Tlaloc:
In reply to Vexen (msg #425):
Sorry for not responding. My boy's B-Day is today and I had to decorate the dining room for him last night, I was also working on a contract last night, and I had to pack for a rock-climbing trip last night as well. Full schedule but I have a few minutes to repond during this class I am taking today. So on we go!
Oh, no. You never have to apologize for anything like that, though I apreciate the courtesy. Life comes before some silly forum discussions, even if it's silly forum discussions we enjoy, especially when it comes to celebrations with our loved ones. I hope you had a wonderful time.
I can't speak for the forum, but as far as our discussions are concerned, you never have to feel obligated to get back to me at a moment's notice. Come back in a week, if it's better for you. Take a month. Don't respond at all. Really, you shouldn't feel pressured to respond to anything of mine if you don't have the time or interest. This is all for our enjoyment, mostly, and if we learn a thing or two along the way, then all the better.
quote:
So I couldn't simply discount another's belief if they interpret the fact that the Earth is a sphere to mean that it is flat? I believe I can discount that person as not having a firm grasp of reality based on that. I have no problem with discounting or judging people based on what they say to me. Nor do I believe that many here have a problem with it either. I am just more forward about saying it. That being said, the Flat-Earther might have several other opinions and beliefs I agree with though I would be wary of their furhter beliefs based on the flat-earth belief.
In the interest of Open-mindedness, yes, you shouldn't discount the Flat-Earther automatically without actually hearing it, just because you find the conclusion silly. That doesn't mean you have to buy their argument, or you can't dismiss their premises. In my mind, being open-minded doesn't mean granting truth to everyone's theories. But, at least hear the rationale out. Even if you don't agree with the conclusion, it could have surprisingly sound logic.
Or, you may find that some of the ideas we have taken for granted aren't as solid as they appear at a glance. In science, nothing is above the scrutiny of falsification. Even principles as established as "laws" can be challenged and disproved, if one finds sufficient basis for challenging our understanding of it. And, usually, that basis won't be found in the conclusion. It will be in the premises.
quote:
I don't see the problem there. Judgement is not a bad word and yes, I do believe I have a better grasp of reality than a great many others in this world. High self-esteem is not a crime either. I am too old to get mired down in self-doubt nor do I waste time faking humility. I still have a lot to learn but I pick and choose to learn from those who can actually teach. To find those people I have to make a judgement and the success of my life so far tells me that I am pretty good at it.
Here's where our differences in philosophy seems to start becoming more noticeable. You're right that judgement isn't necessarily a bad thing, and high self-esteem certainly isn't a crime. But, to be fair, I don't think I was arguing that it was. I feel judgement should be reserved for when one actually looks at the argument in full, rather than to judge solely on the conclusion, and if I didn't convey that properly, I apologize. Not sure what age has to do with it, but self-esteem is generally a good thing to have a healthy amount of. I would be weary lingering onto arrogance, as having too high of a self-esteem tends to lead to taking one's attributes for granted, but I won't preach to you on how to live your life.
I'd also argue that success in life isn't the most objective measure of determining one's ability to make a good judgment about matters other than possibly what got them that success. If someone is a good businessman, if such a thing could even be objectively defined, that doesn't mean he knows much about astrophysics. I'd argue plenty of people who are successful don't make good choices in other areas. Charlie Sheen would be a fun example, or, more relevantly, I think you would agree that there are some pretty staunch Christians who are successful in life, despite having made the wrong decisions regarding religion and their understanding of the universe, according to your philosophy.
There's also the matter of how one actually determines who can "actually teach." Out of curiosity, how do you know who can "actually teach"? Is it that they agree with your general conception of the world? Or is there something more objective to judge that standard by, such as a degree or accreditation? Can one "actually teach", even if one isn't formally educated?
