Brainwashing 101

[Flip McWho]

Agathon -

Just for my own sense of curiousity could you define what the current notion of individual is for me please?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Flip McWho
Agathon -

Just for my own sense of curiousity could you define what the current notion of individual is for me please?

A (1) distinct bearer of (2) propositional attitudes (beliefs, desires, etc.) identical with a (3) distinct and private consciousness that among other things is (4) epistemically inaccessible to other persons (there is something that it is to be like you, that is only known to you), and also (5) the origin (Gr. arche) of actions that are in some sense exempt from the causal laws that govern the rest of the universe.

In other words: a conscious, rational, autonomous, chooser.

Of all of these, (3) probably is the least objectionable, but it is still pretty lame. Most objections stem from the fact that things like propositional attitudes are not scientifically respectable entities.

I'm not an expert in Philosophy of Mind (it and Philosophy of Science are my weakest areas in the subject - entirely by accident as it happens), but the ordinary notion of personal identity has been under heavy attack for many decades now.

Dennett's thought experiments on brain identity and personal identity are accessible examples of how our ordinary view of a person breaks down under rational scrutiny.

And in other areas phenomena such as dissociative identity disorder (if it indeed exists) by themselves put much of our faith in individuals in question.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Agathon


A (1) distinct bearer of (2) propositional attitudes (beliefs, desires, etc.) identical with a (3) distinct and private consciousness that among other things is (4) epistemically inaccessible to other persons (there is something that it is to be like you, that is only known to you), and also (5) the origin (Gr. arche) of actions that are in some sense exempt from the causal laws that govern the rest of the universe.

In other words: a conscious, rational, autonomous, chooser.

Of all of these, (3) probably is the least objectionable, but it is still pretty lame. Most objections stem from the fact that things like propositional attitudes are not scientifically respectable entities.

I'm not an expert in Philosophy of Mind (it and Philosophy of Science are my weakest areas in the subject - entirely by accident as it happens), but the ordinary notion of personal identity has been under heavy attack for many decades now.

Dennett's thought experiments on brain identity and personal identity are accessible examples of how our ordinary view of a person breaks down under rational scrutiny.

And in other areas phenomena such as dissociative identity disorder (if it indeed exists) by themselves put much of our faith in individuals in question.

Quoted for Gibberish.

Call me stupid or unenlightened if you wish, but the above makes no sense to me.

-Arrian

[Sandman]

...conservatives hate Marx, Nietzsche and Freud above all others because they all have in common the rejection of metaphysics and the false (and inherently religious) notion of human freedom.

Freud's work is nonsense.

Conservatives, IMO, strive to maintain not an orderly society, but an orderly social hierarchy. A combination of traditionalism and free-market economics is the best way to go about this, combined with tiered education and healthcare.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

There's nothing wrong with saying that, but someone who agrees to this has made a fatal concession: they have admitted that some form of welfarist utilitarian principle has priority over history and tradition.

How is that fatal?! Adherance to tradition is because they consider it better for society. The argument is what is best for society is relative stability which is found in tradition, the filtered wisdom of history. If there is something better, it should take the place of traditional notions (remember Burke was not a Tory, but a Whig), but too much, too quick change may alienate people and cause strife. You will, of course, note that there are many strains of conservatism, indicating different goals held by each strain, but the tie that binds is a belief in gradual change towards that goal, because of a belief that stablility is an important goal for society itself.

Now you're just wrong. Conservatives don't believe in gradual change, they believe that there should be no change at all. If you say that there should be some gradual change, you're not a conservative anymore, or, at best, you're an extremely unorthodox one. And if you're going to argue that radical change will harm society and thus is to be avoided, even in cases where changing is clearly the right thing to do (gay marriage), then you'll have to admit that change which is too slow or inexistent will also draw the unsatisfied masses to the streets and result in violence. We may not like what happened in the French revolution, but the aristocracy pretty much brought it upon itself.

So go ahead... think religious reactions to homosexuality are wrong and bullheaded and get rid of any barriers. I wonder if you'll be shocked when the masses turn around and speak of Constitutional amendments to ban what you've just liberated. Slow, sustained change is far better and results in much less strife

Granted, but 'slow and sustained change' is not conservatism, it's just prudence or realism.

