Total Posts:4|Showing Posts:1-4
Jump to topic:

Tridemism - Philosophy 1

Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2014 10:18:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Alright, so I was bored so I wrote a three page article on the San-Min Doctrine, and I didn't know where to put it. I'll just put it here I guess. I might write one of these, maybe once a week. Who knows, but here's the first one. Feedback would be appreciated....

https://docs.google.com...
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2014 4:20:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Bearing in mind this is essentially British liberalism with added democracy, the two obvious problems are 1) Those with British liberalism (mostly issues with not addressing the private sphere, as well as the problems posed by every thinker ever who criticised British liberalism - I cannot think of one which would not apply, from Burke to Bakunin to Marx to Schumpeter), and 2) Those with direct democracy (thinking both Ancient Greeks, and the Schumpeter interpretation of Weber / neo-pluralist school.

Particular to the ideology, I'd just say that the three principles are vague. Nationalism can mean liberally nationalist or ultranationalist/expansionist nationalist, or Marxist nationalist, etc. This has problems especially, in light of the Chinese question.

In regards to the balance of capitalism & socialism, I am iffy. Like Aristotle's virtue ethics, just saying a balance between two extremes doesn't mean much. The communist ideal doesn't mean every single free trader is killed, nor does the capitalist ideal mean that any co-operative is eaten by capitalists. And finally, 'welfare' can be equally broad, even ignoring the types of welfare available. All ideologies want to help everyone, really, but libertarian capitalists and marxist socialists do it in completely different ways.

Finally, the ideology seems to be prone to modern day challenges, like globalization and anthropocentrism, as well as demagoguery of historical figures, like the Turkish meta-ideology has with Ataturk. The latter problem especially is one that would need to be dealt with, as your article linked essentially confirms this, by referencing next to everything as "Sun-Yat Sen said..."

I hope this helps!
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2014 11:18:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/6/2014 4:20:53 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Bearing in mind this is essentially British liberalism with added democracy, the two obvious problems are 1) Those with British liberalism (mostly issues with not addressing the private sphere, as well as the problems posed by every thinker ever who criticised British liberalism - I cannot think of one which would not apply, from Burke to Bakunin to Marx to Schumpeter), and 2) Those with direct democracy (thinking both Ancient Greeks, and the Schumpeter interpretation of Weber / neo-pluralist school.

Particular to the ideology, I'd just say that the three principles are vague. Nationalism can mean liberally nationalist or ultranationalist/expansionist nationalist, or Marxist nationalist, etc. This has problems especially, in light of the Chinese question.

In regards to the balance of capitalism & socialism, I am iffy. Like Aristotle's virtue ethics, just saying a balance between two extremes doesn't mean much. The communist ideal doesn't mean every single free trader is killed, nor does the capitalist ideal mean that any co-operative is eaten by capitalists. And finally, 'welfare' can be equally broad, even ignoring the types of welfare available. All ideologies want to help everyone, really, but libertarian capitalists and marxist socialists do it in completely different ways.

Finally, the ideology seems to be prone to modern day challenges, like globalization and anthropocentrism, as well as demagoguery of historical figures, like the Turkish meta-ideology has with Ataturk. The latter problem especially is one that would need to be dealt with, as your article linked essentially confirms this, by referencing next to everything as "Sun-Yat Sen said..."

I hope this helps!

Considering the philosophy was developed in China and California, its not really british liberalism
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2014 4:22:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
British Liberalism is the ideology developed by Bentham, Mill, and the utiltarians which tends to be in every European country currently. The United States for example follows a British liberal system. Most Western European/American countries went Lockean -> British Liberal -> Fascist/Socialist -> Keynesian liberal.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...