I don't think humility is a bad attribute to have, however. I find it rather admirable and realistic, as it's very unlikely any of us, in my estimation, has a true understanding of the universe. Even with your superior intellect, I'm sure you even acknowledge that you don't, and likely can't, know everything. I'm a firm believer that knowledge and wisdom can be found in very surprising places, and I like to keep my mind open to new sources where I can. But, to each his or her own, I suppose.
I have to ask, however, if just because the statement of "faking humility" made me a little curious: do you think I'm greeting you with a false sense of modesty in my statements, and this is some act to persuade you or those reading? Or do you think my humility is genuine, and I really don't feel as if I hold the objective analysis that you seem to feel you have?
quote:
Actually, I am the only one who understands my reality. Many here would like some validation of their version of reality but, as I said, I no longer argue things I do not personally believe. This is why I do have Christian Creationist friends, Atheist friends, Buddhist friends, Muslim friends, Communist friends, Liberal friends, Progressive friends, Conservative friends, Wiccan friends, etc. I find common ground with all of them. Not the same things between them all but they know I have an open mind and that I will tell them exactly what I think if they ask me. They might disagree but they know where they stand with me. They know I pull no punches.
Perhaps. I'm certainly not going to argue how to run your friendships. However, I have to imagine that, for most of the world, approaching with such an assertive style is not that appealing, both for the purposes of persuasion, and as a source of entertainment. If I had approached these posts with the same level of aggressive assertiveness, than I imagine our conversation would be much closer to the line of discussion you have between yourself and silveroak. While I certainly can understand having confidence in your beliefs, approaching too strongly sometimes discourages a tone of civility and rational discussion. And, with the recent trend of threads being essentially writen to the tone of "Tlaloc vs. The World", I imagine it's not the best manner to win over friends who don't automatically agree with your conclusions. With all due respect, insulting one's beliefs don't generally come off as a friendly, respectful practice, however it may work out for you in your personal life.
quote:
And the reality is that it only takes one person to be right. The mob, which is the basic nature of liberalism, is often wrong.
Actually, perhaps I'm not the typical liberal, but I often feel the mob is wrong too. I don't consider myself the token liberal by any measure. In fact, it's one of the essential failings of democracy in general, that, for the most part, people as a whole don't usually vote on a rational basis. That isn't to say my way is "the rational basis", but it's hard to feel too confident in a system where the slogan or the D/R by the candidate's name is the most predictable measure by which to determine how one votes. The fact that we as a nation have such ridiculously short collective attention span and memories is especially troublesome.
That said, note on liberalism aside, I feel almost as if this is an incomplete statement. It only take one person to be right...for what? Only one person needs to be right in society? That doesn't seem right, given we have a democratic process. The "one person" may be right, but that doesn't mean it can aspire much change in society unless he can convince others that his way is indeed the right one.
If you mean that only one person can be right, I disagree with that notion as well. That sounds like falling into a basic either/or fallacy, where the only possibility that's considered is the one of the sides is right. There's also the possibility, as I would argue is often the case in politics, that neither side has an accurate depiction of reality, and both offered answers don't really solve a given problem, or both sides offer a solution to the problem, and it's simply a matter of preference over which one to choose. Other than that, I'm not sure what you mean by it only taking one person to be right.
quote:
That is quite a condemnation of the Right. Perhaps you aren't as moderate or open-minded as you would like to believe? I would say it is quite healthy to not follow someone simply because the mob considers them "elite". There are alot of elite academics out there who are complete dumbasses. In fact, I would say the "green" movement and the Church of AGW are far more anti-intellectual and anti-scientific than any right-wing boogey-man.
Like Marxism, letting elites make your decisions has caused nothing but suffering throughout history. I am in the camp that your life is best run by yourself. Although I am far more Libertarian than Conservative I see the Conservatives as the closest thing to Libertarians that I can find. The Conservatives are far more intellectual and reality based than the Liberal/Progressives who believe that truth and facts are relative. The current surge of pride and approval of assassination under Obama is proof of the groupthink inherent in the Left.
