The Ongoing Political, Philosophical, Social Theory Thread

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by jammies

The same follows for political philosophy, the problems with, for example, Marxism, come from it predicting the end point of an industrial future that did not come to pass. The working class did not rise up, unless by "rise up" you mean transform itself into a richer and more influential middle class.

As the sociobiologist (and expert on insects) E.O. Wilson commented about Marxism: "Wonderful theory, wrong species."

Originally Posted by jammies

Similarly, fascism relies on theories of racial differences which are simply untrue and disproved by genetics.

Nazism relies on racism, but fascism doesn't. Where fascism originated, in Italy, it wasn't really an ideology of racial supremacy. Mussolini only rounded up Jews at the behest of Hitler. At it's heart fascism is a radical form of nationalism - exclusionary group identity taken to a violent extreme.

Originally Posted by jammies

Monarchy, too, relies on the mystical exceptionalism of bloodlines which are piffle and nonsense. The first test of political philosophizing is discarding all such mendacious codswallop by simply referring to facts.

But hereditary monarchy isn't really idealised by political theorists. It's more a case of a system that came into being naturally (a big dog keeping smaller dogs in line and ensuring an smooth transition of power) being given a mantle of mystical and social legitimacy to stave off the turmoil of endless rebellions.

But otherwise I agree: Our political systems should be rooted more in the observable truths about human nature than in the abstract theorizing of philosphers.

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Post-modernism is the bastard child of Marxism and nihilism, born of an existential frustration some academics have with their marginal status in society.

As science unveils more about the workings of the human mind, and we learn more about the nature of language and understanding, the already flimsy underpinnings of post-modernism are being knocked right out. Which, of course, only makes it even more attractive to a certain personality type.

I am not surprised that a critique of post-modernism would make so many normative assertions about nature and truth. Post-modernism certainly embraces tenants of Marxism and nihilism, however, it is much more than simply that. Rather than being placed in a box of established schools of thought, it is more useful to describe it as a reaction against the belief that morality, truth, and human nature can fit into simple binaries.

"As science unveils more about the workings of the human mind" this is the most problematic thing you have said. Science and supporters of science are often blind to its limitations (namely its inability to function ethically ie. eugenics, the atom bomb and chemical warfare) . By defining the human mind, the human is normalized and limited in what they can be. This is problematic because the human mind is undefinable. I would suggest that each human experience is untranslatable. An outcome of this is claiming that the mind should work a certain way, this can be dangerous. Alberta, for example, has a long history of forced sterilization as a result of normalizing brain function. In short, science can not unveil the workings of the mind.

The nature of language is that it is constantly developing new meanings. Moreover, different dialects exist between different levels of society within one language group. Indeed, language, and linguistics are probably the most influential school of though in terms of post-modernism. different languages can produce different realities simultaneously. the instability of language and its meanings is a testament that there can be overlapping layers of understanding which exist in opposition but not in conflict.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

This is problematic because the human mind is undefinable.

This is wrong.

You are conflating the epiphenomena of the human mind with its nature. Science may not be able to pronounce on morality (although logic, its close ally, certainly can), but that is no basis for saying it cannot unveil the workings of the mind. The things you believe are intractable matters of viewpoint are not the mind itself, they are its products.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by jammies

This is wrong.

You are conflating the epiphenomena of the human mind with its nature. Science may not be able to pronounce on morality (although logic, its close ally, certainly can), but that is no basis for saying it cannot unveil the workings of the mind. The things you believe are intractable matters of viewpoint are not the mind itself, they are its products.

At this point, he is more or less correct.

EDIT: Also, hot damn, I actually agree with most of what he said except I think he is mistaken to point his analysis in the way of post-modernism.

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by jammies

This is wrong.

You are conflating the epiphenomena of the human mind with its nature. Science may not be able to pronounce on morality (although logic, its close ally, certainly can), but that is no basis for saying it cannot unveil the workings of the mind. The things you believe are intractable matters of viewpoint are not the mind itself, they are its products.

