|
Monday, 15 August 2016
quote [ Do you want to stop Donald Trump from rounding up Mexicans into camps? Try this: Encourage your idealistic, third-party-voting progressive and libertarian friends to drop their fantasies of an ideal, radically revised political and economic order and fight instead to protect what we’ve got. It’s the prudent thing to do, and it’s the principled move.
In a profound and persuasive new book, The Tyranny of the Ideal: Justice in a Diverse Society, the political philosopher Gerald Gaus shows that visions of political perfection are bound to lead us astray. ] Seems a surprisingly compelling argument to me, but I'd love to hear your opinions
|
kylemcbitch said @ 11:09am GMT on 16th August
I would almost concede your point, were it not for the fact the author's language includes the word "perfect" in some form 14 times (granted only 13 of those are in the context I am actually trying to point out.) Clearly, this argument is about ideals in the more Platonic sense. This is further enforced by the section Maybe we don’t need political ideals at all and the following paragraph from the next:
Indeed, a theory-driven ideal of perfect justice is likely to demand that we go down the mountain — making our society less just — in order to set out for a higher peak. It’s inherently risky. It’s easy to go downhill, making life more harsh, oppressive, and unfair for some of us, in the hopes of eventual significant improvement for all (or almost all). But there’s no guarantee we’ll ever get to that higher mountain, to the more perfectly just society. There’s no guarantee it’s even there.
That said, that doesn't necessarily take away from your points. See, I do not agree with foobar for that exact reason. I view a Hillary win as better than a Trump win insofar as keeping the parts of the status quo I enjoy. However, I see in both candidates the same likely outcome: no discernible progress at all. I am of the mind that if Clinton were to lose that is not necessarily the worst possible outcome, just an outcome that makes the worst possible outcome more likely. The worst outcome is that we do not progress and instead regress. I don't believe Donald Trump has the political acumen or willpower to effectively govern. No one likes him and he is politically isolated. The worst he can do is veto good ideas. Hillary can get things done, but I am pretty convinced that she stands to keep the status quo almost across the board. The same issue, just different ways of arriving at it. So while you are concerned with losing that 80% trying to get the last 20%, I am convinced you scared of a bogeyman, brought on by a strawman.
Yes, it's amazing how less violent we are. However, that is probably due more towards the fact that we stopped putting lead in our gasoline, and that the last of the generation that was exposed to that is even alive and kicking at this point.
The outage isn't disproportional to the effect. Poverty cripples us all, it's just the rich are too stupid to realize how much better even they would have it, if more people had more chances to have positive effects on the shared habitat we call earth. Clearly, they are never going to come to this realization, en masse, on their own. We are reaching a critical point in our history where we are securing the means of wealth of the few, at the expense of the prosperity of us all. It might not be as sexy a cause as ending war and violence, but being able to live and advance in society is nothing less than the most important question we can face as the human race. This is literally how we will live together.
I'd say it time some of you started getting a bit more outraged about that.
kylemcbitch said @ 11:17am GMT on 16th August
I would almost concede your point, were it not for the fact the author's language includes the word "perfect" in some form 14 times (granted only 13 of those are in the context I am actually trying to point out.) Clearly, this argument is about ideals in the more Platonic sense. This is further enforced by the section Maybe we don’t need political ideals at all and the following paragraph from the next:
Indeed, a theory-driven ideal of perfect justice is likely to demand that we go down the mountain — making our society less just — in order to set out for a higher peak. It’s inherently risky. It’s easy to go downhill, making life more harsh, oppressive, and unfair for some of us, in the hopes of eventual significant improvement for all (or almost all). But there’s no guarantee we’ll ever get to that higher mountain, to the more perfectly just society. There’s no guarantee it’s even there.
That said, that doesn't necessarily take away from your points. See, I do not agree with foobar for that exact reason. I view a Hillary win as better than a Trump win insofar as keeping the parts of the status quo I enjoy. However, I see in both candidates the same likely outcome: no discernible progress at all. I am of the mind that if Clinton were to lose that is not necessarily the worst possible outcome, just an outcome that makes the worst possible outcome more likely. The worst outcome is that we do not progress and instead regress. I don't believe Donald Trump has the political acumen or willpower to effectively govern. No one likes him and he is politically isolated. The worst he can do is veto good ideas. Hillary can get things done, but I am pretty convinced that she stands to keep the status quo almost across the board. The same issue, just different ways of arriving at it. So while you are concerned with losing that 80% trying to get the last 20%, I am convinced you scared of a bogeyman, brought on by a strawman.
Yes, it's amazing how less violent we are. However, that is probably due more towards the fact that we stopped putting lead in our gasoline, and that the last of the generation that was exposed to that is even alive and kicking at this point.
The outage isn't disproportional to the effect. Poverty cripples us all, it's just the rich are too stupid to realize how much better even they would have it, if more people had more chances to have positive effects on the shared habitat we call earth. Clearly, they are never going to come to this realization, en masse, on their own. We are reaching a critical point in our history where we are securing the means of wealth of the few, at the expense of the prosperity of us all. It might not be as sexy a cause as ending war and violence, but being able to live and advance in society is nothing less than the most important question we can face as the human race. This is literally how we will live together.
