"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."
- Kenneth Galbraith
"Of all the varieties of virtues, liberalism is the most beloved."
-Aristotle
"As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality."
-George Washington
"Somebody came along and said 'liberal' means 'soft on crime, soft on drugs, soft on Communism, soft on defense, and we're gonna tax you back to the Stone Age because people shouldn't have to go to work if they don't want to.' And instead of saying, 'Well, excuse me, you right-wing, reactionary, xenophobic, homophobic, anti-education, anti-choice, pro-gun, Leave it to Beaver trip back to the '50s,' we cowered in the corner and said, 'Please don't hurt me.'"
-The West Wing (Television show)
“The Liberal Dictator”
Many conservative Christians label liberals as effete, snobbish, un-American immoral godless heathens ever in search of their own gratification, living by selfish “Darwinian” mores and dying alone with no solace of God or the afterlife to buoy them in their last hours.
According to them, we liberals are craven and pathetic indeed. Oh, and we’re all going to hell, of course.
Since religion has become inextricably intertwined with the conservative Republican Party we have to take that into account as well. Now they claim to have the moral high ground simply because they’re convinced that they’re the side that God is on.
Well, so was Hitler. “Gott Mit Uns.”
I’ve heard many Christian conservatives insist that Hitler wasn’t a Christian, that in spite of all the times that he claimed to be one and in spite of how he co-opted the religion and its symbolism for his Nazis, he was not a Christian, and even if he thought that he was, he wasn’t a “real” Christian, since no “real” Christian would act that way, would act in so “un-Christlike” a manner.
That seems a bit silly to me, since it reduces the number of real Christians in the world to like twenty-seven. But what the heck, I’ll play along.
Christians will also mention that Stalin, Lenin, and Pol Pot were all atheists. Which seems to support their point that being religious is not necessary to being a dictator.
And they’re right. Being religious is not a prerequisite to being an evil dictator. I will grant the point to them at long last. I finally agree. It can definitely help you to be a more efficient evil dictator, but it’s not a prerequisite.
Being a conservative is, though.
Hitler may have been a Christian, but even if he wasn’t, and instead was the “athiest” atheist ever to walk the planet, he most certainly was a conservative. There’s no denying that.
What of Stalin, Pot, Lenin, and all the rest of the known dictators past and present, religious and atheist?
All conservatives. It’s the common denominator.
In fact, the very definition of the word liberal runs contrary to the necessary tactics and philosophy of the dictator. It’s actually impossible for a dictator to be a liberal. There is no such thing as a liberal dictator. Not now. Not ever. Every single one in all of history has been a conservative. Authoritarianism is immiscible with liberalism. Like oil and water. They cannot coexist in the same individual.
Conservatives persist in maintaining that their way is the better path, that their way is the optimal, that their way is the only smart way to run a country. They continue denigrating liberals, and have made even the word “liberal” itself into a slur. A word that means “open-minded” and “forward-thinking” is now a slur. They foment anger and hatred and they just love the politics of division. They keep secrets from the people and approve of torturing our enemies. They attempt to repress the freedom of the press by making them out to be biased when they’re not. They refuse to testify when subpoenaed, claiming higher authority. And they have gutted our constitution and have given themselves as much power as they could get away with giving themselves, which turned out to be a lot. Not to mention the big one, starting an un-necessary war for a distraction. (oh crap, I mentioned it)
We were told that if we forget the past we’re doomed to repeat it, but the conservatives ask us to do just that.
Well, not me.
Instead, I’ll keep asking this question whenever a conservative tells me how worthless being a liberal is:
“Which one out of all the evil dictators, tyrants, and despots in the entire history of the world, past and present, was a liberal?”
I like the sound of silence that follows.
Jesus was a liberal !
ReplyDeleteI should add....
ReplyDeleteIf, of course, Jesus existed.
Brian:
ReplyDeleteI think you have hit on and expressed a key distinction among Republicans. Once upon a time, in the not so distant past (at least to someone as old as I am) the Republican party actually had a "centrist" wing. It was often the strongest part of the party's platform. When the "born agains" began to support the Republicans as a coordinated group, almost exclusively because of Roe vs Wade, they were able more and more to gain control of the "mainstream" wings of the party and its platform. Since they were able to have such an impact on the last several elections, and, in particular, in order to put forward candidates who would either sincerely, (or as we see in this current campaign) or for obvious political expediencey, at least pay lip service to their "one issue" supporters, it has become necessary for any serious cndidate for high office to also claim to be CONSERVATIVE (for which please read Christian). Remember how John F. Kennedy's candidacy was almost overshadowed by his Catholicism, largely because the ultra-rightists at the time were mostly Protestants who do not necessarilly agree that Catholics are "really" Christians. In any event, "real" Christianity has become synonymous with conservatism for many of these people. As a result, the same denigration they generally express for anyone who is either an atheist or not the ""right kind of believer naturally carries over to what they perceive as the antithesis of Conservatism...Liberalism.
Just as they believe atheists are really some sort of organized, anti-God group with a form of central belief (or disbelief) and an agenda like one finds in all organized religions, they now have come to regard "Liberalism: in the same light. To most of them atheism = satanism = liberalism. Thus, when rabidly right wing hatemongers are able to hammer this concept equating anyone who doesn't "see the light" of Christianity = Conservatism with "Satanism", we see them painting Obama as "The AntiChrist" because he is in his forties, and happens to have a Muslim father and middle name, which they are willing to construe from Scripture (even though none of this actually appears in Revelations)
Certainly, as mac points out, Jesus was (would have been seen as) a liberal, but this has no meaning to these people, since the Jesus they purport to follow has been modified over the years to suit their interpretations of his life!
Harvey, well stated. Also I would think some of the pollution of the republican party was when the Dixiecrats joined up with them, thus moving the most unsavory element of the Democratic Party, the really racist part, over to the Republican side of the aisle.
ReplyDeleteJesus would DEFINITELY have been a Liberal, Mac. Long hair, drinks a lot of wine, hangs out with the poor, has a hooker friend, and speaks to authority.
Stalin was a conservative?
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure you know just what the term 'conservative' means. Actually, not many people in the U.S. today know what the term means, thanks to the success of Rush Limbaugh, so I won't be too hard on you. If you want to learn what conservatism really is (i.e. not how it is popularly understood today, but how it has been historically understood -- which, by the way, is said to have begun, philosophically, with Aristotle, whom you ironically quoted in support of liberalism! Indeed, this one quote demonstrates, quite clearly, how very superficial your analysis is: the ancient Greek conception of freedom was so very different from our own that it brooked slavery as natural, not in the sense of 'common,' but in the sense of 'good'!), I suggest you read Burke and Kirk. (If you want to come back with dictionary definitions to support your position, then we're not going to get very far).
As for the idea that liberalism is necessarily inconsistent with dictatorship, I'll kindly suggest that you've forgotten your Rousseau (no conservative, by any definition; if you want to go back further, see Plato, an enemy of democracy who clearly advocated a form of dictatorship -- remember the philosopher kings? -- and who just as clearly was no conservative), whom I'll paraphrase: Some people must be forced to be free. You see, the problem with your surface analysis is that you presuppose that the term 'freedom' so obviously means, and has always meant, what Western individualists think it means. It's simply not so. In fact, a far more (historically) common defition of freedom has involved some notion of virtue, i.e. that one is only truly free if one lives in a certain way, and that those who can do what they want when they want are most frequently the least free among us. Once this false assumption is dislodged, your whole analysis crumbles.