Science can surely indicate the tendencies of a mind within a certain context. Science can also give valuable insight into the physical processes of the mind. I would argue that science is a valuable resource in many ways ( to many to list). The problem is that science can only describe and define the nature of the human mind in terms of numbers and words. The human mind, and existence for that matter can not be defined in simple terms of numbers and words, because it is a multi sensory component. The primary limitation of science is that it uses words or numbers to assert a truth, and when this occurs the nature of the human mind is fundamental misrepresented. This is why claiming the science of the mind can be absolutely true can be (but not always is) dangerous.

The point of post modernism is to challenge common sense, common knowledge and "truth." I am not undermining the legitimacy of upholding these concepts, I am trying to prove there is a legitimate role for those who challenge these beliefs.

[peter12]

The nature of language is that it is constantly developing new meanings. Moreover, different dialects exist between different levels of society within one language group. Indeed, language, and linguistics are probably the most influential school of though in terms of post-modernism. different languages can produce different realities simultaneously. the instability of language and its meanings is a testament that there can be overlapping layers of understanding which exist in opposition but not in conflict.

A very strong point, TheIronMaiden.

Human beings are singularly defined by our ability to use speech - we are the creature who makes contracts. That is, we do not use words just as signals, like macaques use different shrieks to signal the group, but we use them also as symbols.

Our words have qualities that create worlds, and indeed, with some natural limitations, appear to have an almost liquid quality - transforming and being transformed by different cultural and physical circumstances.

I think that this is a great place to begin a genuine critique of liberalism, while being so simple as to attack the entire enterprise for it stands among the greatest of things Western culture has given the world.

So, contrary to statements made these days by evolutionary psychologists or sociobiologists that liberalism is in some kind of way our human ant nest - that is a perfect phenotype of our natures - it is best to remember that liberalism had its roots as a construct of words.

The state of nature - created by Hobbes and Locke - to justify the political and social structures of liberalism is purely a symbolic and rheotrical flourish.

In the case of the Anglo-American sphere, that construct was very cleverly applied to coopt traditions and norms in a way that recognized distinct types of living within a single nation and culture. Everyone has to believe the lie that liberalism fits us uniquely in order to enjoy the benefits of living in a liberal and free society that allows for a limited distinction among individuals.

You can begin an adequate critique here. Liberalis understandably cluster around the mean because that is what liberalism needs to survive. However, the language of radicalized individualism is precisely what has lead to the nihilistic identity politics of today. Liberals want to find their way back to the mean, and radicals want to continue the process of fragmentation.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

Science can surely indicate the tendencies of a mind within a certain context. Science can also give valuable insight into the physical processes of the mind. I would argue that science is a valuable resource in many ways ( to many to list). The problem is that science can only describe and define the nature of the human mind in terms of numbers and words. The human mind, and existence for that matter can not be defined in simple terms of numbers and words, because it is a multi sensory component. The primary limitation of science is that it uses words or numbers to assert a truth, and when this occurs the nature of the human mind is fundamental misrepresented. This is why claiming the science of the mind can be absolutely true can be (but not always is) dangerous.

The point of post modernism is to challenge common sense, common knowledge and "truth." I am not undermining the legitimacy of upholding these concepts, I am trying to prove there is a legitimate role for those who challenge these beliefs.

It is good to pay particular attention to the metaphors that science is required to use in order to explain something as complicated as the brain/mind.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by peter12

You can begin an adequate critique here. Liberalis understandably cluster around the mean because that is what liberalism needs to survive. However, the language of radicalized individualism is precisely what has lead to the nihilistic identity politics of today. Liberals want to find their way back to the mean, and radicals want to continue the process of fragmentation.

This could also be seen not as fragmentation or the desire to continue that process, but as a shift towards a new mean.

It's entirely possible that the range has gotten further on 'one side' of liberalism and been populated aggressively, so much so that the 'finding their way back to the mean' may actually be moving in a different direction than they think they're going. As in, they believe it's important to stick closely to a particular version or interpretation (believing it to be the mean), when the natural course of societal evolution has actually moved the mean, and they're now representing a philosophy that is not in-tune with the realistic average.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

This could also be seen not as fragmentation or the desire to continue that process, but as a shift towards a new mean.

