Empiricism is far more important than any spirituality. Culture is, for the most part, an arbitrary quality to society that does not transcend the importance of material progress. If anything, what we often think of as spirituality is little more than superstition and wishful thinking.Uzique wrote:
perfection? i think you can criticise high-minded idealism in itself as a rationalist tradition, slightly out of touch... but i think that level of moral and spiritual (in the loose sense of the word - immaterial) transcendence is really needed to counterbalance cold empiricism and material 'progress'. without it the society just sorta loses its way. championing individualism and liberty is a noble cause in itself but you have to acknowledge on some level that as a species and a civilization we have inherent collectivist - perhaps instinctual - urges. again, you can criticise exceptionalism as much as the next high-minded ideal ideology... but they have a very important unifying function. perhaps i could construe the same point to say contentiously that, as much as fundamentalist islam is a moral aberration, it still has an important role in ideologically structuring a people.
Uzique should share with us which societies have the proper balance of cohesion and individualism.Dilbert_X wrote:
This exactly, if a society does not have a reasonably consistent set of values and goals then its not even a society - just a collection of individuals squabbling over money.Uzique wrote:
i think a society without a clearly defined collective, socio-cultural 'goal' and 'ethos' is a society in a state of decline
you can say what you want about strict ideological systems, nationalism, fanaticism etc... but they have a societal cohesion that we, in the west, do not.
the new symbology of western nations is conspicuous material consumptions; there are no transcendent ideals preserved anymore
Its interesting that in wartime we accept an immediate switch from capitalism to socialism/communism without blinking, a military draft, rationing, production determined by central government diktat etc. and with it great things have been achieved, radar, nuclear fission etc.
Doesn't share or play well with others !
Switzerland?Turquoise wrote:
Uzique should share with us which societies have the proper balance of cohesion and individualism.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Substitute Countries for Societies.Dilbert_X wrote:
Switzerland?Turquoise wrote:
Uzique should share with us which societies have the proper balance of cohesion and individualism.
Switzerland gets extra points for Space Exploration, defending freedom and defeating Evil Empires. Plus they got cool gun laws... I think ?
Last edited by Hunter/Jumper (2010-12-07 09:10:11)
we're discussing an idealism so to suggest that i 'back up' my critique/argument of american exceptionalism with a concrete example is... well...
master-stroke
master-stroke
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
If you don't have a real world example to back up your argument, then the argument has no point. This is why pure idealism has no point.Uzique wrote:
we're discussing an idealism so to suggest that i 'back up' my critique/argument of american exceptionalism with a concrete example is... well...
master-stroke
i completely disagree that you need 'real world' examples to rhetorically argue a 'point'. that's absolutely not so.
critique of pure reason
critique of pure reason
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
I believe he has a point, perhaps substitute ( point ) with ( basis in fact ) ?Turquoise wrote:
If you don't have a real world example to back up your argument, then the argument has no point. This is why pure idealism has no point.Uzique wrote:
we're discussing an idealism so to suggest that i 'back up' my critique/argument of american exceptionalism with a concrete example is... well...
master-stroke
Bollocks, something doesn't need to have been done before to be possible in the future.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Yes, but if it hasn't been done before, it should be scrutinized more.Dilbert_X wrote:
Bollocks, something doesn't need to have been done before to be possible in the future.
Which is not the same as:Turquoise wrote:
Yes, but if it hasn't been done before, it should be scrutinized more.Dilbert_X wrote:
Bollocks, something doesn't need to have been done before to be possible in the future.
Lowing's Mum wrote:
If you don't have a real world example to back up your argument, then the argument has no point.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Keating.Turquoise wrote:
Yes, but if it hasn't been done before, it should be scrutinized more.Dilbert_X wrote:
Bollocks, something doesn't need to have been done before to be possible in the future.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
like the first time they thought of spliting the atom ? Again I say.Dilbert_X wrote:
Which is not the same as:Turquoise wrote:
Yes, but if it hasn't been done before, it should be scrutinized more.Dilbert_X wrote:
Bollocks, something doesn't need to have been done before to be possible in the future.Lowing's Mum wrote:
If you don't have a real world example to back up your argument, then the argument has no point.
I believe he has a point, perhaps substitute ( point ) with ( basis in fact ) ?
i guess metaphysics and philosophy is all utter bullshit and never gets anywhere because all that rationalism and idealism has NO REAL WORLD EXAMPLES! i can take absolutely no instruction at all from neo-platonic discourse, because i just can't go outside and SEE it!
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
I have to say he has a valid point of view here.Uzique wrote:
i guess metaphysics and philosophy is all utter bullshit and never gets anywhere because all that rationalism and idealism has NO REAL WORLD EXAMPLES! i can take absolutely no instruction at all from neo-platonic discourse, because i just can't go outside and SEE it!
