Socialists and Scientific Authoritarianism

Philosophy Forums Society, Government, and Economics
21

Okay, but in regard to authoritarianism…

…a form of government characterized by the rejection of political plurality, the use of a strong central power to preserve the political status quo, and reductions in the rule of law, separation of powers, and democratic voting. wiki

…be it theological, ideological, socialist, Communist, capitalist, libertarian, scientific, etc., how do we go about assessing our own moral and political value judgments?

From my frame of mind, moral and political objectivism begets an authoritarian frame of mind.

In other words, making a distinction between authority predicated on “might makes right” and authority predicated on “right makes might”. With the former it’s all basically about a dog-eat-dog, survival of the fittest mentality. With the latter it’s more about one or another font from which is derived the most rational and virtuous behaviors. It might be God, it might be ideology, it might deontology. Or the “good” might be ascribed to Nature.

Which is why I would like to explore in more detail your own political value judgments.

In regard to this:

And:

To what extent do you construe your own reaction to liberal and left-wing policies from the perspective of authoritarianism? Or are you willing to accept that given new experiences, new relationships and access to new ideas, you might one day find yourself embracing liberal and left wing arguments. Re folks like David Brock or Arianna Huffington. Just as any number of former liberals switched to conservativism.

But: my focus is on how this is embedded existentially in the lives that people live. Embedded in dasein. As opposed to those who argue that intellectually, rationally, philosophically etc., an argument can be made that actually demonstrates why left wing or right wing value judgments are necessarily, inherently more reasonable.

In other words, that authoritarianism has more to do with human psychology than with whatever particular values the authoritarians happen to subscribe to “here and now” themselves.

22

I’m a non-smoker who’s used to living among smokers. Not that it matters :slight_smile:

I’m pretty sure that complete freedom for everyone and everything (even merely for a small number of people) is not the best option out there. Some actions are threatening and it’s better to make an effort to protect yourself (by fighting the root cause, by fighting its effects, by evading them, etc) than not to.

The question is merely 1) what poses a threat, and 2) how to deal with it.

It appears to be your argument that it is a bad thing to let every restaurant set its own rules in that it leads to a situation in which every restaurant adopts one and the same set of rules, namely, that smoking is allowed. This might be the case (I find it agreeable) but does that mean the best way to deal with the problem is by forcing every goddamn restaurant to forbid smoking?

I can understand why you’re pleased with the fact that there are laws prohibiting smoking in most places (and I wholly embrace your need to protect yourself from toxic substances) but don’t you think there’s also a downside to the approach currently in effect in that it enforces excessive uniformity?

We already live in a world in which there are not enough people who lead (authorities, gods, leaders, experts, younameit) and too many people who follow (pretty much everyone, if only out of sheer necessity.)

23

If we are “excessively uniform” in the idea that we should not harm or kill people around us, I’m not sure what the problem is.

24

I value reason over intuition too. I would also consult someone I consider to be an expert than someone I consider a layman (I mean, who wouldn’t?) So at least in one sense, I value experts over laymen. Obviously, there’s a lot of overlap. The main difference, it appears to me, has to do with influence. I value logos over pathos (and ethos). And I am sure that science does not rely on logos as a method of influence. Rather, it relies on a form of pathos (or perhaps ethos?) that is mixed with a little bit of enough logos so as to make it more effective. Basically, they don’t teach you how to think for yourself regardless of how many times they say otherwise.

Given what you said above, I am an individual libertarian.

25

The problem is when you take what happens to be the best decision in one situation and apply it to all other situations (including those where it is not the best decision.) I believe that in reality in the great majority of cases the correct answers to questions of the form “What is the best thing to do?” are situation-dependent and thus different for different people. The current trend is to focus on finding the approach that when put into practice by everyone yields the best results. The result is that individual problems never get resolved because people are told to do what’s not the best for them.

26

Magnus doesn’t understand your point.

If EVERYONE decided not to hurt ANYONE… what’s the problem with that?

Magnus literally didn’t comprehend what you said about that form of hypothetical uniformity.

And obviously he has no argument.

Magnus just mashed a bunch of words together that have NOTHING to do with what you said.

27

If everyone decided to act in a way that causes no harm (of any kind) to anyone else, man-made problems would no longer exist. There’s nothing wrong with that. (Indeed, it’s highly desirable.) But note that when I said “excessive uniformity” I was speaking of something else. The word “excessive” should be a tell. It refers to a kind of uniformity that HURTS other people.

And it might be the case that what you just wrote has nothing to do with what anyone said in this thread. (Alternatively, it might the case that dorky dude failed to understand what I said and thus offered a response that wasn’t sufficiently related.)

28

Ok,

I understand that you stated excessive uniformity is bad… but, I also saw DD state, “well what if the excessive uniformity is this?”