It's entirely possible that the range has gotten further on 'one side' of liberalism and been populated aggressively, so much so that the 'finding their way back to the mean' may actually be moving in a different direction than they think they're going. As in, they believe it's important to stick closely to a particular version or interpretation (believing it to be the mean), when the natural course of societal evolution has actually moved the mean, and they're now representing a philosophy that is not in-tune with the realistic average.

Yeah, what I didn't include was the standard Burkean answer that attempts to move blindly in a new direction always end in disaster.

We stick to established norms because a) they work, b) have good things about them or why would they have lasted for so long, and c) we are dumber than we know or think.

[Flash Walken]

We are dumber than we know and think may be the most profound or significant of that explanation.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

I
"As science unveils more about the workings of the human mind" this is the most problematic thing you have said. Science and supporters of science are often blind to its limitations (namely its inability to function ethically ie. eugenics, the atom bomb and chemical warfare) . By defining the human mind, the human is normalized and limited in what they can be. This is problematic because the human mind is undefinable. I would suggest that each human experience is untranslatable. An outcome of this is claiming that the mind should work a certain way, this can be dangerous. Alberta, for example, has a long history of forced sterilization as a result of normalizing brain function. In short, science can not unveil the workings of the mind.

Fears of the immoral application of science shouldn't deter us from studying the connections between evolution, biology, and behaviour, any more than fears of nuclear war should deter us from studying physics. Science can reveal all sorts of things about our natures, some of it troubling or unpleasant. To shy away from it is to deny ourselves a vital tool in improving our lives.

"The case against bigotry is not a factual claim that humans are biologically indistinguishable. It is a moral stance that condemns judging an individual according to the average traits of certain groups to which the individual belongs." ~ Steven Pinker

Originally Posted by peter12

It is good to pay particular attention to the metaphors that science is required to use in order to explain something as complicated as the brain/mind.

We will probably never be able to fully understand the workings of the human mind, and draw direct cause-effect maps of physical stimuli to all behaviours. It's just too complicated, and our tools will always be limited.

However, the notion of the ghost in the machine - that the mind is distinct from the physical organ of the brain - is at this point an ideological assertion, and not supported by science.

And while I'm quoting Pinker, here's as good a defence of liberalism as any I've come across:

"We are all members of the same flawed species. Putting our moral vision into practice means imposing our will on others. The human lust for power and esteem, coupled with its vulnerability to self-deception and self-righteousness, makes that an invitation to a calamity, all the worse when the power is directed at a goal as quixotic as eradicating human self-interest.”

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Fears of the immoral application of science shouldn't deter us from studying the connections between evolution, biology, and behaviour, any more than fears of nuclear war should deter us from studying physics. Science can reveal all sorts of things about our natures, some of it troubling or unpleasant. To shy away from it is to deny ourselves a vital tool in improving our lives.

To be clear, I am not denying the utility of science, I am asserting that a science needs to be critiqued and challenged by theory. Furthermore, I am implying that science, as well as theory, is incapable of finding an objective truth. Science is ideological, it is this point one should keep in mind when learning about a "discovered truth".

Science is an excellent source of knowledge, but its authority is not absolute.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Nazism relies on racism, but fascism doesn't. Where fascism originated, in Italy, it wasn't really an ideology of racial supremacy. Mussolini only rounded up Jews at the behest of Hitler. At it's heart fascism is a radical form of nationalism - exclusionary group identity taken to a violent extreme.

While your theoretical point is accurate, you yourself bring up why in practice fascism is always more or less racist. As you said, fascism requires a group identity taken to an extreme, and this without fail is more or less ethnically exclusive. (Typically religiously and politically exclusive too.) Simultaneously, ultranationalism assumes that there is something especially great about your nation.

When you combine a racially exclusive national identity to ideas of national supremacy, you get what is in practice clearly racism.

Plus it's just kind of hard to build that kind of a racial group identity without racism.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by peter12

At this point, he is more or less correct.

You cannot logically assert that something is unknowable just because it is currently unknown. "At this point" is true, certainly, but at one point we didn't understand that emotion was felt in the brain, not the heart or the liver. We didn't learn that truth from deconstruction of language, either.