Eric, you are redefining freedom to suit your purposes.
ReplyDeleteI've missed you, dude. It takes real balls to do that. No moral compass whatsoever, but testicles out to HERE...
:-)
And Eric, I never took one philosophy course, other than a class on logic taught by a dominican friar. So your attempted tangents into the musty tomes that comprise your entire argumentative arsenal are wasted on poor, simple me. I do however know truth and falsehood apart when I see or hear them, even if said falsehood is delivered in an artfully convoluted and pseudo-arcane manner.
ReplyDeleteSo, do you have an argument to the intent of what I posted, or will it always be a U-turn to your comfort zone of pedantic revelling in the technicalities while the main meaning is intentionally ignored?
Brian, my only point was that of course liberals can be dictators, as long as their conception of freedom is not exhausted by what is commonly called 'negative freedom' (or 'negative liberty'). Once you begin to think of freedom as something more expansive than 'the absence of external restraints' (which many liberals do: e.g., the support of a right to health care), you're opening the door to the logical possibility of a liberal dictator. Of course, I'm not saying that liberalism necessarily leads to dictatorship (or that conservatives can't be dictators), or anything remotely like that. I'm simply pointing out the fact that the notion of a liberal dictator is not in any way incoherent once you concede first that freedom can be construed both in 'positive' and 'negative' terms, and second that liberalism doesn't preclude the promotion of positive freedoms.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure you know just what the term 'conservative' means. Actually, not many people in the U.S. today know what the term means, thanks to the success of Rush Limbaugh, so I won't be too hard on you. If you want to learn what conservatism really is...
ReplyDelete-eric
----------------------------
I am of course using the common, current, colloquial US definition that my adversaries on the other side use for it. Limbaugh included. Since it's a debate and all, between me and the ones that define it that way. Other definitions may exist, but it's that specific type of conservativism that they have in common with the tyrants. The iron-fisted type. Even if the tyrants or their subjects themselves didn't call it that at the time. Authoritarianism being what I'm talking about, and not some bizarre benign definition of tyrant or dictator that you might be able to come up with. Same with today's definition of liberal. (and not the neocon slur version either)
So which dictator was a liberal again? I missed it in all your words there. :-)
Without a right to health care we are not truly free, in that we will suffer the ravages of preventable disease. When treatments are available it is immoral to withold them for financial reasons or really any reason whatsoever. To do so is a conservative attitude nowadays, and not a liberal one. Helth care is even more basic than most other aspects of freedom, since what good being free if you're sick?
ReplyDeleteYou realze that what you're positing here is a dictator that forces us to get health care and otherwise helps the people against their will. Why are the people afraid of him again? Why would it be against their will to have health care in the first place? And if they're not afraid of him, not repressed by him, then he's not the type of dictator that I'm using as an example. (The evil kind) I used Hitler, Stalin, Pot, and Lenin. I assumed that the reader would take my meaning. Perhaps tyrant would have been a better choice? Are there any benign tyrants in your lexicon?
eric's liberal dictator WILL NOT torture dissenters, but he WILL iterrogate them enhancedly!
ReplyDeleteEric, I'm not trying to be a jerk here, by the way. This format doesn't convey tone and nuance. I'm not angry. After all, you're my first real apologist here, and I don't want to scare you off...
ReplyDelete:-)
Exactly, pboy.
ReplyDeleteYou know it's funny. I edited my original post, adding in the word "evil" to dictator so as to be more specific just in case someone came by and decided that there was some arcane definition of the word that didn't have negative connotations, and like three minutes later eric posted and did just that. He must have missed my edit.
ReplyDeleteAnd eric, maybe Aristotle was like John McCain.
ReplyDeleteYou know. Honorable in his youth (when he made the statement that I quoted) but became jaded once he bacame sucessful and allowed his ambition to destroy his original good judgement and decency, and began saying and doing things that were diametrically opposed to his original moral stance.
Y'Ever think of that? No? That's why I'm the blogger.
:-)
I dont think a liberal would ever want to become a dictator. A dictator is someone who rules alone with no dissent. He/She has absolute power to control.
ReplyDeleteThe most common definition of "conservative" is: disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.
Some say that Hugo Chavez and President Musharraff are liberal dictators, but that is open to interpretation. I do not know their specific policy and actions to make that judgement.
I dont think a liberal would ever want to become a dictator.
ReplyDelete----------------------
That being my point. It's not a liberal thing. Not as we think of liberal anyhow. You can be a MORE liberal dictator than another dictator I suppose...
How can restricting the freedoms of the people by force, be liberal in any way?
Hey, there IS a way for a dictator to be a liberal, sort-of. Maybe this is what eric was talking about. If his entire country is incredibly, violently conservative and he needs to force liberalism on them for the sake of peace... Maybe that's why some people call Musharrif a liberal. But oddly enough while this seems to violate my original point, it still illustrates the evils of conservativism and not of liberalism. Since the dictator wouldn't have to force liberalism on a population of sane, normal people. Only a bunch of hyperconservative religious maniacs would deny their own liberty like that.
ReplyDeleteHey, like many of our conservatives!
To preserve existing conditions and to limit change, in this rapidly changing world, would be the wrong philosophy, no?
ReplyDeleteI think that every Christian MUST defend the notion of a liberal dictator.
ReplyDeleteAfter all, we all know what GOD'S(as Jesus) next big move is supposed to be.
HE will come down to Earth and rule us for a thousand years.
Being the liberal dictator that HE is, HE will then release Satan from his bonds for a short time.
So, now we can see eric's reason for all this word twisting and poo-pooing you for not knowing the historical meanings of words.
He is putting language itself to the question.
"Let's shine the light of history on the words 'liberal', 'conservative' and 'freedom'"!
Why?
Because GOD is supposed to be a benign dictator, isn't he eric?
Being the liberal dictator that HE is, HE will then release Satan from his bonds for a short time.
ReplyDelete------------
I missed that part. Is that the prophecy, really? Why release Satan? Don't get it.
"These events are foreseen: the Great Tribulation, the Campaign of Armageddon, the Second Coming of the Messiah with the restoration of peace to the world and His 1,000 year reign, >>>>>the imprisonment of Satan (portrayed as a dragon) until he is 'loosed' for the final rebellion<<<<<, God's final judgment over Satan, the Great White throne judgment, and the ushering in of the New Heavens and New Earth."
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Revelation
Like Bill Maher says, why doesn't God get rid of Satan? What's He waiting for?
ReplyDeleteSo silly. Kindergarten silly.
The description I've always enjoyed most is this one.
ReplyDeleteThe good conservative wants their children to be better off than they are. The good liberal wants their children to be better than they are.
"Eric, I'm not trying to be a jerk here, by the way. This format doesn't convey tone and nuance. I'm not angry. After all, you're my first real apologist here, and I don't want to scare you off..."
ReplyDeleteC'mon, after dealing with morons like William, Knight and Peter on Dinesh's blog, you're a breath of fresh air. And no, that was not an attempt to stroke your ego, it's just my honest opinion.
Now, I think I can clear up the confusion concerning the terms 'liberal' and 'conservative.' When you look at a person's position, you won't get far if you focus on the position itself while ignoring the reasons that support it. That's uncontroversial, right? Okay, so let's look at what reasons lead one to be a conservative as opposed to a liberal. (Note, none of what I'm going to say is new; it's all been said countless times before.)
