Total Posts:50|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Lamentations of a Radical

Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2013 11:45:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
This is just for me (or others) to ramble about misunderstandings that frequently arise by the adoption of a radically heterodox approach to understanding political conditions and evaluating historical phenomenon.

For example: Getting called a neo-Confederate or being accused of supporting the slave-holding Confederacy because you (a) hold the view that Lincoln and the North weren't fighting for the freedom of the slaves, (b) argue that "keeping da country together" isn't a worthwhile justification for blocking secession, and (c) think that both the Northern (violently holding off the justified act of secession) and Southern (violently subjecting human beings to slavery) governments were entirely illegitimate and should have been opposed by any and all decent people.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
YYW
Posts: 36,382
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2013 11:55:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/31/2013 11:45:16 PM, Noumena wrote:
This is just for me (or others) to ramble about misunderstandings that frequently arise by the adoption of a radically heterodox approach to understanding political conditions and evaluating historical phenomenon.

For example: Getting called a neo-Confederate or being accused of supporting the slave-holding Confederacy because you (a) hold the view that Lincoln and the North weren't fighting for the freedom of the slaves, (b) argue that "keeping da country together" isn't a worthwhile justification for blocking secession, and (c) think that both the Northern (violently holding off the justified act of secession) and Southern (violently subjecting human beings to slavery) governments were entirely illegitimate and should have been opposed by any and all decent people.

(a) is correct to a fair extent
(b) I disagree, but I understand the argument
(c) not sure how to respond to that... but I agree with the implication that there were serious problems with both.
Tsar of DDO
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2013 12:04:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/31/2013 11:55:39 PM, YYW wrote:
At 5/31/2013 11:45:16 PM, Noumena wrote:
This is just for me (or others) to ramble about misunderstandings that frequently arise by the adoption of a radically heterodox approach to understanding political conditions and evaluating historical phenomenon.

For example: Getting called a neo-Confederate or being accused of supporting the slave-holding Confederacy because you (a) hold the view that Lincoln and the North weren't fighting for the freedom of the slaves, (b) argue that "keeping da country together" isn't a worthwhile justification for blocking secession, and (c) think that both the Northern (violently holding off the justified act of secession) and Southern (violently subjecting human beings to slavery) governments were entirely illegitimate and should have been opposed by any and all decent people.

(a) is correct to a fair extent
(b) I disagree, but I understand the argument
(c) not sure how to respond to that... but I agree with the implication that there were serious problems with both.

(C) is simply questioning the idea that one needs to take sides. It's like (to a much much smaller extent) choosing between Third Reich Germany and Stalinist Russia. We can maybe tweak the numbers a bit and get to an idea of which was *less* bad but imo approving of or supporting one doesn't seem possible.

So I'm debating someone who thinks the Civil War was justified. I think naught. They either explicitly or implicitly accuse me of siding with slaveholders and backwoods racists. Or I'm debating with someone who didn't think it was justified on account of it infringing on "State's rights" or some such nonsense. I argue that the Confederacy was oppressive and should have been resisted. Now apparently I'm a usurping tyrant.

My point is that both sides were essentially wrong but also that the very idea that one needs to defend a side when talking about the issue is wrongheaded.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
YYW
Posts: 36,382
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2013 12:14:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/1/2013 12:04:09 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 5/31/2013 11:55:39 PM, YYW wrote:
At 5/31/2013 11:45:16 PM, Noumena wrote:
This is just for me (or others) to ramble about misunderstandings that frequently arise by the adoption of a radically heterodox approach to understanding political conditions and evaluating historical phenomenon.

For example: Getting called a neo-Confederate or being accused of supporting the slave-holding Confederacy because you (a) hold the view that Lincoln and the North weren't fighting for the freedom of the slaves, (b) argue that "keeping da country together" isn't a worthwhile justification for blocking secession, and (c) think that both the Northern (violently holding off the justified act of secession) and Southern (violently subjecting human beings to slavery) governments were entirely illegitimate and should have been opposed by any and all decent people.

(a) is correct to a fair extent
(b) I disagree, but I understand the argument
(c) not sure how to respond to that... but I agree with the implication that there were serious problems with both.

(C) is simply questioning the idea that one needs to take sides. It's like (to a much much smaller extent) choosing between Third Reich Germany and Stalinist Russia. We can maybe tweak the numbers a bit and get to an idea of which was *less* bad but imo approving of or supporting one doesn't seem possible.