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

Science is ideological

Science is predictive. If you think science is ideological, you have redefined the word "science" and called that an argument. Calling it predictive, on the other hand, is like calling a car a method of transportation, as you are describing both its main purpose and its observed behaviour.

What about science behaves ideologically? It's like calling baseball an ideology, the simple fact an abstract idea consists of agreed-upon rules doesn't make something an ideology.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by jammies

The same follows for political philosophy, the problems with, for example, Marxism, come from it predicting the end point of an industrial future that did not come to pass. The working class did not rise up, unless by "rise up" you mean transform itself into a richer and more influential middle class.

Well, I mean the first regime to adopt a perverse version of it revolutionized a massive country, with a largely dispersed population, operating under an agrarian feudal system, and on the brink of total collapse into an industrial superpower capable of reaching space within a manner of decades, despite global resistance and subversion.

I'm not attempting to romanticize the Soviets or trivialize the atrocities of that regime but those are impressive accomplishments by almost any standard.

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by jammies

Science is predictive. If you think science is ideological, you have redefined the word "science" and called that an argument. Calling it predictive, on the other hand, is like calling a car a method of transportation, as you are describing both its main purpose and its observed behaviour.

What about science behaves ideologically? It's like calling baseball an ideology, the simple fact an abstract idea consists of agreed-upon rules doesn't make something an ideology.

Science can both be predictive and ideological I don't think those suggestions are in opposition. Also, I think that you are correct to call into question my definitions. My definition of ideology is perhaps broadened from politics or economics ( which is what i am assuming you take ideology to be) although it is certainly that, and those certainly inform scientific practices (I suggest this because political and economic institution both direct and fund most scientific enterprises).

I am using ideology more in terms of a body of ideas that structure and inform a world view. Indefinitely, an ideology informs science. What people study is chosen on an ideological basis, what conclusions are produced are a direct result of persons ideological standpoint. Objectivity or being free of assumptions or predispositions is impossible. Of course, some scientific knowledge can transcend ideological boundaries and be embraced on a global scale.

Now this doesn't devalue science, or make attempts at objectivity pointless. Rather, it is important to consider when analyzing scientific knowledge.

I would agree that this broadened definition of ideology is problematic. Nevertheless, it is less problematic than suggesting that any human endeavour is void of human ideas, beliefs and values. An abstract idea consisting of agreed-upon rules definitely makes something an ideology. In fact I would argue that everything is embedded with ideology nothing is meaningless, even the absence of something is meaningful.



RE:
Is science an ideology: No
Is science informed by ideologies: yes

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Well, I mean the first regime to adopt a perverse version of it revolutionized a massive country, with a largely dispersed population, operating under an agrarian feudal system, and on the brink of total collapse into an industrial superpower capable of reaching space within a manner of decades, despite global resistance and subversion.

I'm not attempting to romanticize the Soviets or trivialize the atrocities of that regime but those are impressive accomplishments by almost any standard.

The modernization of an agrarian society into a world superpower within a single generation is one of the most impressive accomplishments in human history.

That the soviet union was utterly decimated by the Eastern Front in the middle of that modernization just makes it that much more impressive.

The chinese great leap forward is but one small step by comparison.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

The modernization of an agrarian society into a world superpower within a single generation is one of the most impressive accomplishments in human history.

That the soviet union was utterly decimated by the Eastern Front in the middle of that modernization just makes it that much more impressive.

The chinese great leap forward is but one small step by comparison.

One wonders what it could have accomplished had it not had to engage in an arms race with another superpower who decided to wage an ideological war against it. That supposedly liberal superpower being all tolerant of dissent and whatnot.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

The modernization of an agrarian society into a world superpower within a single generation is one of the most impressive accomplishments in human history.

That the soviet union was utterly decimated by the Eastern Front in the middle of that modernization just makes it that much more impressive.

The chinese great leap forward is but one small step by comparison.

A kind of world superpower. The butchery was not worth it.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by rubecube

One wonders what it could have accomplished had it not had to engage in an arms race with another superpower who decided to wage an ideological war against it. That supposedly liberal superpower being all tolerant of dissent and whatnot.

Haha, oh my goodness. I can't even respond to this nonsense.