Political philosophy?

I am wondering why there is not a political philosophy section on this forum. This site seems to try and deal with everything else which is politics related but not the deepness of philosphical insights which shaped political thought.

 

I would be happy with a philosophy only forum. To me I see two basic types of philosophy in American politics... progressive vs. the establishment.

 

I would like a general philosophy forum. To me theology and philosophy are two radically different topics. Philosophy is intellectual whereas theology is a matter of faith. Not to say that they are mutually exclusive, but they are different enough to warrant separate forums IMO. Philosophical posts in the Religion & Philosophy forum seem to drop off the first page fast as most only post on the theistic threads.

 

In my opinion this would serve very little purpose, as it would simply sit there and be seldom used. Most members make their philosophy clear in the posts they make throughout the forum already, and should we wish to delve more deeply into the details, a thread placed in another existing section would easily suffice.

 

Yep, the importance of stating and fighting for an Ideology ,as well as exposing the forms ,is fun .

EG; Post-Modernist \Post-Structuralist ,insanity formerly known as Subjective Idealism ,represented most strikingly by the LGBTI.

The position of this thoroughly Reactionary .Neo-Fascist Movement presents itself with the Smiley face of "Marriage Equality",yet have no illusions Fascist in its Ideology of Queer Nationalism .Enclave ,gated Community think ,life style choice over Class determined Historical fashioned Culture and Society ,Individualism as a Philosophy ,now that is an Interesting ,Idealistic Position of insane non-reality ,Individualism the diseased expression of the Middle Class in Philosophy , goes against human nature itself!

I am all for a Ideology Section as I can describe mine ,Dialectical Materialism \Historical Materialism can you YOURS!

And it does matter ,as politics flows FROM IDEOLOGY ,not to it.

 

You should perhaps consider that not everyone who disagrees with you is tool of the corporo-state hate machine, like man

The debate is framed in terms of left and right. You're correct that (modern, grassroots) Progressivism breaks that mould, but it's not the only philosophy to do so.

 

Agreed, reading the forum posts one would think that you had to be one or the other.

I see MYSELF as 95% Traditionalist and 5% Progressive (not Liberal), meaning I believe that there are 'reasons' based on history and religious mores why 'things are the way that they are' for a successful & healthy society.

BUT...that the system can always be improved and modified to meet the cultural improvements over time.

 

I have taken the liberty of experimenting with the thread idea.....pretty popular.

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=333199

 

Going along with the spirit of this thread, if not the exact subject. What about partnering with an external site or certain sites to be able to have a sort of standardized "PoliticalForum MetaScore" for our political philosophy that we can display on our user pages? I would be more than happy to help develop an algorithm to reconcile the various tests.

 

I agree with you totally.

 

I'd really appreciate something like that. There's so much political theory to examine it would be interesting to see how many people actually are aware of where their ideas are coming from.

 

They do get mixed together a lot. Maybe a separate section for philosophy including political philosophy.

 

Ahhh...a Marxist. So you subscribe to historicism? That's the belief that the course of history is predetermined by scientific laws. That the clue to history, even to the history of ideas, is to be found in the development of the relations between man and his natural environment, the material world; that is to say, in his economic life, and not in his spiritual life. There's another word for that. Economism. It's the claim that the economic organization of society, the organization of our exchange of matter with nature, is fundamental for all social institutions and especially for their historical development.

Economism is the view that our policy decisions should ultimately be based upon their expected economic consequences. And it is the view that we should not value freedom as an end in itself, but primarily as a means to prosperity.

It is the philosophical stance that economic facts, interests, and goals are the facts, interests, and goals that should matter most when it comes to policy decisions. This philosophical stance is often bolstered by the claim that economics is a science, and that its theories and predictions have the cognitive
authority that only a science can have.

So the question is whether we should value freedom because freedom is valuable or because it is profitable—whether we should regard it as an end in itself that is valuable for its own sake, or as a means to economic prosperity that we may dispense with if and when it no longer works to achieve its
end.