Fair enough on the first point. That was my take based on the 2008 elections, in which Palin;s crowd in particular seemed to depict "real America" as rural, small town folk who work hard for a living and never had time for college , but I'll admit I could be wrong with that assertion. But, that particular note struck me, for a reason I'll get to in a moment.
You're right that there's a certain degree of group-think on the left. I'm not much of an environmentalist, and I've seen some of those green rallies personally. I wasn't impressed. I'm convinced that there are a lot of people on the Left who don't know the half about the real arguments of the party and are just working off the emotion of their peers and for a few select issues.
But, if you think that's a unique attribute to the Left, I'm sorry, but I feel as if that's viewing society with rose-colored glasses. The Right is pretty prone to this too. The Birthers, the Death-panels, Obama is a Muslim, the assertion that tax rates have been raised in unprecedented levels federally, that gays trying to brainwash children, that Planned Parenthood is primarily an abortion provider, etc. A huge proportion of Republicans believe in at least one of these ideas, despite the fact that there's not a lot of evidence that supports it, primarily due to group think. There's a lot of group think that goes along in that crowd.
That isn't to say one side is better than the others. Speaking as a psychologist, group-think, like it or not, is a pretty common phenomenon in just about every walk of life where a group of people come together and share an identity. Not just in politics, but in many aspects of life. Sports teams, classmates, family, friends, coworkers, nationality, ethnic groups, gangs, fans, shippers, professions, religions, gender, age groups, communities, activism, hobbies, and on and on and on. It's a pretty common principle of sociology, and for some reason, you really believe that the Right is immune or resistant to it, I'd be very interested in hearing the rationale on that one. Hell, if you can make a strong case, I may just do push amongst my colleagues for a study on finding out just why the Right would indeed be resistant to it. In the interest of science, it would made a fascinating correlational study, if you proved to be right one that, that, for some reason, people who were inclined to be conservative or libertarian had some kind of resistance to the group think tendencies that embrace all the rest of society. I just haven't seen anything to make me think that's the case.
But getting back to my original point, I don't think that conservatism and libertarianism is necessarily anti-intellectual. It's the culture more than anything. In fact, part of that reason that stuck out to me is because, at heart, I really feel that, amongst the sides of the political spectrum of America, the Right really should be the intellectuals. In my mind, they represent the realistic side of our national consciousness. The side the tempures the idealistic pipe-dreams of the Left with a more viable, cost-effective alternative. To me, that's how the two-party system is supposed to work.
Not this "one side takes all" nonsense, because no going to ever win for any sustainable period. Rather, who take the best both has to offer, and make it work together somehow. I feel like the liberals should be the bleeding hearts that the Right often depicts them to be, as the more emotionally based party. But, unfortunately, it seems like the Right uses emotional appeal as a strong basis for their support, when I think it should be their appeal to intellect, and I feel a lot of intellectuals go to the Left, not because their argument is stronger, but because the Right tends to paint them as elitist, and tries to discount them, for reasons I don't even understand, possibly for populous appeal amongst their base. Not really sure, to be honest, but I just get the feeling that they don't embrace intellectuals like Romney, and that's a shame. Correct me if I'm wrong.
quote:
Oh that is hardly the only argument that I have but I do find it interesting that the fact that anti-capitalism fails every time its tried, along with a huge body count, would be unconvincing.
I suppose that depends on your definition. The European standard doesn't seem to be very capitalistic, and yet, they seem to be mostly okay (about the same as us). Also, not many countries in general even attempt communism, so much as use it as a platform, then quickly turn against it once in power. The same standard could be used to criticize democracy, given that most of those attempts come from a bloody coup, and bring forth fairly oppressive regimes. Just because America was successful doesn't mean it's the standard of history.