Last edited by Hunter/Jumper (2010-12-08 05:52:12)
i'm not trying to say that discussion and critiques of idealisms/ideologies has a real tangible 'benefit', in the concrete, material sense. of course it doesn't. but there are lessons and things you can take from such discourses that will, of course, affect and inform the way that you do experience and engage with material reality. that's the entire benefit of philosophical debate and contemplation of such intellectual things. it is epistemological enrichment that educates you and equips you better for every day life. to say that i am lost in abstraction and lack real examples when all i am trying to do is critique a political theory/ideology that exists as not-much-more than a few lines in an old book is... well you don't have a point. of course it's abstracted!
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
My point was that, if there is no society that currently comes close to what you consider ideal, then maybe you should make your ideals more realistic.Uzique wrote:
i'm not trying to say that discussion and critiques of idealisms/ideologies has a real tangible 'benefit', in the concrete, material sense. of course it doesn't. but there are lessons and things you can take from such discourses that will, of course, affect and inform the way that you do experience and engage with material reality. that's the entire benefit of philosophical debate and contemplation of such intellectual things. it is epistemological enrichment that educates you and equips you better for every day life. to say that i am lost in abstraction and lack real examples when all i am trying to do is critique a political theory/ideology that exists as not-much-more than a few lines in an old book is... well you don't have a point. of course it's abstracted!
Umm... no. If people have some vision of a model society, they simply need to make it work at the micro level before pushing it at the macro level. The only problem with being an idealist with a great idea that works on paper is that too often it is pushed at the macro level first. In some cases, failure at the micro level will still lead to it being pushed at the macro level anyway. See: Obamacare and it's Massachusetts model.Turquoise wrote:
My point was that, if there is no society that currently comes close to what you consider ideal, then maybe you should make your ideals more realistic.Uzique wrote:
i'm not trying to say that discussion and critiques of idealisms/ideologies has a real tangible 'benefit', in the concrete, material sense. of course it doesn't. but there are lessons and things you can take from such discourses that will, of course, affect and inform the way that you do experience and engage with material reality. that's the entire benefit of philosophical debate and contemplation of such intellectual things. it is epistemological enrichment that educates you and equips you better for every day life. to say that i am lost in abstraction and lack real examples when all i am trying to do is critique a political theory/ideology that exists as not-much-more than a few lines in an old book is... well you don't have a point. of course it's abstracted!
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Well, Obamacare isn't really anyone's ideal. What started out as a push for socialized healthcare became a push for a public option, which then became mandatory private care. I don't think anyone really considered the end product of that bill to be ideal.JohnG@lt wrote:
Umm... no. If people have some vision of a model society, they simply need to make it work at the micro level before pushing it at the macro level. The only problem with being an idealist with a great idea that works on paper is that too often it is pushed at the macro level first. In some cases, failure at the micro level will still lead to it being pushed at the macro level anyway. See: Obamacare and it's Massachusetts model.Turquoise wrote:
My point was that, if there is no society that currently comes close to what you consider ideal, then maybe you should make your ideals more realistic.Uzique wrote:
i'm not trying to say that discussion and critiques of idealisms/ideologies has a real tangible 'benefit', in the concrete, material sense. of course it doesn't. but there are lessons and things you can take from such discourses that will, of course, affect and inform the way that you do experience and engage with material reality. that's the entire benefit of philosophical debate and contemplation of such intellectual things. it is epistemological enrichment that educates you and equips you better for every day life. to say that i am lost in abstraction and lack real examples when all i am trying to do is critique a political theory/ideology that exists as not-much-more than a few lines in an old book is... well you don't have a point. of course it's abstracted!
That being said... While I understand the value of having ideals, the only practical ones are ones that have a precedent in reality. For example, socialized healthcare does function well in certain countries, so attempting to implement it here has a realistic component.
It seems like what Uzique was aiming for was some idealistic balance of spirituality that somehow wouldn't infringe on personal liberties, but in nearly every case, religious societies sacrifice the rights of individuals for the sake of dogma.
America might be somewhat religious as well, but we've seen how religion has held back the rights of homosexuals, for example.
"Ideologically structuring" a people is a bad idea, unless that structuring paradoxically encourages free thinking.
