Are most of the squables that take place on this forum and elsewhere in the philosophical world, in metaphysics, ethics, psychology, and of course sociology, economics and politics, merely an extension of the battles that take place between republicans and democrats, and if so, can we transcend them in order to consider alternative points of view, alternative points of view in between and outside the mainstay that may have philosophical and spiritual merit, just as anarchists, fascists and to a lesser extent libertarians (which may or may not be just another faction within the broader republican paradigm) have challenged the left/right paradigm in the political realm? If republicans had an official ethics, would it not be egoism or deontology? if they had a metaphysics, would it not be dualism/idealism, freewill and theism (Christianity)? And conversely, if democrats had an ethics and a metaphysics, would it not be altruism, utilitarianism, monism/materialism, determinism and atheism (Scientism). I find it humorous that most of the Social Darwinists are Creationists and most of the bleeding hearts are Natural Darwinists. Occasionally you’ll find someone a little more consistent. Even anarchists, fascists and libertarians bore me. I’m interested in traversing uncharted territory.
Before we work on transcending the left-right debate, it might be nice if the left-right debate actually occured here.
Scientism and christianity have both changed allot over the years and they will change more in the future too.
What would be completely new and outside of general categories?
It occurs here from time to time. But really, don’t you ever get weary of the left-right debate? i know i do.
Yes and yes. That sums it up quite nicely.
Kill me now. Pure torture.
I’m not so sure about the OP anymore because there are various forms of liberals and conservatives.
Some liberals are about expecting people to conform to the authority of government and fit into the popular normalcy of economic planning.
Other liberals are about expecting people to have freedom in living the lifestyles they want instead of fitting into heritage, culture, and tradition.
Some conservatives are about expecting people to conform to the authority, and fit into the popular normalcy, of heritage, culture, and tradition.
Other conservatives are about expecting people to have freedom in living the lifestyles they want instead of fitting into government and economic planning.
It’s just a lot more complicated than you think. I used to believe all liberals or conservatives had the same basic philosophies too, but then I encountered different people with different philosophies despite the same politics.
Even if you want to consider the value of heritage, some people believe heritage is a quantitatively timed history that can be used to enforce legal standards on others.
Other people believe heritage is a qualitatively spatial art form that can be used to describe cultural graces to others.
I mean there are even fusions of heritage with government planning out there like Red Toryism and Distributism which don’t get paid attention to much.
Then, there’s Libertarianism and Anarchism on the other side which don’t like heritage or government planning.
Even libertarians themselves have different philosophies. Some are utilitarian. Others are deontologist.
Conservatives can be foundationalist in advocating moral absolutism, or coherentist in denying excessive individuality.
Liberals can be empiricist in supporting science before religion, or rationalist in supporting new ways of creative thinking to do out with the old.
It’s just more complicated than you think.
Uccisore: Before we work on transcending the left-right debate, it might be nice if the left-right debate actually occured here."
K: as the possibly the most liberal person here, I wouldn’t mind such a debate too occur or even
to participate in such a debate.
Kropotkin
I insist that the terms “left” and “right” be defined first. I offer the definition I’ve arrived at, as formulated in my summary of my political theory:
That’s a wholly inaccurate definition of “right”. “Right” people are not FOR stratification or inequality, they are (theoretically) in favor of individuals succeeding or failing on their own merits. This doesn’t imply advocacy of inequality. However, a reasonable person will see that this will most likely lead to inequality as people are not equally talented, skilled or otherwise able to succeed relative to others. “Left” ideology is for forced equality, it recognizes the inherent inequality in humans but refuses to submit and so enforces equality, to the detriment of the more skilled and talented.
The extremes of “left” and “right” both favor a powerful state. Stating that “Marxian Communism” does not is untrue, because to reach this stateless communist utopia the society must first go through generations of total submission to the state at the hands of the “vanguard”, and hopefully, or magically, the state will break down as the people become docile and totally egalitarian and the vanguard will loosen it’s grip until it gives up all power. In that sense it’s a total fantasy, and although “right” totalitarianism is equally distasteful it’s much more realistic and less deceptive.
The conceptual distinction is “Order vs Chaos”, “Conserve [the order] vs Liberate [from the order]”. One is used to preserve when such is chosen and the other is used to destroy when that is chosen instead, “the Right and Left hands of God-wannabes”. The chooser isn’t either hand (or “wing”).
A suggestion: go out of the box right away before the thread gets derailed. I am more interested in what you see as the alternatives in non-political philosophy, but we are in a political forum so I assume that will be the center. One reaction I have to this is that I am more interested in a person’s critical attitude towards information and ‘information’ then their solution. In fact getting to solutions - which includes things like fascism, libertarianism and anarchism, seems cart before horse, because if we conceive of a new organization - or lack thereof - and people still believe a bunch of BS, we will not arrive at the solution and or the solution will not be as it was conceived and or the humans will not fit the solution and new forms of destructive relations will shudder around for awhile before settling into some already dead horse form. It’s like arguing about how 3 years olds at the daycare ‘should’ organize their free play.
I agree with what you say after the word “however”. However, I think you missed something. People who are neither for forced equality nor for forced stratification are “Center”, not “Left” or “Right”. Inequality is natural, and the lower orders tend to be in favour of bridging the gulf—because this benefits them inasmuch as it makes them relatively more powerful, richer, etc.—whereas the higher orders tend to be in favour of making it wider—for the same reason.