I don't subscribe to ideologies. I'm a Critical Rationalist, and all ideologies are foundational, and I reject foundationalism. The framework I come from permits a rationalist to be characterized as one who is willing to entertain any position and holds all his positions, including his most fundamental standards, goals, and decisions, and his basic philosophical position itself, open to criticism; one who never cuts off an argument by resorting to faith, or irrational commitment to justify some belief that has been under severe critical fire; one who is committed, attached, addicted, to no position.

Foundationalism results in endless justification which leads to infinite regress vs dogma. The dogma of the ideology. Ultimately the ideology must resort to circular reasoning to justify itself since there's no end to the justification for each basis that requires yet another justification.

I'd agree that politics flows from ideology. But I question the authority of the ideology and ask what justifies it. What is it based on? It must be based on something other than itself? A theory cannot base itself on itself.

 

I'm quite liberal, and I use that word rather than "progressive". Not the least bit traditionalist. In my view appeals to tradition are logical fallacies. The age of something does not automatically make it correct or better than something newer. This sort of "reasoning" is appealing for a variety of reasons. First, people often prefer to stick with what is older or traditional. This is a fairly common psychological characteristic of people which may stem from the fact that people feel more comfortable about what has been around longer. Second, sticking with things that are older or traditional is often easier than testing new things. Hence, people often prefer older and traditional things out of laziness. Hence, Appeal to Tradition is a somewhat common fallacy. Obviously I'm also not the least bit interested in religion. But I am very interested in our moral reasoning process.

 

And so your type of thinking is responsible for the phrase, "History repeats itself,' as in ignoring the cycles of man & civilizations. Traditionalism shud explain man's history, his mistakes, & his positives, and allow for improvements where & when reqd. Traditionalism is in fact an evolution of man learning by his past and passing it forward to subsequent generations.

Unbridled Progressivism throws the baby out with the bath water and says that pretty much everything man has done in his history has been wrong by his very nature.

And so a utopia created and fostered by man and his very nature will resolve all of societies woes. Ergo, a flawed man creating a flawed utopia. That premise sounds like an ideology of denial of the nature of man and is naive at best.

 

Again, per my original post:

What is 'traditional?'
1) fostering and nurturing families?
2) Working together (not being parasitic) to build societies for the 'greater good?'
3) Maintaining a group of mores to provide order and thus benefit the whole?
4) etc.

The 5% improvements to an organized & historically proven system:

1) Equalizing rights across the citizenry with regards to the minority
2) ?

What are not Progressive improvements to a society:

1) Creating a dependent, yet capable workforce, but that saps the wealth & future of the society.
2) Enslaving citizens in a mindset of entitlements as 'rights' and killing individual motivation.
3) Killing off future generations that would replace the present ones using a variety of excuses.
4) Promoting the fall of societal mores with the consequences of an explosion of STD's.
5) Etc.

 

I see the Liberal ideology as being one not far from hedonism. As many unrestricted allowances of individual behaviors' that society can tolerate.' Behaviors that are more in the category of 'lust' (a perversion of natural desires) which eventually leads to the mental & physical destruction of the individual, as being w/o bounds or limits, but unbridled, and leading to bankrupt gluttony. Another reason why Liberals are opposed to religion in general, as religion attempts to hold up a code of acceptable conduct based on the functioning of an orderly society. And religion with it's many pitfalls, has been a staple of all ancient societies as seeing a need to unite and regulate behaviors beneficial to the whole of society. Whereas, a "Libertine' person, the term becoming more popular these days, is defined as "one who acts without moral restraint; a dissolute (indulging in sensual pleasures or vices) person."

A 'true' Liberal is not one to be admired but is a threat to an orderly, prosperous, & unified society..

 

Having read books on the history of the rise and fall of ancient Babylon, the Greeks, and of Rome, the fall of these civilizations could not be blamed on Conservatism but Liberalism, with the common denominators being excess, a failure of societal mores, as well as the effeminization of the male population in not being able to defend the populace. As is believed by modern Liberalism, a strong military is seen as threat to the security of their society rather than as a deterrent.

