What do you need to be convinced?

[SS-18 ICBM]

That's interesting, because when people propose that intellectuals have the ability, responsibility or even right to imagine entire social structures and impose them onto the world, I find that terrifying.

Isn't that essentially what political philosophy is? Minus the imposition part, possibly.

Anyway, even a hypothesis would be nice. I just want to be assured that they know what they are doing.

 

[Traitorfish]

Isn't that essentially what political philosophy is? Minus the imposition part, possibly.

Bad political philosophy, I guess. The good stuff tends to be a little more contemplative and historical.

Anyway, even a hypothesis would be nice. I just want to be assured that they know what they are doing.

They probably don't. Nobody really does. That, for me, is the whole drawback of "politics" as a category.

 

[luiz]

I largely agree. Closed systems only really make sense from the inside, so unless a person sets out (conciously or not) to revise their views in conformity with the system, I don't think they're going to be properly won over to it.


That's interesting, because when people propose that intellectuals have the ability, responsibility or even right to imagine entire social structures and impose them onto the world, I find that terrifying.

Takes all sorts.

Oh wow, I actually agree 100% with TF.

How he can be so right about the premises and then reach all the wrong conclusions about the consequences is shocking!

 

[Tahuti]

How he can be so right about the premises and then reach all the wrong conclusions about the consequences is shocking!

Please note Traitorfish isn't a Gulag-and-Purge kind of communist.

 

[potatokiosk]

Social pressure or a change in my personal circumstances will probably influence me.

 

[Antilogic]

I largely agree. Closed systems only really make sense from the inside, so unless a person sets out (conciously or not) to revise their views in conformity with the system, I don't think they're going to be properly won over to it.

You can make either observational or theory-derived* knowledge sound dumb if improperly applied.

*: struggling for a word here, I mean to include anything derived from mathematical application/extrapolation of existing knowledge to divine revelation. Kind of a correspondence v. coherence thing going on here.

 

[Traitorfish]

That's true enough. I didn't mean to make it sound like an empirical vs. theoretical thing. I strongly believe- or, at least, desperately hope that it's possible for theory to remain open-ended, and I think it's possible for anti-theoretical positions to function as closed systems. What tends to act as the warning light for me is not when somebody leans too heavily on theory, but they already seem to have an answer for everything. People can lean as heavily on "common sense" as they do on an explicit body of theory, theology, or whatever.

 

[Antilogic]

That's true enough. I didn't mean to make it sound like an empirical vs. theoretical thing. I strongly believe- or, at least, desperately hope that it's possible for theory to remain open-ended, and I think it's possible for anti-theoretical positions to function as closed systems. What tends to act as the warning light for me is not when somebody leans too heavily on theory, but they already seem to have an answer for everything. People can lean as heavily on "common sense" as they do on an explicit body of theory, theology, or whatever.

I have been trying to draft a response for this thread and that's kind of the direction I was going in--it seemed to build a bit off your conversation though.

I think my short answer to the OP is that an improper, incongruous, unjustified, or otherwise strange application of empirical v. theoretical knowledge is very unconvincing, while the vice-versa is also true. Boiling that down to an actual set of rules, though, would make for a very long post.

 

[warpus]

I largely agree. Closed systems only really make sense from the inside, so unless a person sets out (conciously or not) to revise their views in conformity with the system, I don't think they're going to be properly won over to it.

I just don't see a way to really create a system for society that will efficiently and inherently lead to solutions for all problems that you can think of (and those you can't) unless it's based on the acknowledgement that you will need to turn to various schools of thought, systems, and ideologies if you ever want to get stuff done. Otherwise it's just politics and the facts on the ground don't matter.. which they should.

I mean, that's the only thing that should matter. Reality is not built based on a blueprint that was designed with an ideology in mind. Reality is reality. It's complex and you need to be clever when trying to come up with solutions that affect millions, if not billions of people and the intricate social, financial, and whatever else webs that they form. Anyone saying "I follow ideology X and this ideology is the right one to use to solve problems in this world" is a danger to society at large and definitely not worth voting for. You really shouldn't - this person has clearly no intention of attempting to do his job effectively... and since his job is governing you in some capacity, that's kind of a big red flag.

So you could convince me that Communism, or Christianity, Satanism, or even Scientology are good.. in some capacity... definitely not as the answer to everything, because there is no such thing... but definitely when applied to certain, largely specific situations.