The total submission to the State you mention belongs to Marxian Socialism, not to Marxian Communism. Marxian Socialism is the projected preparatory phase preceding Marxian Communism. In it, the State is embraced as a necessary evil. Thus, although it may involve a State as totalitarian as Mussolinian Fascism, it still belongs to the all but extreme “Left”, because its State is—in theory, at least—wholly in the service of procuring Statelessness.
George, I think that if you get rid of the current context of favoritism in washington and on wall street toward people who are traditionally identified as “on the right”, then your statement would make sense about merits and all.
But a meritocracy can only be fair if everyone has the same opportunities, and that’s not the case in the US.
I was unconfortable with sauwelios defination of “Left” or “right”, but
couldn’t quite place my finger on what made me unconfortable.
The problem was the current actions of the right, conservatives make
his defination a touchy one.
For example, the right proclaims itself the party of freedom.
we are the party that want you to have freedom to act however
the reality is quite different. They want less freedoms, take abortion and
voting rights, for example, they want less freedom for people in those area’s.
The left is simply fighting to maintain the current freedoms, little less
advancing their agenda. The problem is really the right is creating the agenda,
the defintitions that are being used. Whenever it needs to the right change the goalpost
to fit its needs The left needs to go on the offense,
make the right react. Anyway, I think a debate could actually clear up this
problem of what the right and left believes.
Kropotkin
once again apologies, dam spellcheck is still not working.
The center, or the gap between liberal and conservative views, is a matter of conjecture, described fluidly as "moving toward, and away from. It is based on the relationship between what liberal, social programs are affordable, versus how much the producers are willing to allow themselves to be taxed for. There is no centrist agenda.
Even though the center is a conjecture, , it is more and more becoming the take off point to correlate the left and the right agenda in terms of viability, affordability, and predictability. I am not totally convinced of this, but it seems more likely that programs such as social ones, fall prevy to the whims of the marketplace. So my suggestion is the place of the center is shifting more toward determining policy as opposed to being determined by the polls.
If you follow the link I provided, you will see that the terms “liberal” and “conservative” belong on different political axes, not just from each other’s but also from the “Left/Right” axis. In themselves, these things have nothing to do with each other. Thus in the Netherlands, where I live, the term “liberal” is associated with the “Right”, whereas in the US, of course, it’s associated with the “Left”. This is because what’s meant in the Netherlands is “economically liberal”, whereas what’s meant in the US is “culturally liberal” (compare the Nolan chart’s distinction between economic and personal freedom). As I said in the thread I linked to:
“An extreme economic liberal, for instance, would be for complete individual economic freedom, e.g., against every form of tax and social security (social security, too, is a form of dependence!).”
This example may serve to illustrate why economic liberalism be associated with the “Right”: in our capitalistic society, individual economic freedom tends to be advantageous to the higher classes and disadvantageous to the lower. Likewise, individual cultural freedom tends to be disadvantageous to the higher classes and advantageous to the lower, inasmuch as the upper class consists of WASPs (consider the connection between capitalism and the Protestant ethic).
That’s the party line anyway. In practice, the right mistakes good fortune and wealth for merit. The right consists of two type of people - those born on 3rd base who think they hit a triple, and those who admire others for being born on 3rd base.
Yeah there will be inequality because some people have opportunities and luck while others don’t - It’s actually relatively rare that someone succeeds simply for being talented or skilled.
The left is for leveling the playing field, not forcing people to be equally talented or skilled. The bit about how level playing fields are to the detriment of the more talented and skilled is simply wrong - a falsehood propagated by the right - and a particularly ironic one, given all the talk about meritocracy.
Excellent post ugly.
Epistemological egoism, you put your own observations and interpretations ahead of everyone else’s. That doesn’t necessarily mean you never listen to what others have to say, although you can take it that far if you like, it just means everything gets filtered through your head, from what Scientists say, to what Christians say, and everything in between and outside. You go with what conforms with your own experiences if you can. It’s hierarchical, you put your own thoughts first. Personally, I would place what Scientists say ahead of what Christians say because the empirical method is superior to the fideistic method (at least for my purposes) but… if what they have to say doesn’t conform with my experiences, if it’s full of holes and contradictions, or if it’s just not pertinent or relevant to me and my life, then fuck 'em, I reserve the right to disbelieve for any reason or no reason at all.
Science is all too human and infinitely fallible, driven by ego and profits, they’re not a piece of technical equipment like a camera. Additionally, they’re unfamiliar to me, they’re not people I know I can trust, and they’re not necessarily part of my tribe, they have no allegiance to me. It’s a hierarchy, I’m more likely to trust people I know, I’m more likely to trust people who’re intelligent/sane, I’m more likely to trust people who’re, not only educated, but who can think for themselves. I trust people who haven’t accepted funds/bribes from corporations or governments, which may jeopardize the research. it’s never 100% about truth. I listen to information that’s presented in a way that’s relevant to me and my agenda, I don’t just go along with motherfuckers because they have a title and a white coat. If their shit stinks to high heaven, I call them on it. Even numbers matters, quantity is part of the hierarchy as well as quantity. This is the way I think ethically as well.
I listen to it all, to Art, Philosophy, Science, “Pseudoscience”, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, friends and family (which is not to say I regard all the aforementioned sources of information as equal), and then I make up my own mind. I listen to my intuition as well as my reason, observations and experimentations.