History & 'tradition' speak to modern civilizations as what NOT to do!

 

In the broader context of philosophy.
I've always like Solipsism. I don't think it's ever been refuted...basically it is a theory in philosophy that your own existence is the only thing that is real or that can be known.

In other words, this discussion doesn't exist outside of my mind. The theory that the self is the only thing that can be known and verified.

Obviously it's highly ego-centric, and "insane" some would say, to argue that "I' is the only thing which can be verified to exist..but it hasn't been refuted.
As Kant would argue, the only thing he could not doubt was his own existence because to doubt implies a doubter. Everything else, the entire Universe itself, might exist only as a figment of my overheated dream-state imagination, a simulation for an audience of One, akin to Pink Floyd's character in The Wall, wondering ``Is there anybody out there?"

It's amazing how many people hate it when it's even mentioned.."how dare you imply I don't exist"...."pure horse hockey."

Essentially stating, you, the person reading this...do not exist, you are strictly a shadow in my mind..as there is only one thing that cannot be doubted, and that is my existence..or as Kant would argue, doubt implies a doubter.

Arguing the solipsistic perspective essentially sets up an impenetrable mine field against any other argument...as all other arguments are created from the "I," therefore "I" am arguing with myself.

Anyway...back to the actual topic of political philosophy, I won't throw a solipsistic grenade into the fray as I acknowledge your existence equivalent to my own, I just found it to be an interesting approach. Feel free to use it to diffuse an argument...."I'm tired of arguing with myself"

 

And so you admire the Unibomber, then? But philosophy says that "No man is an island." Reclusive self-centeredness is the ultimate antisocial existence; and according to most religions, is only honorable if one is dedicated to a higher conscientiousness, ergo becoming one with God--but, no merit in it if one is one's God!

 

I think you missed my point in that solipsism is skepticism taken to it's extreme.
Here's a statement.

The only thing I can know for sure is my self because if I doubt that I exist it implies a doubter.

An implied doubter means something must exist, as the only thing I can know for sure exists is myself, that this doubter must mean I exist.

In other words, here I'll try an explanation. You could say to me, "you don't exist." I would think, maybe you're right, maybe I don't exist...I'm doubting my own existence,
with an implied doubter. I can't know for sure you exist, because obviously I'm not you...the only thing I can know for sure that exists would be me, because I cannot doubt my existence and even if I do, this implies something must exist in order to doubt that I exist.

It is an exercise more in logic, than an actual philosophy, but my point was it is in many ways unrefutable. The only thing that either you or I can truly know is self...
because if we deny there is self, it implies something must exist to deny the self, therefore self must exist.

It's a way to walk away from an argument and leave the antagonist scratching their head.

For example, in response to your reply...I could say, you're merely a figment of my imagination, a part of my self-conscious trying to convince me that God exists.

Of course, a statement like this is probably more akin to insanity then philosophy, yet on it's surface it's basis is logic, as the only thing that is undoubtable to me...
is me.

 

That's an odd way of looking at what I said. History may indeed repeat itself, if we don't learn from it, and avoid repeating the same mistakes. But even then it would rarely repeat itself in the same way with the exact same outcome, since the dynamics of a given situation would be different. Economic theories that have been demonstrated not to work as intended shouldn't be expected to produce different general outcomes.

But that's quite different than repeating the same set of non-demonstrable sets of values. The only way that traditionalism leads to any evolution that I can see, is by abandoning traditional concepts that only serve the status quo.

I don't call myself a progressive, so I can't speak for that. As a liberal, I can say that I'm not advocating throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I'm saying we should not fear change. We should examine ideas serve moral justice. I don't believe that economic reductionism concerns itself with that.

Who said anything about a Utopia? That's a false assumption and a failure to understand what I've said. I would be the first to tell you that I reject any idea's of perfection. I'm a fallibalist. All man made structures and systems of government are fallible since they are all man made. The idea of this country is to build a more perfect union. NOT a PERFECT one. That's not even possible. But to assume that we can't do better, is to ignore our ability to solve problems that are created by men. We have a brain. We should use it instead of relying on traditional concepts out of laziness.