Of which DD is not incorrect.

29

Each person should do what is truly best for them. That may or may not result in everyone doing one and the same thing. (Nonetheless, I am of the opinion that in most cases what is good for one is different from what is good for someone else.) However, when everyone is forced to behave in one and the same way when behaving in such a way is not the best course of action to take for many (if not most) people, then we’re speaking of what I call “excessive uniformity”.

30

All good points.

As I agree with them all, I don’t have much to add.

Yes, even capitalism and libertarianism can be authoritarian, in the sense that a minority of people could try to impose capitalism and libertarianism on a majority of people, who would rather have centrism or something.

Actually I already hold some leftwing positions on the economy and environment, it’s just in general I find myself agreeing more with the contemporary right, overall I find them to be more libertarian and populist.

31

I agree that openness to change, different opinions and nuance is key to being anti-authoritarian.

Over the years I have changed my positions, I used to be more left in some ways, and more right in others, and some of my positions could change again.

32

What I don’t like is this idea that the scientific community, academia, MSM or the technocrats always have the whole truth and nothing but on their side, that the people or alternative institutions couldn’t have any truth that the experts don’t have, that we ought to always defer to them.
That is a kind of authoritarian elitism, and I’m completely against it.
Consider what the experts have to say, but they’re not the be all and end all.

33

Anti-ahjtoritarian personalities are typically the product of miscegenation and lost or weak father figures.
Usually such personalities turn to dead idols or abstractions to surrender to, because the shame is not as severe when you are submitting to an abstraction rather than to a real person.

Cultural and genetic miscegenating also creates a need to harmonize incompatible world-views, often resorting to obscurantism, mysticism and to hyperbole, such as the belief that science can, one day, attain omniscience.
Inexperience with a tangible authority with a shared heritage and a common objective leads to extremist presumptions, the mind imagining what it has minimal experience with in idealistic extremes.

34

That also applies to most people “interested in philosophy”, and what they mean by “philosophy” is quoting dead philosophers, rather than actually understanding and applying their arguments to others.

When authority is applied in real-time, like producing weak arguments or personal attacks (like on this forum), then again, they think it doesn’t apply to them. It demonstrates their own lack of authority.

35

Philosophy has been contaminated by personality worship - look at how they adore Trump, those who then claim to be anti-auhtoritarian.
It’s a desire to surrender to what is worthy, what represents our highest ideals… the powerless worship the powerful and the influential.
They worship what they hope to become.

Narcissism is for them a virtue, if it affects people…because they covet what they do not have.

Like those who get stuck on famous icons, movie stars, sports celebrities or philosophers, like Nietzsche. Its the effect on the masses they crave…
they would not give a shit about his opinions if they were not so influential among men-children…
Most often the cliché stands…father issues.
Lost boys attach themselves to iconic figures.

36

You finally display the limits of your wisdom - your ignorance of the reality.

Now I find you predictable - “pinned”.

37

It must bring you much joy…to think so.

Oh well.

38

Part of modern psychosis is the “gotcha factor”…the need to find a flaw so as to not challenge established beliefs.
I call it the “power of nil”…as it uses the absolute as its standard and so nothing can ever match it so there’s always a reason to dismiss and to remain as you were.
No need to change at all…no need to alter your world-view, because nothing can ever meet the absolute criterion…all is flawed, so it’s all a mater of finding what feels good and sticking with it.,…especially since there is no cost, not in a sheltered world.

Something I said must of hit home…
I think I know what it is…aren’t you the one who worships that St. James guy? The affectance dude…
That would explain why you were so exposed by my words. personality worship, missing fathers…you had to dismiss me.
But who cares?
Does it disprove what I said?

39

See, this is what I meant by the “power of nil”, or how nihilism is a defence against being exposed to others as what one fears one is compared to them.
Nihilism used the absence of an absolute perfect state as an excuse to dismiss anything that comes close to the heart. A negating concealment.
Not covering the world, but oneself from it.
Self-consciuosness exposes the mind to the anxiety of being seen by another…and this is why it develops all these spiritual and secular ideologies that arbitrarily negate.
This is the source no other species can experience - the anxiety, the pain, of knowing the others knows who and what you are. So, creating an impressive or formidable image is essential…to conceal oneself in pretences.
Icons, in lieu of fathers, are a source of image creation. Young men imitate their chosen mentors trying to replicate the effect…just as they would if their father’s were formidable or alive or present.
The s is that dead icons cannot be overcome, as a father can be…there is no rite of ascent from adolescence to maturity, so men-children become trapped in a perpetual state of adolescence - forever rebelling against a father figure they cannot overcome.

40

I think you might want to consider exposing your thoughts a little slower. Attention deficiency is caused by over anxiousness to respond - no time to listen and attend to the actual, deeper environment.