Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
how did the context in which all of us function come to this?
if we lived in a democracy, we would be practiced in debating fundamental questions.
if we lived in a democracy, we would be able to distinguish appeals to the emotions from questions of principle and questions of fact.
if we lived in a democracy, we would understand the danger of arguments that appeal exclusively to the emotions, more or less for the same grounds that plato outlined--this type of argument bypasses deliberation, bypasses thinking----this type of argument is inevitably simplifying and simplistic--this type of argument is dangerous in a democratic context because it can lead to polity to fuck up, and if a democratic polity fucks up, there is nothing and no-one to save it---except itself
if we lived in a democratic context, we would accept uncertainty, accept the provisional--we would understand ourselves as collectively making decisions that had actual consequences--we would understand the need--the fundamental need--for accurate information because without it coherent debate is hopeless.
in this context--which is shot through with uncertainty at almost every level, the fact of uncertainty is something to be feared, to be avoided.
there is nothing--and i mean nothing--more profoundly undemocratic than these features short of an explicitly authoritarian regime--but even there, the features of debate amongst the people would not be much worse than they are here--there would simply be an official acknowledgement of the fact of the matter, and a different set of modes of governance based on that conclusion.
|
My recent passion has been trying to understand the history around the American Revolution and its immediate aftermath. I am becoming surprised to learn that the political climate and discourse of the day was not much elevated above what we're engaging in today! Very few individuals were able to rise above partisan bickering, even in those days in which it was supposed that America was free from parties (then called factions), which themselves were a symptom of the defective parts of British government that we could expect to cure by acquiring independence. There were also very few people that could really pose well reasoned arguments that did not really on emotional content or pithy phrases (that often did not fit the other's true views) for their mechanism, if not content. Hamilton rises above all others as one who, when motivated, could marshall a devastatingly tightly reasoned argument. Jefferson, who of course is better remembered for perhaps more trivial application of literary skills (the Declaration excepted) often employed logic that had inconsistencies great enough to cause the servers of TFP to crash into oblivion, were he still alive to post them here. My point is that it seems that in no part of our national history has democracy meant the cool, reasoned consideration of opposing ideas. Stability has come at the point between opposed forces of considerable strength, and often accordingly vitriolic attacks. In this spirit, it is the vigor of the debates which, historically, has created the figurative eye of the hurricane that appears to be calm weather. Of course it is the fear of the consequences of this barely-bridled energy that lead ALL of the founding brothers to distance themselves from the word democracy (for which they substituted republic).
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
we have arrived at a place where all information is understood as suspect.
we have arrived at a place where all political committments are understood as matters of religious faith.
we have arrived at a place where the basis for the actions of the polity might be rational---or might not be rational--and the people, with whom power is supposed to rest--have no way of knowing.
|
I feel your pain in these statements. I suppose it is only natural that the access to information that the internet brings has manifested itself in a greater suspicion of other's claims, and less of a tendency to back our own up. Natural, but regrettable...
I still get a lot out of TFP - I learn from both sides of the arguments here, and that has expanded my perspective on issues. It is important to confront the most intellectually and emotionally challenging arguments of those you disagree with. This is how one can learn. So while you lament what our discourse causes us to do to ourselves, roachboy, I don't think all is lost. There is still much to be gained from this place, and hopefully these things will provide the kernel for future growth.
Also, JumpinJesus, I liked your analogy. You carried it well.
Zodiak, I responded to the list of fallacies that someone else posted as a thread topic - I'm not sure who put it up first. I appreciate you putting up a list where we can all see it, but I hope it doesn't encourage more of the lamentable tendency to respond with bullet-style quotes that only label the fallacious techniques employed. Simply applying a label is itself an appeal to authority (debate standards), which is not too convincing without some explanatory content to explain why the particular shoe fits. I'm not accusing you, merely remarking on what has long been an accepted technique around here that doesn't add anything to discussions. I'm glad you're here, as the posts of yours that I've seen have been full of good thinking - welcome!