I'm not sure how that relates to open or closed systems, but my system involves looking through various ideological buckets for what you want.. If you find the answer in a bucket that you despise.. so what? Even libertarians are right every once in a while, there's no shame in admitting that. Their ideology might be warped and not very well suited to the reality we find ourselves in, but every once in a while good stuff actually comes out of it. So I don't want to put myself in a position where I'm excluding answers to questions just because of my ego - I'll consider them all, even if the first person to ever think of it as an answer was Hitler. Unless it's stupid though. of course

 

[Tahuti]

So you could convince me that Communism, or Christianity, Satanism, or even Scientology are good.. in some capacity... definitely not as the answer to everything, because there is no such thing... but definitely when applied to certain, largely specific situations.

Well, I tend to resist Scientology for instance to quite a strong degree. Some ideologies simply won't be able to convince that easily, since values we were raised with may act against.

 

[Mouthwash]

Bad political philosophy, I guess. The good stuff tends to be a little more contemplative and historical.

Yeah, screw Noam Chomsky.

They probably don't. Nobody really does. That, for me, is the whole drawback of "politics" as a category.

Why not? You're a communist, hmm?

 

[Kyriakos]

That's true enough. I didn't mean to make it sound like an empirical vs. theoretical thing. I strongly believe- or, at least, desperately hope that it's possible for theory to remain open-ended, and I think it's possible for anti-theoretical positions to function as closed systems. What tends to act as the warning light for me is not when somebody leans too heavily on theory, but they already seem to have an answer for everything. People can lean as heavily on "common sense" as they do on an explicit body of theory, theology, or whatever.

"Common sense" does appear to be itself a result of millenia of human evolution, so while it is not largely accounted for/explained theoretically (philosophy of old does have some attempts at that, but the subject is too vast), it seems very probable that it is there for a good reason, and is helpful.

I think that by and large the common sense part is derived by the natural will humans have to maintain a relatively healthy position. That can be negated by theories (eg christianity did that considerably, according to many theorists). It also can be eroded by mere despair.

Plato had claimed that "those who aren't virtuous, do so out of ignorance of what virtue is". Maybe also out of oblivion of what it is.

 

[Traitorfish]

Yeah, screw Noam Chomsky.

I'm not sure what you're referring to. His Kantianism? That's really a different issue.

Why not?

I don't think it's within the capacities of the human meat-brain. Too much going on, too many factors, too chaotic.

You're a communist, hmm?

I am, but that doesn't mean I carry around a set of blue-prints for Future Communist Utopia. I wouldn't even know how to begin drafting them.

 

[Mouthwash]

I'm not sure what you're referring to. His Kantianism? That's really a different issue.

No, I mean this:

That's interesting, because when people propose that intellectuals have the ability, responsibility or even right to imagine entire social structures and impose them onto the world, I find that terrifying.

I don't think it's within the capacities of the human meat-brain. Too much going on, too many factors, too chaotic.

Agree here, somewhat.

I am, but that doesn't mean I carry around a set of blue-prints for Future Communist Utopia. I wouldn't even know how to begin drafting them.

I would like you to recount concisely the decision procedure that led you to Marxism.

 

[warpus]

Well, I tend to resist Scientology for instance to quite a strong degree. Some ideologies simply won't be able to convince that easily, since values we were raised with may act against.

Sure, most of it is hogwash, but for all I know there's some truth in there, in random places. There's no need to discount all their ideas - just the stupid ones... which happens to be most of them, but still.

"Common sense" does appear to be itself a result of millenia of human evolution, so while it is not largely accounted for/explained theoretically (philosophy of old does have some attempts at that, but the subject is too vast), it seems very probable that it is there for a good reason, and is helpful.

"common sense" can be very dangerous, as it is often very wrong.

 

[Kyriakos]

"common sense" can be very dangerous, as it is often very wrong.

I have to suppose we have very different things for that term in mind I largely mean to denote as common-sense anything that is in favor of the logical well-being of the individual, while keeping him/her from clearly damaging actions towards others.
It is not the same as theoretical or analytical or synthesizing logic/reasoning, cause it is more of a unconscious background. But this is a generalisation anyway, cause as i noted the subject is vast.

Eg:

Common sense: If i throw that brick to the window, it may break the window and cause many issues.
Analytical thought would instead be about physical forces, or reactions in their finer (hypothetical) manifestations, and many other things which are not directly related (consciously) to the original stance of not breaking the window.

 

[Traitorfish]

No, I mean this:

Oh. What does that have to do with Chomsky? He's an anarcho-syndicalist, or at least professes to be. I've never seen him outlining any sort of grand master plans. I've only ever seen him outline models on a very local scale, which mostly seem to draw on his experiences in the kibbutzim rather than on theoretical abstractions.

I would like you to recount concisely the decision procedure that led you to Marxism.

I read some stuff, the stuff that was most convincing to me came under the broad banner of "Marxism". Why do you ask?

 

[Mouthwash]

Just forget it, dude.