Conservatives are skeptical about large scale social change -- not opposed to such change, as is often mistakenly believed -- mainly because they don't trust human reason. Let me clarify this: it's not that they think reason is useless; rather, they merely recognize its limits. Such a recognition is supported by even a cursory examination of history, which is why conservatives so often (though not always) look to the past. In other words, conservatives are first and foremost committed to empirical data. This is why conservatives will put so much trust in tradition, and why they place a strong burden of proof on liberals when they want to change traditional practices and mores.
Conservatives don't only distrust reason when it comes to large scale social changes; they distrust human nature as well. This is why conservatives support long-standing, well tested human institutions that channel, temper and redirect our darker passions and desires. (This lays the groundwork for the dirty little secret, namely that many vocal, openly conservative supporters of religion have in fact been agnostics and atheists in their personal lives.)
Liberals, on the other hand, trust both human reason and human nature when it comes to large scale social changes. They dismiss the law of unintended consequences with a sneer, and look down their noses with righteous indignation at anyone who would dare oppose change x, which they support. Never mind the fact that the conservative often opposes x not on moral grounds, but on practical grounds; that is to say, while he may think that x is indeed a moral improvement over the present state of affairs, he is skeptical about the possible unforeseen ripple effects of x upon other essential institutions. (Quite an irony, eh? It turns out to be the liberals who are both self-righteous and dogmatic!)
In short, while the conservative is empirical and reasons from the facts of the world, the liberal is an idealist (in the metaphysical sense) or a rationalist (in the epistemological sense) who reasons from ideas about the world. This is an important opposition in this debate: facts versus ideas. (Of course, I'm not saying that liberals never look at the facts, or that conservatives never reason from conceptions of the world; after all, we're talking about human beings, and therefore about tendencies and proclivities, and not about 'laws.') Also, while conservatives are leery of human nature, liberals are optimists when it comes to human motivations. This largely explains why liberals like Jefferson and Paine supported the French Revolution, while conservatives like Adams and Burke opposed it. It also explains why liberals were so sympathetic to communism in the early twentieth century, while conservatives opposed it.
We can now answer your question with some clarity. Can a liberal be a dictator or a tyrant? Of course he can. Just look at the two examples I provided in the paragraph above: the tyrannical leaders of the French Revolution who brought about the Terror were clearly not conservatives, but liberals; the monarchs and aristocrats were the conservatives. Lenin was clearly not a conservative, but a liberal; the Czar and his supporters were the conservatives. (Keep in mind that both the French and Russian revolutions were perpetrated in the names of reason, science, freedom, and equality, and opposed by conservatives because of their skepticism and and trust in tradition.) In each case we see the liberal supporting change in the name of reason and a cheery view of human nature, while conservatives opposes the change in the name of empiricism and an overall pessimism about the motivations of the revolutionary leaders.
Now, if you want to come back with the claim that no 'true' liberal can be a dictator, then...
Here's a little support for my position from the Oxford Guide to Philosophy (we are discussing political philosophy, so the source is apposite, and very well respected): "The conservative approach is empirical as opposed to rationalistic, cautiously sceptical rather than dogmatic, and, in certain circumstances, seeks to preserve the status quo rather than engage in wholesale revolution or overthrow existing institutions...[Conservatives] have all possessed a keen sense of the darker, more egoistic sides of human beings...without institutions and forms to channel and temper the energy and rapacity of the strong...we will have a society that is dominated by terror...Far from being opposed to reform, a principle of reform of central to conservatism...Our ignorance of the effects of policies and the nature of society makes the conservative favour limited government, autonomous institutions, and individual freedom. Conservatism, with its hesitations about human perfectibility and its sense of the corrupting effect of power, would prefer government to focus on its basic tasks of upholding security and a framework of law in which individual decisions and transactions can be made...As part of his ignorance thesis, the conservative must support autonomous institutions and the freedom of individuals to make their own way through life...He will also deny that there are any special experts in morality or politics, asserting that the experience of the whole of mankind over time is the main source of moral knowledge, against which must be balanced the pretensions of any particular set of people to moral expertise..."
The upshot is, don't demonize all conservatives! We're not evil, we just see the world and human beings differently from you.
LOL eric, what a laugh.
ReplyDeleteDid you miss the part where Brian says that he is meaning liberal and conservative in today's contexts?
Which conservative is being 'skeptical' about those 'crazy' liberal ideas that people should all have medical coverage, a roof over their heads, have their kids educated and have enough to eat?
Which conservative voter is being realistic imagining criminalizing abortion will benefit the million plus abortion recipients(mostly Christians BTW)?
What 'tradition' is there which says that tax reduction for the wealthy benefit all?
The conservatives had complete control of the government for six out of the last eight years, can you point to the U.S.A. coming any closer to the conservative ideals of, no abortions, smaller government, no regime building, the 'trickle-down' effect having some positive effect, anything at all eric?
The neocon agenda of dominionism, bankrupting the U.S.A. etc. doesn't count as a truly conservative agenda according to your 'history lesson', does it?
AS far as liberal ideals not leading to liberal dictators, I have to ask you if you cannot imagine that people hi-jacked the liberal ideals and it was not the liberal ideals themselves that should be held to account.
Hitler called his party the National Socialists, but in the end he proved that Nazism was as far from socialism as it could possibly be.
The same goes for any dictator who cries freedom then demands obedience.
This little journey through history doesn't 'show' us what you are pretending it does.
Once again, a dictator demands obedience, be he fascist or communist or God himself.
Eric, ideally the conservative view in this country would counterbalance the liberal. Both have their excesses, but both have their beneifts as well. For instance, I'm a liberal, but I don't trust my enemies. That's just stupid. And I honestly don't think Obama does either, by the way. But to not talk to them would be equally stupid. Again, balance. You don't trust them, but you don't be an asshole to them either, even if they are to us, since that lowers us to their level.
ReplyDeleteHowever in an ideal world there would be neither liberals nor conservatives but only balanced people that took one side or the other as they judged suitable to the occassion, or even a balance of the two when this is optimal.
Now, the problem is, while your argument has a lot of merit, the conservatives in this country aren't like Goldwater anymore. They are now MOSTLY in what I would have once called the "fringe" making the word itself meaningless. The center of the conservative party is dead. The far-right wing is alive by virtue of the injection of new evangelical blood. (A devil's bargain, IMHO.)
But my original point is that the attitudes that even you describe, the distrust of human reason for instance, may work well when it's not a SEVERE and UNWARRANTED distrust of human reason as it is now. But it is that now. It even extends to a distrust of intellectualism and reason itself. Liberalism has no such problem. No trend that, when exemplified at it's worst, is intolerable. Unless you're conting trusting our enemies to the point where they crap all over us and take advantage of our good will. Personally I think this is a ridiculous argument, though. In the post 9-11 world we're ALL conscious of the threat, I assure you. Except maybe OUR fringe, which as stated is much smaller than yours is right now, remaining a fringe as it does and not a majority. And Obama isn't in our fringe, I assure you. Think "Kucinich." And then go even further left. These are the few that might think such things, in their naivete. Bless their good hearts, but you're right of course, they are too trusting. Again, it's a balance thing. I'm big on balance.