You are a philosophy professor, but you still have absolutely no idea of what a philosophy that a great number of people around the world believe in (including a majority of your country's voting public) is about at all.

Neither gay marriage or drug legalization has brought severe problems where it was enacted. The problem is that America is stuck with a huge bunch of clueless morons, and that is the fundamental issue.

[Arrian]

Now you're just wrong. Conservatives don't believe in gradual change, they believe that there should be no change at all.

So you assert. I reject that, however. SOME conservatives want no change (reactionaries, some might call them). Others want slow change.

Granted, but 'slow and sustained change' is not conservatism, it's just prudence or realism.

And some people might not see a major difference between "conservatism" and "prudence or realism"

-Arrian

[Imran Siddiqui]

Now you're just wrong. Conservatives don't believe in gradual change, they believe that there should be no change at all. If you say that there should be some gradual change, you're not a conservative anymore, or, at best, you're an extremely unorthodox one.

Please read Edmund Burke. Or Hell, read Winston Churchill or someone like George Will. The unorthodox ones are ones that think everything should say exactly the same (in effect saying this is the perfect world). For your misbelief to be true, every Conservative government would basically have to propose no new laws or offer no new solutions.

'slow and sustained change' is not conservatism

Yes, it really is. The fact is that you have absolutely no clue what conservatism really is, but you feel the need to pontificate about it an awful lot.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


I haven't heard of "classicism" (or "ciassic school") and "neoclassicism" referred to as conservativism before.

That's why I move on to the second part of my post to say that the reason we associate them with conservatism is because they tend to favor elites, not because of their content per se.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Now you're just wrong. Conservatives don't believe in gradual change, they believe that there should be no change at all. If you say that there should be some gradual change, you're not a conservative anymore, or, at best, you're an extremely unorthodox one.

Please read Edmund Burke. Or Hell, read Winston Churchill or someone like George Will. The unorthodox ones are ones that think everything should say exactly the same (in effect saying this is the perfect world).

The fact is that both of them don't have much to do with today's mainstream conservatism. If you want to call them true conservatives, well, let it be, but what name is left for the others?

For your misbelief to be true, every Conservative government would basically have to propose no new laws or offer no new solutions.

Talk about a deliberately misleading interpretation of my post. I never meant to say that conservatives can't legislate, but rather that they do it according to a set of monolithic rules.

'slow and sustained change' is not conservatism

Yes, it really is. The fact is that you have absolutely no clue what conservatism really is, but you feel the need to pontificate about it an awful lot.

You're giving a false representation of it yourself. What your post implies is that conservatives are just people who really want some change but do it prudently as to avoid trouble. I don't buy that, because if you look around you, conservatives are really attached to older values because they believe in them, not because they fear the consequences of instability.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Yes, no, maybe.

Often the changes needed to benefit the majority cannot be implemented without a violent struggle that overthrows the ruling elite to establish a new social order - and history is filled with violent struggles.

I'd go farther and say that even periods of stability are violent struggles in themselves, only one where someone is a clear winner.

[Fake Boris]

Ozzy, if you've got a reason to think Agathon's ideas are dangerous, why don't you post it?

[Kidlicious]

Another stupid thread with the same old bull headed people defending some ideology that doesn't make any sense.

[Arrian]

You're giving a false representation of it yourself. What your post implies is that conservatives are just people who really want some change but do it prudently as to avoid trouble. I don't buy that, because if you look around you, conservatives are really attached to older values because they believe in them, not because they fear the consequences of instability.

There are few "conservatives" who oppose all change. Again, those would be reactionaries. I'd wager that most "conservatives" oppose a few changes in particular, whilst accepting many others.

-Arrian, the liberal defending conservatives

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Arrian


Quoted for Gibberish.

Call me stupid or unenlightened if you wish, but the above makes no sense to me.

-Arrian

Shame...

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Arrian
There are few "conservatives" who oppose all change.

I think we're questioning whether a person can actually oppose all change. Obviously, one can say that they do.