And, as many point out, Amercia itself isn't a full, free-capitalistic society by any means. The augment in general now a days comes less in terms of overthrowing the system entirely and more from of balancing social interest and economic realities. Where one puts itself along that line really determines whether or not someone is capitalistic or socialistic.
quote:
Where do I say that socialism/communism is bad based on the people that are associated with it? I say it is a bad system completely on its own. Bad people just find is easier to gain control through such systems. It dehumanizes its subjects and inevitably leads to atrocity, human misery, and mass graves. I just didn't know that you wanted to argue the merits of capitalism over anti-capitalism. By all means fire up the thread and I will join you there.
I'm sorry for misunderstanding, but to be fair, the only reason you gave in the last post was that people who espoused anti-capitalistic ideals have done some bad things. As for your other points, I'd say you could find a lot of people who would argue the exact same thing for capitalism. For many people, it's a system that necessitates suffering, that rewards greed and disloyalty, and treats people as numbers, praising companies for exporting domestic jobs to exploit poor economies in other countries. I'd argue the only reason excessive abuse doesn't occur is because of our democracy. Compassion is not an inherent capitalistic value, and it's not in the interest of any company to look out for national interest, aside how it's shareholders can profit financially from it.
quote:
I would agree with this statement. But I would rather deal with people's self-interest than the steam-roller that is the greater glory of the collective. Marxist governments don't remove self-interest it merely puts the tools of total control in the hands of those who will use them for their own interests.
This may surprise you, but I also agree with this statement. I may be anti-capitalist, but I'm not a Marxist. The two are not hand-in-hand. In my opinion, the inherent flaw in communism is that it's far too idealistic. It has far too much faith in the goodness of humanity. It trusts that the government will look out for the interest of it's people, and follow the principles it sets, and most often, they don't. Communism is platform for a populous revolution, after which the leaders quickly turn their backs on it. That said, there has been talk of a democratic communism. I do wonder how that would work in practice.
Of course, I wouldn't promote capitalism as morally superior either. If anything, capitalism has the advantage of essentially exploiting the selfishness of people in general. In my estimation, the only reason it works is because we impose limits as a society. As have a limited capitalism, not a full one, like keeping a caged demon whom we hope to profit from, and silently hope isn't influencing us to lead to it's eventual freedom. But, at the same time, while not offering any incentive to do so, it hopes that, somehow, those who have been maladed by the system will be taken care of, for reasons not really fully discussed. I'm not a big fan of Keynes, but I think he states it rather eloquently in this statement
John Maynard Keynes:
"Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone."
Or, to put it in the form of a popular internet meme.
1.) Company fires employees for workplace efficiency, putting a family out of work to increase revenue.
2.) Company replaces worker with a cheaper worker, often illegal immigrant or exports jobs overseas, ensuring that society doesn't recover those jobs and a lower standard of living for everyone.
3.) ???
4.) Profit
quote:
Interesting. I find too many people are too willing to compromise their beliefs. Perhaps this is what people here find so aggravating or curious about me. I do not compromise my beliefs to fit a peradigm. I make the world a better place by changing the peradigm to fit my beliefs.
Perhaps that is where our concepts of "open-mindedness" differ? Yours seems to incorporate a concept of compromising your core beliefs to conform to the current truth. I am complete against that concept.
Perfect way to end the exchange, isn't it? This perhaps is the most straight-forward distinction between our philosophies. I think of the community of needs and desires, and I'm willing to compromise my own for the collective good. Where you seem to believe that one's own interest is what each of us should be concerned with.
I will note, however, that I don't change my beliefs, per say. I don't just take the populous opinion as my own. If that were the case, I would be a pro-capitalist, patriotic Protestant. But, I'm not. Rather, I accept that my views aren't likely to be adopted my the mainstream, and I'd rather I see the community in general improve through small steps rather than force my ideology on a public that isn't interested. I believe in them, and I think that they have a rational basis, but those were never qualities that were necessary to form popular opinion.
Ironically, I feel as if the two of us are much more similar than you may think, the main difference being more or less this last ideal, that I think in more of a community standard, where you take a more individualistic approach. Would you agree?
This message was last edited by the player at 01:46, Sat 07 May 2011.