So while I admit that you've sucessfully punched some holes in my initial theory, I still think that there's a good sized grain of truth in it. In that, the attitudes associated with TODAY'S U.S. conservativism are more potentially harmful to us when extended to their extremes than any of the attitudes associated with today's U.S. liberals. Harmful as in, they are the precursors to a dictatorship, or certainly smack of them. We liberals are open to the future, and accept that the only constant is change. That's the way the world turns, you know. Whereas the conservative side of the aisle has gone from skepticism (healthy) to distrust and thence to paranoia. Not good. Add in a lot of Biblical Literalist attitude and you get a horror show. We need clear heads, and not jittery cowards afraid of the next attack hiding behind their overt bellicosity and their supposed righteousness due to their membership in a particular faith.
Thanks for not descending too much into obscurity. Much appreciated.
It even extends to a distrust of intellectualism and reason itself.
ReplyDelete-------------------
Meant to say, to a distrust of intellectualism and INTELLECT itself.
What's more stupid than that.
This last discussion bears out my hope that people could disagree about various issues, have a reasonable debate with appropriate give and take, and manage to not descend to ad hominem, vitriolic, and sometimes disgusting diatribes. Although I never thought Dinesh was the least bit sincere in his postings, which, at their best, seemed designed to antagonize people, I was sorry tosee the venue for at least some interesting and enlightening discussions disappear. Not only does it still carry on in his absence, but it seems to have made it possible for much superior venues like this one and Botts' to carry on in much better fashion.
ReplyDeleteOnce again, a dictator demands obedience, be he fascist or communist or God himself.
ReplyDelete-Pboy
---------------------
That's the way I've always understood the word.
Thank you very much, Harvey.
ReplyDeleteIf you go to my very first post you will see that I've udated it. My update pertains to what you said.
Having a blog, and basically being responsible for it's content, has caused me to see that my old mode of communication was too abrasive. I'm glad for that.
I guess I needed a booster shot of humility or something.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think Pboy raises a valid and perhaps important point.
ReplyDeleteChristians, particularly evangelicals and born-again christians, are used to a dictator, in that their God is the ultimate dictator, and they force themselves to see Him as a benign one in spite of how angry He gets and how severely He punishes people for even minor sins. So it makes sense that they'd be less hostile to the idea of an earthly dictator telling them what to do. They're used to it already.
The odd thing is, to me anyway, that someone can be AS smart as eric(and D'Souxa) obviously is(are) yet they defend this as if any sane person could.
ReplyDeleteSeems to me that you, eric, are beyond 'belief'.
You have no empathy. You are a wheeler and dealer of words. How can you look yourself in the mirror every morning?
Pboy, do you think it's possible that eric and renzo and even Dinesh don't think that they're lying?
ReplyDeleteI mean, it's possible if they were brought up believing that the truth is an abstract concept that is variable with the individual and not derived from observations of reality. I mean, they might think that, if you win a debate, you've "proven" that your opinion was the truth as much as anybody can know the truth. Therefore the best arguer gets to dictate the truth... It's like they mix up the US Legal System of courts and trials and legality which derives the legal "truth" of a matter by litigation, with reality, in which if you're simply observant enough and balanced enough you can derive the truth, or a close enough approximation of it, by merely seeing it and realizing that it's the truth. Does this make any sense?
I think that most people of a conservative disposition are of the viewpoint that the masses should not be trusted to govern themselves. That is to say, that given free reign, people will tend to descend into chaos and disorder.
ReplyDeleteThat is why the USA is so dependant on "law". We trust the law so much because we live in basic fear that something may happen to us. But who makes the law? Did you get to vote on the law? No. You voted for someone who (hopefully) shares your values and wants to put them into effect.
When that happens, the law ends up infringing on your basic freedoms such as, speech, religion, and privacy (which is not specifically guaranteed in the constitution).
After that, comes the police state where your neighbor is your enemy and the government is watching your every move. (which is what we are in now). The US has the advantage of being cyclic. We tend to go up and down as we need to. It is our greatest strength and our greatest weekness. If bush did a better job, we could have started down the road to a dictator. And it wouldnt be a liberal one.
I know its off topic, but it was in my head, so there.
Actually stefan, I thought that it was perfectly "on" topic.
ReplyDeleteI think stefan is being paranoid - it sounds like something my father would say. Our government may not be perfect - it is far from it and I think stefan made a valid point - we tend towards cycles when it comes to popular thought on current laws. We never find ourselves too far right or too far left. Although some people would disagree. The fact is there are checks and balances in place so that different voices and points of view can be heard. I like that. If we elect a democrat for president and those who are up for seats in the house or the senate go toward the democratic side, we might see a swing toward a more liberal sided government.
ReplyDeleteWe might see cuts in military spending, or since we are embroiled in the perverse occupation of Iraq, a reworking of military funds to support our middle east endeavors while maintaining our defense.
We might see more social programs that benefit all citizens, and even those who are here illegally - unfortunate as that may seem.
For a while our government might be holding the reigns of our banking and finance systems - until our economy in on a more solid footing.
I hope that the next president encourages equality in the private sector when it comes to equal pay for equal work. But on the flip side - I don't agree with being forced to hire to fill a government quota on expectations that are not realistic.
I hope our next president will consider education just as important as our business climate.
In the same way we want to promote business grow in America, we should be promoting our own tangible resources - our youth. I don't mean sweat shops, unless you're talking about learning till you sweat.
I think Americans have a right to defend themselves, but I don't think we have the right to arm ourselves until we could start our own militant group and overthrow a small nation.
I think there needs to be a word for those of us who are decidedly middle of the road. I have liberal ideals and I also have conservative ones. I don't think we should ever forget the past and the mistakes we've made, I do think that we need to continuously consider the future.
It is more than a place to derive hope from. It is a place to contemplate all that which we think is possible to obtain.
For me, I hope the future brings more balance. Leadership that strives toward peace and prosperity and not domination and fear. Personally I don't want to be a giant. A bully for the rest of the world to fear. I'd rather be a voice. Someone who is heard and listened to and followed because their message makes sense and can be regarded with respect and understanding.
What is that word for being neither conservative or liberal???
TJ:
ReplyDelete"For me, I hope the future brings more balance. Leadership that strives toward peace and prosperity and not domination and fear. Personally I don't want to be a giant. A bully for the rest of the world to fear. I'd rather be a voice. Someone who is heard and listened to and followed because their message makes sense and can be regarded with respect and understanding.
What is that word for being neither conservative or liberal???"
October 14, 2008 3:49 PM
The word, at present, that perhaps best describes the kind of political view you espouse (as do I) is "moderate". For the longest time, we have succeeded with a 2 party system (rather than the multiparty systems of most parliamentary democracies) because there have always been a significant plurality of voters who do not automatically follow the platform of either party. In parliamentary systems these are usually organized into so-called "centrist" parties. Even in these trying political times, the central leaning wings of either party, coupled with "independents" and undecideds will probably decide this election. Being a moderate was not a dirty word until Rush Limbaugh and others decided to make it appear so. As is generally true in all human endeavors, the best answer to most problems does not lie at either extreme, but somewhere more towards the middle.The real difficulty lies in finding where in the middle. Our system of checks and balances and the fact that we are not truly a classic democracy (wherein every one votes directly on every issue) but a republic, in which we elect people hopefuly wise enough to decide for us as a group of legislators where that "middle" is best placed on specific policy issues.
"it's possible if they were brought up believing that the truth is an abstract concept that is variable with the individual and not derived from observations of reality."
