish to tyrannize will do so; for tyrants are active and ardent, and will devote themselves in the name of any number of gods, religious and otherwise, to put shackles upon sleeping men." -Voltaire

"If an opinion contrary to your own makes you angry, that is a sign that you are subconsciously aware of having no good reason for thinking as you do."
-Bertrand Russell
d0rkyd00d
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3059
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 3:37 pm

Re: democracy and objectivism

Postby iambiguous » Mon Feb 08, 2021 6:55 pm

d0rkyd00d wrote:
...it seems clear that disagreements about the analysis of value concepts, as often as not, spring from profounder differences, since the notions of, say, rights or justice or liberty will be radically dissimilar for theists and atheists, mechanistic determinists and Christians, Hegelians and empiricists, romantic irrationalists and Marxists, and so forth. It seems no less clear that these differences are not, at least prima facie, either logical or empirical, and have usually and rightly been classified as irreducibly philosophical....

Isaiah Berlin


That's why I'm always yammering on and on here about needing "a particular context".

Instead, the "serious philosophers" will often insist that before we go there, it is far more important to first "define our terms".

Rights. Justice. Liberty.

With regard to an "analysis of value concepts" we must first go up into the technical clouds and pin down precisely what those words mean.

Even while acknowledging how, given all of the widely [and wildly] varied historical and cultural and individual circumstantial contexts there have been down through the ages, there have in fact been all manner of conflicting conclusions about this.

Still, using the tools of philosophy, we must come up with a definition and a meaning that all rational and virtuous men and women are obligated to embrace.

Or be called a "relativist".

Or even a "moral nihilist"!
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 41042
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Next

Return to Society, Government, and Economics



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users