I'd say it time some of you started getting a bit more outraged about that.
Edit: Unless I am misremembering the concept of Platonic Idealism? As I recall, that would be akin to the ideal gingerbread man not even being a gingerbread man, but the cookie cutter you used to form it. Basically, Platonic Idealsim is that which forms the world around the concept, rather than the concept around the world. To me, it seems the author is stating that we (those of us against LEV) want that form of idealism, and I am saying that is naive in the extreme and clearly a strawman... except for Foobar there, who seems to be advocating exactly for that.
kylemcbitch said @ 11:26am GMT on 16th August
I would almost concede your point, were it not for the fact the author's language includes the word "perfect" in some form 14 times (granted only 13 of those are in the context I am actually trying to point out.) Clearly, this argument is about ideals in the more Platonic sense. This is further enforced by the section Maybe we don’t need political ideals at all and the following paragraph from the next:
Indeed, a theory-driven ideal of perfect justice is likely to demand that we go down the mountain — making our society less just — in order to set out for a higher peak. It’s inherently risky. It’s easy to go downhill, making life more harsh, oppressive, and unfair for some of us, in the hopes of eventual significant improvement for all (or almost all). But there’s no guarantee we’ll ever get to that higher mountain, to the more perfectly just society. There’s no guarantee it’s even there.
That said, that doesn't necessarily take away from your points. See, I do not agree with foobar for that exact reason. I view a Hillary win as better than a Trump win insofar as keeping the parts of the status quo I enjoy. However, I see in both candidates the same likely outcome: no discernible progress at all. I am of the mind that if Clinton were to lose that is not necessarily the worst possible outcome, just an outcome that makes the worst possible outcome more likely. The worst outcome is that we do not progress and instead regress. I don't believe Donald Trump has the political acumen or willpower to effectively govern. No one likes him and he is politically isolated. The worst he can do is veto good ideas. Hillary can get things done, but I am pretty convinced that she stands to keep the status quo almost across the board. The same issue, just different ways of arriving at it. So while you are concerned with losing that 80% trying to get the last 20%, I am convinced you scared of a bogeyman, brought on by a strawman.
Yes, it's amazing how less violent we are. However, that is probably due more towards the fact that we stopped putting lead in our gasoline, and that the last of the generation that was exposed to that is even alive and kicking at this point. So yes, we are surprised by the violence we see, but also... the violence we see is now far more prevalent and graphic. The outrage isn't over the amount, it's over the nature and ubiquitousness of each event now delivered to us through the very mechanism of progress (the internet, etc.) This is actually good, and how progress is supposed to work.
The outage isn't disproportional to the effect. Poverty cripples us all, it's just the rich are too stupid to realize how much better even they would have it, if more people had more chances to have positive effects on the shared habitat we call earth. Clearly, they are never going to come to this realization, en masse, on their own. We are reaching a critical point in our history where we are securing the means of wealth of the few, at the expense of the prosperity of us all. It might not be as sexy a cause as ending war and violence, but being able to live and advance in society is nothing less than the most important question we can face as the human race. This is literally how we will live together.
I'd say it time some of you started getting a bit more outraged about that.
Edit: Unless I am misremembering the concept of Platonic Idealism? As I recall, that would be akin to the ideal gingerbread man not even being a gingerbread man, but the cookie cutter you used to form it. Basically, Platonic Idealsim is that which forms the world around the concept, rather than the concept around the world. To me, it seems the author is stating that we (those of us against LEV) want that form of idealism, and I am saying that is naive in the extreme and clearly a strawman... except for Foobar there, who seems to be advocating exactly for that.
kylemcbitch said @ 11:27am GMT on 16th August
I would almost concede your point, were it not for the fact the author's language includes the word "perfect" in some form 14 times (granted only 13 of those are in the context I am actually trying to point out.) Clearly, this argument is about ideals in the more Platonic sense. This is further enforced by the section Maybe we don’t need political ideals at all and the following paragraph from the next:
Indeed, a theory-driven ideal of perfect justice is likely to demand that we go down the mountain — making our society less just — in order to set out for a higher peak. It’s inherently risky. It’s easy to go downhill, making life more harsh, oppressive, and unfair for some of us, in the hopes of eventual significant improvement for all (or almost all). But there’s no guarantee we’ll ever get to that higher mountain, to the more perfectly just society. There’s no guarantee it’s even there.
That said, that doesn't necessarily take away from your points. See, I do not agree with foobar for that exact reason. I view a Hillary win as better than a Trump win insofar as keeping the parts of the status quo I enjoy. However, I see in both candidates the same likely outcome: no discernible progress at all. I am of the mind that if Clinton were to lose that is not necessarily the worst possible outcome, just an outcome that makes the worst possible outcome more likely. The worst outcome is that we do not progress and instead regress. I don't believe Donald Trump has the political acumen or willpower to effectively govern. No one likes him and he is politically isolated. The worst he can do is veto good ideas. Hillary can get things done, but I am pretty convinced that she stands to keep the status quo almost across the board. The same issue, just different ways of arriving at it. So while you are concerned with losing that 80% trying to get the last 20%, I am convinced you scared of a bogeyman, brought on by a strawman.