ReplyDeleteI absolutely do not think this is so. In fact, you're more likely to find adherents of the view you've presented among liberals. For example, many liberal academics (especially those sympathetic to the many variants of post-structuralism) attack science today because they believe that all truth claims are ultimately reducible to assertions of power. You'd be hard pressed to find a conservative or a theist who believes that "truth is an abstract concept that is variable with the individual."
"I mean, they might think that, if you win a debate, you've "proven" that your opinion was the truth as much as anybody can know the truth. Therefore the best arguer gets to dictate the truth"
Again, I think no such thing. There have been plenty of times that I've come across an argument that I didn't know how to answer, but that I 'knew' (or thought I knew) was flawed. I think this happens to most of us on a regular basis. The difficult part is to take that initial, instinctive 'knowing' and translate it into the sort of propositional or conceptual modalities that others can then examine. Of course, sometimes when we think clearly about something we 'knew' was wrong, we realize that it was in fact we who were wrong. But there is a sense in which I want to qualify my remarks here, and pose a question for others to consider: if someone presents a valid argument (i.e., valid in the sense that its logic is flawless), and if you can't find anything wrong with the premises, shouldn't you at least provisionally grant that the conclusion is likely to be true, even if you disagree with (or simply dislike) the conclusion? In other words, this isn't about 'a debate,' and about who is 'quicker' (slicker?) or 'better informed,' but about how we go about supporting our conclusions. It seems to me that a provisional assent to the truth of a conclusion you don't particularly like is obligatory -- not just epistemically, but morally -- if an argument is valid, its terms clear and its premises true (i.e. if the argument is, or at least seems sound). It also seems to me to be the case that if you can't answer such an argument in any way, then rejecting its conclusion because you don't like it is at the very least irrational.
To sum up, it's not about 'debates,' but arguments.
"if someone presents a valid argument (i.e., valid in the sense that its logic is flawless), and if you can't find anything wrong with the premises, shouldn't you at least provisionally grant that the conclusion is likely to be true, even if you disagree with (or simply dislike) the conclusion?" - eric
ReplyDeleteEverything is in perception.
There are those of us who think that there has been valid "arguments" against say... the belief in a god. That all the supposed "proof" that a god exists isn't in fact knowledge, but conjecture. God is a belief that people have, not because it makes sound reasonable sense, but because they want to have that belief. Maybe it isn't so much that there are those who want to dismiss the realism of god, they just don't have factual physical support to the conclusions of faith. To that, many have found the opposite to be true and their only reaction is to argue the invalidity of such a belief.
So when faced with flawless logic as opposed to religious faith, why are so many people unwilling to even provisionally grant that their conclusions about the reality of a god might be instead baseless and refutable?
From Eric's post:
ReplyDelete"In fact, a far more (historically) common defition of freedom has involved some notion of virtue, i.e. that one is only truly free if one lives in a certain way..."
This is a conditional freedom, in that someone else's definition of 'virtue' is involved. Who is defining virtue? Aristotle? Your friendly neighborhood pastor? The Moral Majority?
I like the definition: "True freedom is the freedom to starve to death." No conditions.
Brian said:
ReplyDelete"So it makes sense that they'd be less hostile to the idea of an earthly dictator telling them what to do. They're used to it already."
This is exactly the facet of religion that allowed Constantine tohijack Christianity and pervert it into The Roman Catholic Church.
Eric said:
ReplyDelete"It seems to me that a provisional assent to the truth of a conclusion you don't particularly like is obligatory -- not just epistemically, but morally -- if an argument is valid, its terms clear and its premises true (i.e. if the argument is, or at least seems sound). It also seems to me to be the case that if you can't answer such an argument in any way, then rejecting its conclusion because you don't like it is at the very least irrational."
-------------------------------
In an ideal balanced world you are correct, but practically what happens is someone comes along that is so conversant with the vageries of argumentation and the minutia of philosophy and is such a skilled debater that they can defeat even the bearer of the truth. Sometimes even handily so. At least, defeat them in that they have made their point to their audience if not the audence of their opponent, which was all they wanted to do in the first place. They've devoted themselves to the fine art of stretching the truth to the breaking point. They are the Picassos of Bullshit, and from where I sit it's hard to respect or even like such an individual. Because it's so apparent that they're are completely without honor.
This was Dinesh's technique. He is an artist at it.
Just an observation, is all.
This is exactly the facet of religion that allowed Constantine tohijack Christianity and pervert it into The Roman Catholic Church.
ReplyDelete-GearHeadEd
-----------------------------
Boy do I agree with you on this, Ed.
Constantine was one of the early BS artists. One of Macchiavelli's idols, I bet. What an evil genius.
"They've devoted themselves to the fine art of stretching the truth to the breaking point. They are the Picassos of Bullshit, and from where I sit it's hard to respect or even like such an individual. Because it's so apparent that they're are completely without honor."
ReplyDeleteI would like to think that I do not do this, but it is really hard to say. If I remember correctly, it seemed that Renzo liked to do this. Very good at using heavy philosophical terms for simple subject matters, and coming up with verbiose applications of "logic" to circumvent around simple issues of reality. The kind of people who will argue that we can't know anything with certainty and play around with definitions when they don't like the subject matter, but could care less about that fact when putting forward their own positions. But, in all honesty, I am just as critical, just as bad at being forthright, and am just as selective in my application of logic, so I am hardly one to criticize. But still...I find people like myself annoying...
"Very good at using heavy philosophical terms for simple subject matters, and coming up with verbiose applications of "logic" to circumvent around simple issues of reality."
ReplyDeleteIsn't it possible that philosophers simply don't think that any subject matter, especially any 'issue of reality,' is 'simple'? Bertrand Russell once said, in essence, that showing you that what seems simple in fact isn't is just what philosophy does. However, it need not be the case that this is 'obfuscation': for example, is it obfuscating or enlightening to point out the fact that matter is almost entirely empty space, that on the quantum level we're dealing with uncertainties and probabilities, and that time isn't absolute but dependent upon a frame of reference? In other words, each one of these points makes the point that things aren't nearly as simple as they initially seem, yet each one certainly deepens and enriches our conception of the world. Philosophers would argue that the fine conceptual or logical points and distinctions they make perform the same function.
A couple of quotes from Russell to support my point:
"Here, as usually in philosophy, the first difficulty is to see that the problem is difficult."
"A good point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it."
I agree with you, eric. Things aren't always simple, and when you try to present them simply, you are often missing necessary nuance, or just outright wrong. But, when people start invoking the "uncertainties" of the quantum level (originally, I was thinking about going to Cartesian depths of leaving only the existence of one's own awareness for one to "know") in order to call every argument "a wash", regardless of concrete evidence...it gets messy. Again, though, not really condemning the tactic wholeheartedly, since I tend to do this kind of thing myself.
ReplyDeleteIt's funny, though, but Bertrand's last quote kind of alludes to why going through these motions is more often an ineffeectual hassel than it should be.
My "Paranoia" is somewhat justified if you look at history. The best example is the rise of the Third Reich. They didnt just pop up and say "Hey, We own Germany now, you all follow us or die". It took them over a decade to gain popular support. Once they had the right people in power, they engineered a series of catastrophes that guaranteed that the people would grant the Nazis power absolute.
ReplyDeleteI think people should always worry about a party that has two things:
Power
Popularity.
Thank god Bush lost both. If things had gone better for him, we might have lost more freedoms than we want to. Remember, most people in the US live in fear of terrorism and economic peril. It wouldnt be much of a step up to suggest a government with more authority.