So I'm debating someone who thinks the Civil War was justified. I think naught. They either explicitly or implicitly accuse me of siding with slaveholders and backwoods racists. Or I'm debating with someone who didn't think it was justified on account of it infringing on "State's rights" or some such nonsense. I argue that the Confederacy was oppressive and should have been resisted. Now apparently I'm a usurping tyrant.

My point is that both sides were essentially wrong but also that the very idea that one needs to defend a side when talking about the issue is wrongheaded.

I don't really endorse your conception of the union and confederate governments (if you could even call the confederate government a government), but generally when people make idiotic assumptions about what someone else is saying it's because they lack the educational/personal background to understand what you're saying OR because they are unable to overcome their preconceived notions about alternative positions. It's not because they're necessarily targeting you or your views (however much that may ostensibly appear to be the case) it's that they're usually ignorant and are incapable of reconciling conflicting historical narratives.
Tsar of DDO
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2013 12:23:00 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/1/2013 12:14:07 AM, YYW wrote:

I don't really endorse your conception of the union and confederate governments (if you could even call the confederate government a government), but generally when people make idiotic assumptions about what someone else is saying it's because they lack the educational/personal background to understand what you're saying OR because they are unable to overcome their preconceived notions about alternative positions. It's not because they're necessarily targeting you or your views (however much that may ostensibly appear to be the case) it's that they're usually ignorant and are incapable of reconciling conflicting historical narratives.

I'd agree there. I just think heterodox views are *more* open to the things yer describing. Of course actually saying that kind of just seems like a tautology.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2013 12:28:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
A lot of this has to do with the way history is taught, in my opinion. It's handed down as one consistent, orthodox narrative, instead of the many conflicting and nuanced narratives which actually comprise it. This approach, in my opinion, does a great disservice to the students on whom it is inflicted because it cuts a crucial aspect of critical examination of history, eliminates the vital, entangled stories which animate the subject and make it interesting, and leads to a general ignorance of alternative viewpoints.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
YYW
Posts: 36,382
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2013 12:28:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/1/2013 12:23:00 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 6/1/2013 12:14:07 AM, YYW wrote:

I don't really endorse your conception of the union and confederate governments (if you could even call the confederate government a government), but generally when people make idiotic assumptions about what someone else is saying it's because they lack the educational/personal background to understand what you're saying OR because they are unable to overcome their preconceived notions about alternative positions. It's not because they're necessarily targeting you or your views (however much that may ostensibly appear to be the case) it's that they're usually ignorant and are incapable of reconciling conflicting historical narratives.

I'd agree there. I just think heterodox views are *more* open to the things yer describing. Of course actually saying that kind of just seems like a tautology.

I think it's the way history is taught... If history is going to be taught, I tend to favor the way Foucault did it to avoid the problems you've described.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,382
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2013 12:28:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/1/2013 12:28:11 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
A lot of this has to do with the way history is taught, in my opinion. It's handed down as one consistent, orthodox narrative, instead of the many conflicting and nuanced narratives which actually comprise it. This approach, in my opinion, does a great disservice to the students on whom it is inflicted because it cuts a crucial aspect of critical examination of history, eliminates the vital, entangled stories which animate the subject and make it interesting, and leads to a general ignorance of alternative viewpoints.

Oh my god you read my mind!
Tsar of DDO
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2013 12:30:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/1/2013 12:28:43 AM, YYW wrote:
At 6/1/2013 12:28:11 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
A lot of this has to do with the way history is taught, in my opinion. It's handed down as one consistent, orthodox narrative, instead of the many conflicting and nuanced narratives which actually comprise it. This approach, in my opinion, does a great disservice to the students on whom it is inflicted because it cuts a crucial aspect of critical examination of history, eliminates the vital, entangled stories which animate the subject and make it interesting, and leads to a general ignorance of alternative viewpoints.

Oh my god you read my mind!
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
YYW
Posts: 36,382
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2013 12:31:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/1/2013 12:30:17 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 6/1/2013 12:28:43 AM, YYW wrote:
At 6/1/2013 12:28:11 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
A lot of this has to do with the way history is taught, in my opinion. It's handed down as one consistent, orthodox narrative, instead of the many conflicting and nuanced narratives which actually comprise it. This approach, in my opinion, does a great disservice to the students on whom it is inflicted because it cuts a crucial aspect of critical examination of history, eliminates the vital, entangled stories which animate the subject and make it interesting, and leads to a general ignorance of alternative viewpoints.

Oh my god you read my mind!