You've simply misread the premise. There's nothing naïve about holding all ideas up to criticism. We can't prove that a theory is true, but we can demonstrate why it isn't. Why would we cling to ideas that are demonstrably false? There's no ideology at work here. Everything is up for criticism. Including my own ideas. That also includes every ideology since none of them can demonstrate what makes them true. As I said, I'm a fallibalist. I already know that I could be wrong about a host of things. Can the ideologue make that claim? All that means is that I have no ideology to defend irrationally. I prefer that those running my country are rational people, rather than a bunch of irrational ideologues.

 

I'm sure you do, since you aren't a liberal and appear to be wedded to ideology yourself. Liberalism isn't an ideology. Ideologies stay in one place. They're doctrinaire. The very nature of liberalism is change. Therefore it never stays in one place long enough to become an ideology. It's capable of questioning itself. When it finds a mistake in its thinking, it changes. It's said that the conservative knows that he's right. The liberal knows he could be wrong. Which approach would you say is closer to the truth? And isn't truth the important thing to consider? Ideologies aren't like that. Liberalism has brought us the social contract, as in John Locke which was the enlightenment philosophy that this country was founded upon. Self rule. The denial of the divine right of Kings. Among those that adopted those views were Thomas Paine, and of course Jefferson and the other founders of this country. That was the beginnings of liberalism. The Anti-Enlightenment was led by the aristocrat Edmund Burke. He was the grandfather of conservatism and opposed Paine in particular. Burke has, rather than a theory, he has an attitude or a disposition, an outlook, and that outlook is informed first and foremost by extreme distrust not only of science, but of anybody who claims to have scientific knowledge. He thinks that human society is way too complicated for us ever to get completely to the bottom of it. That we are kind of carried along on a wave of very complicated history that we understand only dimly, if at all, and that that's not going to change. He had peculiar views on freedom.

Burke is a traditionalist conservative. He thinks that tradition is the core of human experience, and he thinks whatever wisdom we have about politics is embedded in the traditions that we have inherited. "They have served us over centuries," this is his view writing at the end of the eighteenth century, "they have served us for centuries. They have evolved in a glacial way." People make accommodations to change, but only in order to conserve the inherited system of norms, practices and beliefs in institutions that we reproduce going forward. So that's the sense in which it's a conservative tradition; to conserve, the basic meaning of the word conserve, conservative.

In Locke's "liberal" view we're all equal. We're equal in God's sight. He creates us all equally, and we're all also equal in the sense, very important for Locke, that no earthly power has the authority to tell us what the scripture says. Each person must do it for himself, and when they disagree they have to either find a mechanism to manage their disagreement, or if they can't, look for their reward in the next life. But basically each individual is sovereign over themselves. And that's where modern doctrines of individual rights come from.

Burke has a very, very different view of the idea of rights. They're first of all, they are inherited. They're not the product of reason or any contrived theoretical formulations. They're inherited. "You will observe that from Revolution Society to the Magna Carta it has been the uniform policy of our constitution to claim and assert our liberties as an entailed inheritance derived to us from our forefathers, and to be transmitted to posterity — as an estate specially belonging to the people of this kingdom, without any reference whatever to any other more general or prior right. By this means our constitution preserves a unity in so great a diversity of its parts. We have an inheritable crown, an inheritable peerage, and a House of Commons and a people inheriting privileges, franchises, and liberties from a long line of ancestors."

So what we think of when we talk about rights for Burke, first of all, they're not human rights or natural rights for him, they are the rights of Englishmen. They are the rights of Englishmen; they are particular rights. They're the result of a particular tradition. The idea that there could be universal rights doesn't make any sense. It's not an intelligible question, as far as Burke is concerned, to assay what Rawls would say, what rights would we create for all people in some abstract setting? It doesn't make any sense to him.