Okay eric, you say, " for example, is it obfuscating or enlightening to point out the fact that matter is almost entirely empty space, that on the quantum level we're dealing with uncertainties and probabilities, and that time isn't absolute but dependent upon a frame of reference?"
ReplyDeleteI think that this is obfuscation on your part, I really do.
Here you are trying to dazzle us with bullshit, but you are stuck shining up a turd.
What would 'clarity of thought' have to do with whether timeframes differ depending on relative velocity?
What would 'clarity of thought' have to do with how the very definition of 'solidity' disappears below the electro-magnetic threshold?
Finally, how can you even think of invoking 'quantum physics', the least understood of any science as 'clarifying' anything, anything at all, never mind 'physically', but 'philosophically'???
If I were to say "evolution is an established scientific theory, it works, it's predictable, and it explains what we see in the world, the changing of forms and the rise of new species, including us of course, in a more than satisfactory manner" a person can't argue with that, since it's a statement of fact. That is to say, a person can't argue with that statement unless they either lie, use flawed logic, or bring up things not covered by science in the first place. Such as philosophy. Now philosophy is great for understanding some things, but in no case does it ever trump hard science in the rare instances where they conflict. Therefore it is a useless tool to disprove a scientific theory, but an excellent tool to SOUND LIKE you've disproven one due to it's density of conflicting information and arcane terminology. Philosophy is kind-of like the Bible in that respect. You can find support in it for pretty much anything if you look hard enough.
ReplyDeleteIn my mind, to "win" a debate with any creationist, all I have to do is bring in a book on evolution and place it into evidence as exhibit one. Oh, that and maybe give them a link to the TalkOrigins archive to handle all the superfluous crap they'd likely ask of me. Then I can simply go home, having won the debate. More than that even. I can go home having slaughtered my opponent and made them look like a complete horses patootie.
That's how it SHOULD be, in a perfect world where people didn't let beliefs trump facts nor attempt to use philosophy (which is merely more beliefs, when you boil it down) to defeat hard science based in observation and experimentation.
Using philosophy to argue against evolution, or any other aspect of hard science, is like trying to stop a fastball with a syllogism.
I chose evolution because it was first on my mind when I think of a typical argument between science and religion.
ReplyDeleteAlso, invoking philosophy in a discussion where the language is at the colloquial level, such as in many of my posts, is ignoring the context of the conversation and attempting to steer it to friendlier ground where you might win the argument, rather than attempting to win it on the same ground as your opponents. (Bringing in a minor point or a single facet of it is fine; reframing the entire argument as a philosophical discussion is what I mean here)
It's like, in my main post here I'm using the terms "conservative" and "liberal." In the context it's obvious that I am using them in their current incarnations in american colloquial english. So to tell me that I've forgotten my Rousseau and to add in Aristotle and Plato is like answering a child's request for candy by handing him a vintage recipe for marzipan.
ReplyDeleteHey, do you guys (and girls if any are reading this) still have to type in a verification code in order to post? I tried to get rid of that, and I want to know if it worked.
ReplyDeleteBri,
ReplyDeleteI still have to do the letter thingy, but only once a session. As long as I stay signed in to the blog, it lets me post additional comments without re-verifying.
Yea, Brian, I was wondering why your blog has that silly word verification thing.
ReplyDeleteMight have to do with the possibility of spam.
Brian,(about eric et al), you say, "I mean, they might think that, if you win a debate, you've "proven" that your opinion was the truth as much as anybody can know the truth."
ReplyDeleteNo, Brian, I think that the entire thing is set up to be circular in every way possible for the control of the masses.
(Institutional[for Botts sake])Christians automatically take both sides against the middle in every issue.
Didn't you notice eric saying that you were wrong BECAUSE 'it's the conservatives who are really liberal,(batting eyes)isn't it?'
At some point every one of them demand that disbelievers PROVE a negative proposition.
They admit that they teach folk according to their ability to understand.
Simpletons and children will be happy with "Heaven/good, Hell/bad.", together with, "The Devil will try to trick ya!"
eric does essentially the same thing, but he's not trying to convince US, he's trying to convince those same believers who will be dazzled with 'philosophy-talk'.
It's only surprising to me that eric has'nt used his, "I never understand what you say because I'm so much smarter than you!", card yet!
Perhaps there aren't enough 'Janesophies' and 'MIWs' to 'harrumph'?
"It's only surprising to me that eric has'nt used his, "I never understand what you say because I'm so much smarter than you!", card yet!"
ReplyDeleteFloyd, I don't have to play that card, since you constantly play it for me with remarks like:
"Didn't you notice eric saying that you were wrong BECAUSE 'it's the conservatives who are really liberal,(batting eyes)isn't it?'"
No one who read my post on conservatives and liberals, and who has at least a fifth grade reading level, could reach the conclusion that I was saying that conservatives are 'really' the liberal ones.
I can't speak to you because we're just on =completely= different wavelengths. In fact, I think that you may be my anti-matter (or my matter?) twin, and that if we ever met and shook hands, we'd annihilate each other.
eric said, "No one who read my post on conservatives and liberals, and who has at least a fifth grade reading level, could reach the conclusion that I was saying that conservatives are 'really' the liberal ones."
ReplyDeleteBut eric DID say, " (Quite an irony, eh? It turns out to be the liberals who are both self-righteous and dogmatic!)
Quite apposite if I do say so myself, hem,hem,hem.
"I think that you may be my anti-matter (or my matter?) twin, and that if we ever met and shook hands, we'd annihilate each other."
ReplyDeleteJust had a 'funny picture' of us 'battling forever' Kirk/anti-Kirk style in 'sub-space'(or however that worked). LOL
Wasn't that the white-black man and the black-white man? Who fought on forever in subspace or whatever? It's beena long time. Maybe it was both? Except that would leqve us without our Kirk as well.
ReplyDeleteSilly synchronicity alert, Brian.
ReplyDeleteReading up on Egyptian god(ess)s, I'm at 'Isis'.
Emma is watching TV in the front room and they start discussing a player/contestant/participant(whatever, I don't know) by the name of... Isis.
Here's a question eric...
ReplyDeleteGiven that, "...the early Muslim philosopher, Al-Kindi (Alkindus); the Jewish philosopher, Saadia Gaon (Saadia ben Joseph); and the Muslim theologian, Al-Ghazali (Algazel). They developed two logical arguments against an infinite past, the first being the "argument from the impossibility of the existence of an actual infinite", which states:[23]
"An actual infinite cannot exist."
"An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite."
"∴ An infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist." ", ...
... can God be infinite?
Floyd, now that is a great question!
ReplyDeleteThe first thing to keep in mind is how different our conception of 'infinity' is today from what they were working with back in the ninth and (roughly) twelfth centuries.
That aside, however, we can make an important distinction that was recognized by them and is recognized by us. When they spoke of the impossibility of an 'actual infinite,' they were using a notion they got from Aristotle, who had used the distinction between 'actual infinites' and 'potential infinites' to answer Zeno's paradoxes. And no, this isn't a 'look how smart I am' moment, but a point essential to the issue, since it shines some light on just what they meant when they referred to 'infinity' here, which is to say *an unlimited number of =discrete parts=*.