I don't think it's especially weird though... just cool.
Tsar of DDO
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2013 12:33:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/1/2013 12:28:20 AM, YYW wrote:
At 6/1/2013 12:23:00 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 6/1/2013 12:14:07 AM, YYW wrote:

I don't really endorse your conception of the union and confederate governments (if you could even call the confederate government a government), but generally when people make idiotic assumptions about what someone else is saying it's because they lack the educational/personal background to understand what you're saying OR because they are unable to overcome their preconceived notions about alternative positions. It's not because they're necessarily targeting you or your views (however much that may ostensibly appear to be the case) it's that they're usually ignorant and are incapable of reconciling conflicting historical narratives.

I'd agree there. I just think heterodox views are *more* open to the things yer describing. Of course actually saying that kind of just seems like a tautology.

I think it's the way history is taught... If history is going to be taught, I tend to favor the way Foucault did it to avoid the problems you've described.

I've been trying to grapple with Foucault for some time to little avail.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2013 12:33:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/1/2013 12:31:10 AM, YYW wrote:
At 6/1/2013 12:30:17 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 6/1/2013 12:28:43 AM, YYW wrote:
At 6/1/2013 12:28:11 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
A lot of this has to do with the way history is taught, in my opinion. It's handed down as one consistent, orthodox narrative, instead of the many conflicting and nuanced narratives which actually comprise it. This approach, in my opinion, does a great disservice to the students on whom it is inflicted because it cuts a crucial aspect of critical examination of history, eliminates the vital, entangled stories which animate the subject and make it interesting, and leads to a general ignorance of alternative viewpoints.

Oh my god you read my mind!


I don't think it's especially weird though... just cool.

Ha, yeah, this sort of thing only ever happens on DDO. In real life, my coworkers just give me bizarre looks when I use words like 'somniferous' and 'licentious'. It's cool to actually be on the same wavelength with someone for once.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
YYW
Posts: 36,382
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2013 12:34:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
The only thing I would add, though, is that when people are taught some linear historical narrative, they develop a false confidence that they have the whole story -which leads to a kind of intellectual pretentiousness that is difficult to overcome. I think only the postmodernist can really appreciate historical nuance, because only the postmodernist takes time to look for it. All else are content to read the latest edition of McGraw Hill's bullsh!t or -worse yet- Pearson's latest editions.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,382
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2013 12:36:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/1/2013 12:33:35 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 6/1/2013 12:28:20 AM, YYW wrote:
At 6/1/2013 12:23:00 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 6/1/2013 12:14:07 AM, YYW wrote:

I don't really endorse your conception of the union and confederate governments (if you could even call the confederate government a government), but generally when people make idiotic assumptions about what someone else is saying it's because they lack the educational/personal background to understand what you're saying OR because they are unable to overcome their preconceived notions about alternative positions. It's not because they're necessarily targeting you or your views (however much that may ostensibly appear to be the case) it's that they're usually ignorant and are incapable of reconciling conflicting historical narratives.

I'd agree there. I just think heterodox views are *more* open to the things yer describing. Of course actually saying that kind of just seems like a tautology.

I think it's the way history is taught... If history is going to be taught, I tend to favor the way Foucault did it to avoid the problems you've described.

I've been trying to grapple with Foucault for some time to little avail.

Foucault's method is this:

He identifies the "typical story" of something usually portrayed as "progress" or "development."
He makes an argument to debunk that narrative, and shows continuation in change over time.
In effect, he shows you, as he put it so eloquently "another form of the truth."
Tsar of DDO
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2013 12:38:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/1/2013 12:34:24 AM, YYW wrote:
The only thing I would add, though, is that when people are taught some linear historical narrative, they develop a false confidence that they have the whole story -which leads to a kind of intellectual pretentiousness that is difficult to overcome. I think only the postmodernist can really appreciate historical nuance, because only the postmodernist takes time to look for it. All else are content to read the latest edition of McGraw Hill's bullsh!t or -worse yet- Pearson's latest editions.

Don't you know? Abraham Lincoln personally rode into battle on a white stallion to smash the shackles of the poor slaves, Queen Isabella thought that the world was flat, WWII was fought to stop Hitler from exterminating people (the Russians didn't really do anything), and Christopher Columbus slept on a bed of native skulls.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
YYW
Posts: 36,382
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2013 12:41:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/1/2013 12:38:58 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 6/1/2013 12:34:24 AM, YYW wrote:
The only thing I would add, though, is that when people are taught some linear historical narrative, they develop a false confidence that they have the whole story -which leads to a kind of intellectual pretentiousness that is difficult to overcome. I think only the postmodernist can really appreciate historical nuance, because only the postmodernist takes time to look for it. All else are content to read the latest edition of McGraw Hill's bullsh!t or -worse yet- Pearson's latest editions.