Last edited by Turquoise (2010-12-08 06:43:15)
That's only because you are completely incapable of original thought and it scares the bejeesus out of you. Every single idea originated from somewhere and was new at one point. Age doesn't give weight to an idea. On the contrary, it more often than not makes the idea obsolete.Turquoise wrote:
Well, Obamacare isn't really anyone's ideal. What started out as a push for socialized healthcare became a push for a public option, which then became mandatory private care. I don't think anyone really considered the end product of that bill to be ideal.JohnG@lt wrote:
Umm... no. If people have some vision of a model society, they simply need to make it work at the micro level before pushing it at the macro level. The only problem with being an idealist with a great idea that works on paper is that too often it is pushed at the macro level first. In some cases, failure at the micro level will still lead to it being pushed at the macro level anyway. See: Obamacare and it's Massachusetts model.Turquoise wrote:
My point was that, if there is no society that currently comes close to what you consider ideal, then maybe you should make your ideals more realistic.
That being said... While I understand the value of having ideals, the only practical ones are ones that have a precedent in reality. For example, socialized healthcare does function well in certain countries, so attempting to implement it here has a realistic component.
It seems like what Uzique was aiming for was some idealistic balance of spirituality that somehow wouldn't infringe on personal liberties, but in nearly every case, religious societies sacrifice the rights of individuals for the sake of dogma.
America might be somewhat religious as well, but we've seen how religion has held back the rights of homosexuals, for example.
"Ideologically structuring" a people is a bad idea, unless that structuring paradoxically encourages free thinking.
When I was in the army, the most irritating experiences I had were when I questioned why we were doing what we were doing. Whether it was a certain way of changing a tire, or how to set up a tent, or whatever the case was, if I asked why it was done a certain way, the inevitable answer was always "because that's how it's always been done". No, it wasn't always done that way. That process originated from somewhere, God didn't come down and write the fucking manual. They didn't want to hear new ideas about how things could be improved. Change scared them. New thoughts scared them because they felt inadequate and undermined. Stupid people are scared of new ideas.
Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-12-08 06:53:13)
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
im not sure anyone is under the illusion that american exceptionalism is a concrete political system, as opposed to just an idealTurquoise wrote:
My point was that, if there is no society that currently comes close to what you consider ideal, then maybe you should make your ideals more realistic.Uzique wrote:
i'm not trying to say that discussion and critiques of idealisms/ideologies has a real tangible 'benefit', in the concrete, material sense. of course it doesn't. but there are lessons and things you can take from such discourses that will, of course, affect and inform the way that you do experience and engage with material reality. that's the entire benefit of philosophical debate and contemplation of such intellectual things. it is epistemological enrichment that educates you and equips you better for every day life. to say that i am lost in abstraction and lack real examples when all i am trying to do is critique a political theory/ideology that exists as not-much-more than a few lines in an old book is... well you don't have a point. of course it's abstracted!
it's an ideology; an ethos; an aspirational ideal. you're losing yourself in an argument that doesn't even need to be stated.
Last edited by Uzique (2010-12-08 06:53:00)
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
John, I could make the same claim about you since you are a textbook libertarian on most topics. For the sake of civility, I suggest you change your tone.JohnG@lt wrote:
That's only because you are completely incapable of original thought and it scares the bejeesus out of you. Every single idea originated from somewhere and was new at one point. Age doesn't give weight to an idea. On the contrary, it more often than not makes the idea obsolete.
There's a difference between having a new idea and having an unrealistic idea.JohnG@lt wrote:
When I was in the army, the most irritating experiences I had were when I questioned why we were doing what we were doing. Whether it was a certain way of changing a tire, or how to set up a tent, or whatever the case was, if I asked why it was done a certain way, the inevitable answer was always "because that's how it's always been done". They didn't want to hear new ideas about how things could be improved. Change scared them. New thoughts scared them because they felt inadequate and undermined. Stupid people are scared of new ideas.
You were stating that Western societies lack the social cohesion that certain non-Western cultures have via things like religion. I am suggesting that such cohesion is entirely unnecessary.Uzique wrote:
im not sure anyone is under the illusion that american exceptionalism is a concrete political system, as opposed to just an idealTurquoise wrote:
My point was that, if there is no society that currently comes close to what you consider ideal, then maybe you should make your ideals more realistic.Uzique wrote:
i'm not trying to say that discussion and critiques of idealisms/ideologies has a real tangible 'benefit', in the concrete, material sense. of course it doesn't. but there are lessons and things you can take from such discourses that will, of course, affect and inform the way that you do experience and engage with material reality. that's the entire benefit of philosophical debate and contemplation of such intellectual things. it is epistemological enrichment that educates you and equips you better for every day life. to say that i am lost in abstraction and lack real examples when all i am trying to do is critique a political theory/ideology that exists as not-much-more than a few lines in an old book is... well you don't have a point. of course it's abstracted!
it's an ideology; an ethos; an aspirational ideal. you're losing yourself in an argument that doesn't even need to be stated.
the 'necessity' of something is surely based on a subjective estimation, though? not necessary for YOUR ideal model/view of society, perhaps. for others, social cohesion and moral unity is one of the defining points of nationhood and national identity.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/