This is where we can put the pieces of the puzzle together by asking the question, "How did the early Christian, Muslim and Jewish philosophers conceive of God? Was God composed of Parts?" The answer is, obviously, a resounding "No!" God was conceived of as a simple substance, i.e. without any parts. If god is without parts, then the conception of infinity they were using *in the arguments you refer to* =cannot= apply to god (since those arguments =require= the existence of discrete parts, whether as measurements or events or whatever, for their forcefulness). Now we can tie in the last part of the point: since they didn't have a rigorously developed conception of 'infinity,' they often used the term in a variety of ways, and when they referred to god as 'infinite,' they were speaking not of god's ontological omnipresence (which would lead to either pantheism or panentheism, both of which would subject God to the 'actual infinite' objection, yet both of which are rejected by the Abrahamic "God as creator" religions), but of his power and reach (which are potentially limitless, i.e. omnipotence), of his knowledge (which is potentially limitless, i.e. his omniscience) and of his other capacities (e.g. for love). It's important to keep in mind that even God's omniscience doesn't violate the 'God as a simple substance' conception, since knowledge isn't thought to be present to god as it is to us, i.e. in terms of discrete propositions, but in its totality, i.e. as a whole, i.e. as a 'one,' i.e. as an attribute of god as a simple substance. (If you want to ask, "But can a simple substance have attributes?" the answer is "Yes." For example, minds -- as opposed to brains -- have been conceived of as simple substances with a variety of attributes, such as will, reason, etc.)
Let me add that none of this is new. The question you raised, and the rough answer I outlined, have both been around since those 'kalam' style arguments were first propounded.
How are you all still posting on DD's blog? I think it's hilarious that it's still up and going strong without him. We always knew he was irrelevant? I tried to comment to janesophie, but never got a confirmation letter to post it. She said God is in control of the election, so she does not fear. I was wondering what she will tell herself when Obama wins. Punishment to sinning USA from God? Bring on the Rapture? That God thinks Obama IS the better man to do his work? That McCain is a hypocrite and not worthy? How will a Christian who believes God is in control of this explain it? Could they possibly say "If God chose Obama, maybe I have been wrong?"
ReplyDeleteNot to ignore your blog, St. Brian....I really love it. I read it every day. I feel inadequate to reply sometimes, I can't find a little head nod icon to post. Everything I think is already said! Although the logic go-rounds involving quantum levels and Cartesian depths make my head spin a la Linda Blair. LOL
PS: I have to do word verification.
Hey, it worked! I finally got a confirmation link from the DD blog, took forever. The abandoned warehouse atmosphere is incredible.
ReplyDelete:-)
Yes eric, I'm sure that that is the perfect answer, and as far as the thinking of those early philosopher theologians goes, I'm sure that you are 100% correct and you'd get an A+ for that one in any exam.
ReplyDelete(and I mean that in the 'nicest' way possible)
Correct me if I'm wrong here, you are saying that if you think of the mind as a substance with attributes then it is easy to think of God as a substance with attributes too.
I don't think that we DO think of the mind as a substance at all.
I think that it is fair to say that we 'see' "minds" as processes.
Since processes necessarily happen 'over time' then the mind/God analogy would disappear since God is somehow supposed to 'be' outside time.
Jude, you ask, "How will a Christian who believes God is in control of this explain it?"
ReplyDeleteSame way they explain everything, God said, "Yes!",
God said, "No!"
or God said, "Wot you talkin' 'bout Willis?"
Talking about physics... segwaysegway..
ReplyDeleteGod said, "Let there be light!"
You see I think(not really) that HE was telling us that this is an electro-magnetic universe, unless you're planning a trip to the center of the Sun and we should leave the nuclear(nukulur) shit ALONE(apple analogy anyone?).
I think that 'Joe six-gun' was ecstatic enough making his 'point' with chunks of lead.
Jude:
ReplyDeleteYou are certainly right about the abandoned feel of DD's blog, which, however, will apparently remain accessible and postable indefinitely. That some of us still check it out and even continue to post now and then should attest to the fact that DD mainly served to stir things up. Because he did not really care (in my opinion) about the truth or defensibility of his posts, but only saw it as a vehicle to sell himself and his books, it was no concern of his that several thinking, reasonably open-minded "seekers" of knowledge were willing to expose themselves to the "nut cases" who used it a s means to vent their discontent.
You will have noted that JaneSophie1, for instance, still drops by to claim her deeply felt faith in Christianity and Catholicism, while she can quickly disappear to her own blog so she will not be subjected to those of us who do not believe as she does. I am pleased to note that thus far Thomas J Gassett and the other "ultras" on both sides have not shown up either here or there.
Well, JaneSophie answered. I THINK she said that a vote for Obama would be "trying God's patience." Seems God is definitely a McCain guy, and not a chance that God prefers Obama or that JaneSophie is wrong. So glad to have that cleared up!!! (or you were right, PB...God said "wot you talkin' bout." ) LOL
ReplyDeleteHarvey, you hit it too...DD was all about self promotion only. Souless blogs, imo, and it showed. I'm glad we now have the soulFUL and heartfelt blogs of St. Brian. The comments here are some of the most intelligent around.
Jude:
ReplyDeleteI am not sure about "intelligent", but at least there is a real dialogue, rather than a diatribe.
Good article here:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.soulcast.com/post/show/13174/Christianity:-Religion-or-Psychosis%3F
Christianity: Religion or Psychosis?
Dr. Armand Nicholi of Harvard has studied the 'religion is a psychosis' notion and completely rejected it. His studies have shown that people who experience religious conversions become better able to deal with each area of life he investigated (while the contrary would be expected to happen with a psychosis). Of course, this says nothing about the truth of religious beliefs, but it does indeed belie the idea that religion can be categorized as a psychosis.
ReplyDeleteFloyd, your 'mind as process' remark presupposes physicalism which, while it may be a necessary methodological assumption as far as scientific enquiry goes, is in no way a consensus ontological conclusion among the scientists and philosophers who study consciousness today. In short, the issue is hardly settled, so it's not at all obvious that mind can be reduced to brain processes. (See any info on what David Chalmers has called 'the hard problem of consciousness,' or any info on the nature of 'qualia.')
But suppose we assume, for the sake of argument, that mind can be reduced to process, and, therefore, that those who wish to argue by analogy from mind to god must also conceive of god as a process (or, at least, certain elements of god's existence, as in many variants of process theology). Well, where would this leave us? It seems to me that it would leaves us in roughly the same position as the contemporary cosmologist who posits a temporal universe emerging somehow from a timeless initial singularity. In other words, the theist who accepts the 'god as process' premise is in the same position as the cosmologist who must shake his head when trying to make any sense of 'process' concepts like temporality and causality in reference to 'Big Bang.'
Note that I'm not saying that I believe that we must conceive of god in this way (especially since it entails the sort of panentheism or theocosmocentrism I repudiated earlier); rather, I'm responding to the particular objection you've raised, and suggesting that even if you're right, theists are simply left with the same sort of mystery that cosmologists are pondering today. In that case, as go the cosmologists, so, I suppose, would go the theists.
While I consider myself fairly intelligent, I still found myself needing to look up some vocab I saw on a bumper sticker once....
ReplyDeleteIt said: "Eschew Obfuscation"
I laughed for about a half hour..
LMAO! Is it one of those eerie coincidences that you mention that bumper sticker right after Eric's post, Gearhead? LOL I'm not arguing with Eric. St. Brian, pencil my opinion in as psychosis, if yer keepin' track. <---my Sarah Palin impression.
ReplyDeletesorry...Gearheded. Didn't mean to call you Gearhead.
ReplyDeleteeric, you say, "Floyd, your 'mind as process' remark presupposes physicalism ..."