Yes, it's amazing how less violent we are. However, that is probably due more towards the fact that we stopped putting lead in our gasoline, and that the last of the generation that was exposed to that is even alive and kicking at this point. So yes, we are surprised by the violence we see, but also... the violence we see is now far more prevalent and graphic. The outrage isn't over the amount, it's over the nature and ubiquitousness of each event now delivered to us through the very mechanism of progress (the internet, etc.) This is actually good, and how progress is supposed to work. We have become less environmentally prone towards it due to sufficient understanding... and that same understanding is the engine of our continued outrage.
The outage isn't disproportional to the effect. Poverty cripples us all, it's just the rich are too stupid to realize how much better even they would have it, if more people had more chances to have positive effects on the shared habitat we call earth. Clearly, they are never going to come to this realization, en masse, on their own. We are reaching a critical point in our history where we are securing the means of wealth of the few, at the expense of the prosperity of us all. It might not be as sexy a cause as ending war and violence, but being able to live and advance in society is nothing less than the most important question we can face as the human race. This is literally how we will live together.
I'd say it time some of you started getting a bit more outraged about that.
Edit: Unless I am misremembering the concept of Platonic Idealism? As I recall, that would be akin to the ideal gingerbread man not even being a gingerbread man, but the cookie cutter you used to form it. Basically, Platonic Idealsim is that which forms the world around the concept, rather than the concept around the world. To me, it seems the author is stating that we (those of us against LEV) want that form of idealism, and I am saying that is naive in the extreme and clearly a strawman... except for Foobar there, who seems to be advocating exactly for that.
<-- Entry / Current Comment
kylemcbitch said @ 11:09am GMT on 16th August [Score:1 Interesting]
I would almost concede your point, were it not for the fact the author's language includes the word "perfect" in some form 14 times (granted only 13 of those are in the context I am actually trying to point out.) Clearly, this argument is about ideals in the more Platonic sense. This is further enforced by the section Maybe we don’t need political ideals at all and the following paragraph from the next:
Indeed, a theory-driven ideal of perfect justice is likely to demand that we go down the mountain — making our society less just — in order to set out for a higher peak. It’s inherently risky. It’s easy to go downhill, making life more harsh, oppressive, and unfair for some of us, in the hopes of eventual significant improvement for all (or almost all). But there’s no guarantee we’ll ever get to that higher mountain, to the more perfectly just society. There’s no guarantee it’s even there.
That said, that doesn't necessarily take away from your points. See, I do not agree with foobar for that exact reason. I view a Hillary win as better than a Trump win insofar as keeping the parts of the status quo I enjoy. However, I see in both candidates the same likely outcome: no discernible progress at all. I am of the mind that if Clinton were to lose that is not necessarily the worst possible outcome, just an outcome that makes the worst possible outcome more likely. The worst outcome is that we do not progress and instead regress. I don't believe Donald Trump has the political acumen or willpower to effectively govern. No one likes him and he is politically isolated. The worst he can do is veto good ideas. Hillary can get things done, but I am pretty convinced that she stands to keep the status quo almost across the board. The same issue, just different ways of arriving at it. So while you are concerned with losing that 80% trying to get the last 20%, I am convinced you scared of a bogeyman, brought on by a strawman.
Yes, it's amazing how less violent we are. However, that is probably due more towards the fact that we stopped putting lead in our gasoline, and that the last of the generation that was exposed to that is even alive and kicking at this point. So yes, we are surprised by the violence we see, but also... the violence we see is now far more prevalent and graphic. The outrage isn't over the amount, it's over the nature and ubiquitousness of each event now delivered to us through the very mechanism of progress (the internet, etc.) This is actually good, and how progress is supposed to work. We have become less environmentally prone towards it due to sufficient understanding... and that same understanding is the engine of our continued outrage.
The outage isn't disproportional to the effect. Poverty cripples us all, it's just the rich are too stupid to realize how much better even they would have it, if more people had more chances to have positive effects on the shared habitat we call earth. Clearly, they are never going to come to this realization, en masse, on their own. We are reaching a critical point in our history where we are securing the means of wealth of the few, at the expense of the prosperity of us all. It might not be as sexy a cause as ending war and violence, but being able to live and advance in society is nothing less than the most important question we can face as the human race. This is literally how we will live together.
I'd say it time some of you started getting a bit more outraged about that.
Edit: Unless I am misremembering the concept of Platonic Idealism? As I recall, that would be akin to the ideal gingerbread man not even being a gingerbread man, but the cookie cutter you used to form it. Basically, Platonic Idealsim is that which forms the world around the concept, rather than the concept around the world. To me, it seems the author is stating that we (those of us against LEV) want that form of idealism, and I am saying that is naive in the extreme and clearly a strawman... except for Foobar there, who seems to be advocating exactly for that.