And those rights, above all, are limited. Again, just as our knowledge of the world is limited so our rights, in the normative sense, are limited. "Government is a contrivance of human wisdom to provide for human wants. Men have a right that these wants should be provided for by this wisdom. Among these wants is to be reckoned the want out of civil society, of a sufficient restraint upon their passions." We have a right to be restrained, a very different notion than a right to create things over which we have authority, a right to be restrained.

"Society requires not only that the passions of individuals should be subjected, but that even in the mass and body, as well as in the individuals, the inclinations of men should frequently be thwarted, their will controlled, and their passions brought into subjection. This can only be done by a power out of themselves, and not, in the exercise of its function, subject to that will and to those passions which it is its office to bridle and subdue. In this sense the restraints on men, as well as their liberties, are to be reckoned among their rights."

So we have a right to be restrained. We have a right, most importantly, that others are going to be restrained, and that our passion should be controlled is something that he insists is an important part of what we should think of under the general heading of what it is that people have rights to.

So...this is Burke, and trationalist conservatism. It's vested in authoritarianism. This is where conservatism is rooted.

Most of us, even the staunch Libertarian would call that freedom. It seems to go against the conservative need to control others.

That's nothing but a value judgment on your part. Can you demonstrate how my exercise of my freedoms leads to mental destruction let alone bankrupt gluttony. Can you demonstrate the truth of your values? You seem to think that we will all do whatever we want, which of course will lead to "the mental & physical destruction of the individual, as being w/o bounds or limits, but unbridled, and leading to bankrupt gluttony", but what does it mean to say, “whatever we want”? Moreover, can you demonstrate the truth of “we will all do whatever we want if we can’t demonstrate the truth of our values”?

That's really a lot of nonsense. Liberals tend to oppose religion because they're more interested in fact based evidence than metaphysical concepts that require the suspension of critical thinking. Oddly enough, despite that, they are very taken with the new Pope. More so than conservatives. Strange that the liberals find the new Pope more to their liking than do conservatives. Perhaps it's his commitment to social justice that they find so compelling. That's not something high on the conservative view of things.

It's also been the source of great pain and suffering. A true believer will fly a jet into a building. A skeptic would never do that. I would argue that religions attempt to regulate the behavior of people is mostly beneficial to the religion. Unrestricted power corrupts, and when that power claims its authority comes from God...anyone that would question that claim of authority becomes a blasphemer. As Jefferson said; "My opinion is that there would never have been an infidel, if there had never been a priest. The artificial structures they have built on the purest of all moral systems, for the purpose of deriving from it pence and power, revolts those who think for themselves, and who read in that system only what is really there."

Again, you're making a value judgment that you can't demonstrate as true. That might be the view of a person that needs to find a sense of morality through some authority, but it hardly has anything to do with reality. Morality comes in two forms; Consequentialist, and Catagorical. A rational person can make the determination as to where his moral compass is located. For example; I subscribe to a Catagorical imperative. You're leaping to the assumption that a person without any religion acts without any moral restraint. That's a pretty simplistic view. I happen to consider the moral implications of almost everything that I do. And I do that without the aid of any religious text. I don't steal and I don't cheat. Not out fear of what might happen to me. There's no moral worth to that. I'd be acting out of self interest. I'd be doing the right thing, but for the wrong reasons. The motive is wrong. A Catagorical Imperative requires one to universalize the issue. You do what's right and just for it's own sake, not for what it gains you.

 

Did you find something admirable about Babylon? Or Rome? Feeding Christians to lions and entertaining people by killing some in an arena, ( a utilitarian and consequentialist morality on display. Maximizing the pleasure of the many at the cost of the few.) not to leave out slavery, and an imperialistic drive to conquer everything in the world doesn't strike me as a society that is admirable. The Greeks gave us logic and for that we owe them a debt of gratitude.

This is true, to the extent that we certainly don't want to adhere to the history and tradition of oppressive regimes. Hopefully we learn from our mistakes. The authoritarianism and monarchies of the past fell as a result of the liberalism that recognized the social contract. I for one, am glad to see them gone .