ReplyDeleteI don't think that it does.
Seems to me that there are components of a mind regardless.
Memory seems to be important. You(or I) wouldn't have much of a mind if we couldn't recall stuff from moment to moment.
Forgetting seems to be important too. I think that we'd be very confused very quickly if we couldn't 'forget'(disregard) unimportant stimuli.
I guess I was thinking along these lines since you mentioned 'attributes' of the mind, willfulness etc.
What I was trying to say was that one(even God) would NEED time to think whether the mind was fully, partially or not at all connected to a physical brain.
Sorry, Jude.
ReplyDeleteNot a weird coincidence. Eric's use of the term "obfuscation" tipped my memory of the earlier event. As Floyd says, consciousness requires a time component. Without it, experience approaches the equivalent of a singularity.
Floyd, while I would certainly agree that minds wouldn't be minds without certain modules, I don't think it's accurate to call them 'components.' We could always remove a component from its whole; in this sense, the component is a part, and the initial whole isn't simple but complex. But can you remove, say, 'will' from mind? Keep in mind I'm not talking about brains here, but minds. This is important because even if minds are ultimately reducible to brains, we could remove the 'part' of the brain responsible for 'will' yet would still have a brain, even though it wouldn't function properly. However, we cannot remove 'will' from mind, because 'will' isn't a part of a mind, but is instead a function of a mind. Think of it this way: we can remove a man's legs, which will prevent him from running, but we can't remove his 'running.' It is in this sense that minds (as opposed to brains) don't have parts, but faculties (I should've used this word earlier rather than the vaguer term 'attributes'), and can thus be thought of as simple substances.
ReplyDeleteNew post up, if anyone's interested...
ReplyDeleteeric, I wasn't trying to 'trick' you with the word 'component'.
ReplyDeleteCan 'will' be removed from the mind?
Well if one drinks and takes some types of benzo-diazapenes one can get oneself in a whole heaping barrelful of trouble against one's own will.
On topic, I'm sure that dictators realize that not everyone 'wills' their will.
The 'will' and the 'mind' could be thought of as synonyms depending on context.
"Resistance(having the will to resist) is futile!"
But I keep coming back to my original thought that TIME is necessary for a mind to do what it does.
You seem to be concentrating on the notion that the mind could be considered a 'substance'.
Hmm... two clone rats, one living, one newly dead. Exactly the same substance but one continues the process of living which includes having it's little 'ratty' mind and the other does not.
There is a definite time element there.
The same two rats, one dead and one sleeping, accelerated to light speed(given the possibility, to eliminate the time factor) then observed somehow. Now NO difference.
I have to agree with pboy. How can a mind exist without time? Thinking is a process. Even if you're an omnipotent God, you still have to think of the relevant question before recalling the answer that you already know. The question must necessarily happen before the answer, or the word "question" itself becomes meaningless. And let's not forget that the mind of God has already been revealed to be less efficient than this (if you believe the Bible literally) since He already has been proven to NOT be all-powerful (requires rest after exertion) and to NOT be all-knowing (admitted that He made a mistake and had a flood to wipe the slate clean, didn't forsee Satan's Rebellion, etc.)
ReplyDeleteEric, on a complete tangent, I was wondering what you think of nature. Not human nature, but nature as in a walk in the woods nature. Like I said, a complete tangent. I guess my ego was comparing your efficacy with all things philosophical to my less-than-meagre skills and abilities to comprehend the natural world. Would I for instance trade your admirable knowledge of human thought with my ability to basically know and understand most every organism that I encounter in nature down to their way of life, their reproductive strategies, their diets and their natural enemies? Oh, and in many cases, genus and species as well? I'm not sure what I'd answer. I mean, I guess the nature thing, but of course I'm biased... I definitely feel something akin to but hopefully less egotistical than envy of your command of your issue. It's probabaly more useful than mine in the world, but I derive more pleasure from mine I think, it allowing me to perceive so much more beauty in the natural world around me. Of course, that's my thing... We all have our priorities. Would you trade? I wouldn't.
ReplyDeleteJust an infantile question, no hidden agenda.
Kind readers, pardon me that last self-indulgent posting. I was having an ego moment. It happens.
ReplyDeleteIf you could forgive Dinesh for having them in rapidfire stacatto throughout all of his posts, I hope that you can forgive me mine.
Brian, I enjoy nature in the same way I enjoy 'classical' music. My favorite music is classical, but I've never played an instrument, I can't read music, I have only the vaguest understanding of most musical terms, and I can't even always even identify the musical instrument being played -- yet still I love it. I can identify most pieces and their composers, and I've listened to some pieces so freqently that I know every note by heart, but that's about it. As I said, I think I'm in the same category when it comes to nature.
ReplyDeleteA friend of mine teaches geography at CCRI, and he authored the Rhode Island atlas you'll find in most R.I. public libraries. He told me that in terms of the percentage of land covered by woods, R.I. is the number two state in the nation (after Maine, I believe). As a native Rhode Islander, I've been aware of and deeply attracted to the beauty, the splendor and the rich, deeply intricate orderliness of nature for as long as I can remember. I'm sure you know more about 'nature' in its details than I do, but I don't think it follows that your appreciation is necessarily greater than mine, just as I don't think that my appreciation necessarily exceeds yours with respect to, say, a particular text we both have read, just because it may be the case that I know a little more about the pedigree of the ideas and the details of the arguments.
Let me illustrate what I'm saying with an example. Who would you say appreciates or enjoys art more: The critic who has been studying a piece for a lifetime, or the child who, while looking at the same painting or sculpture as the critic, is suddenly inspired to become an artist? It seems to me that they both have a deep, though different type of appreciation for the work. With the critic, it's more the case that his mind works to form the art, while, with the child, it's the art that works to form his mind.
With respect to nature and classical music, I may be closer to the child than I am to the critic, but I don't think it follows that my appreciation for nature or classical music is therefore lacking. It seems to me that what really matters is what we do with our appreciation. If we use it to motivate ourselves to study our object with the goal of developing a deeper appreciation, then knowledge can certainly foster appreciation. Sometimes, however, we tend to become like the man who expends so much effort polishing and cleaning his glasses that he forgets to put them on. I'm not putting you in this latter category when it comes to nature, of course, just as I wouldn't put myself in that category when it comes to philosophy or ideas. It ultimately seems to me that nature and ideas aren't so far apart, though. Both in their own way are paths -- and not in any way mutually exclusive paths (see the New England Transcendentalists, such as Emerson and Thoreau, for example) -- to what we're all seeking: truth, beauty and goodness.
Interesting take on nature, eric.
ReplyDeleteI see your point, but I would say that the critic, or perhaps the adult afficionado even, wold enjoy art more due to understanding the techniques and the effort required to produce the work, whereas the child would say perhaps see the beauty of a Seurat but not know that it's a marvel of pointillism that is frankly amazing. Just as a child might see an ant walking and think it's moderately interesting but not see any beauty at all in a lowly ant, whereas when a naturalist looks at one he can "see" its life story if you will. Perhaps it's a honeypot ant with certain workers using their own bodies as honey storage jars for the colony. Perhaps it's a leafcutter that grows subterranian fungus gardens on bits of leaves. Perhaps it's a velvet ant, not an ant at all but an antlike wasp that parisitizes tiger beetles and stings like a bastard. So many beauriful possibilities, all from a lowly ant. Same with all other organisms. So much to the story that adds to the beauty.