Don't you know? Abraham Lincoln personally rode into battle on a white stallion to smash the shackles of the poor slaves, Queen Isabella thought that the world was flat, WWII was fought to stop Hitler from exterminating people (the Russians didn't really do anything), and Christopher Columbus slept on a bed of native skulls.

There is a book I recommend to anyone with any real interest in history called "Lies My Teacher Told Me." It's among the best efforts I've seen to counter the bullsh!t which has become such the norm in primary history classes.
Tsar of DDO
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2013 12:50:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/1/2013 12:36:40 AM, YYW wrote:
At 6/1/2013 12:33:35 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 6/1/2013 12:28:20 AM, YYW wrote:
At 6/1/2013 12:23:00 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 6/1/2013 12:14:07 AM, YYW wrote:

I don't really endorse your conception of the union and confederate governments (if you could even call the confederate government a government), but generally when people make idiotic assumptions about what someone else is saying it's because they lack the educational/personal background to understand what you're saying OR because they are unable to overcome their preconceived notions about alternative positions. It's not because they're necessarily targeting you or your views (however much that may ostensibly appear to be the case) it's that they're usually ignorant and are incapable of reconciling conflicting historical narratives.

I'd agree there. I just think heterodox views are *more* open to the things yer describing. Of course actually saying that kind of just seems like a tautology.

I think it's the way history is taught... If history is going to be taught, I tend to favor the way Foucault did it to avoid the problems you've described.

I've been trying to grapple with Foucault for some time to little avail.

Foucault's method is this:

He identifies the "typical story" of something usually portrayed as "progress" or "development."
He makes an argument to debunk that narrative, and shows continuation in change over time.
In effect, he shows you, as he put it so eloquently "another form of the truth."

I suppose the fact that he applies his 'method' to several (seemingly more or less) independent analyses rather than using it to build a grand scheme (or narrative) of things is what makes him a bit hard for me to grasp. Not to say that any philosopher is easy, I just feel more comfortable with the latter type (even if I've been growing more averse to that type of 'philosophizing' as of late). I read 'Madness and Civilization' some time ago and can say without hesitation that I understood next to none of it. Perhaps a superficial understanding wherein I can tell you some of the specific things he was saying but I was nowhere close to being able to relate it to any overarching "statement" or "thesis" (the latter not so in any meaningful way at least). Perhaps being able to compare the independent style of reasoning in the book with (what I would weakly call) a more "complete" view of his overarching methodology would prove fruitful in the future. God now I have to read Foucault.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
YYW
Posts: 36,382
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2013 12:59:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/1/2013 12:50:05 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 6/1/2013 12:36:40 AM, YYW wrote:
At 6/1/2013 12:33:35 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 6/1/2013 12:28:20 AM, YYW wrote:
At 6/1/2013 12:23:00 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 6/1/2013 12:14:07 AM, YYW wrote:

I don't really endorse your conception of the union and confederate governments (if you could even call the confederate government a government), but generally when people make idiotic assumptions about what someone else is saying it's because they lack the educational/personal background to understand what you're saying OR because they are unable to overcome their preconceived notions about alternative positions. It's not because they're necessarily targeting you or your views (however much that may ostensibly appear to be the case) it's that they're usually ignorant and are incapable of reconciling conflicting historical narratives.

I'd agree there. I just think heterodox views are *more* open to the things yer describing. Of course actually saying that kind of just seems like a tautology.

I think it's the way history is taught... If history is going to be taught, I tend to favor the way Foucault did it to avoid the problems you've described.

I've been trying to grapple with Foucault for some time to little avail.

Foucault's method is this:

He identifies the "typical story" of something usually portrayed as "progress" or "development."
He makes an argument to debunk that narrative, and shows continuation in change over time.
In effect, he shows you, as he put it so eloquently "another form of the truth."

I suppose the fact that he applies his 'method' to several (seemingly more or less) independent analyses rather than using it to build a grand scheme (or narrative) of things is what makes him a bit hard for me to grasp. Not to say that any philosopher is easy, I just feel more comfortable with the latter type (even if I've been growing more averse to that type of 'philosophizing' as of late). I read 'Madness and Civilization' some time ago and can say without hesitation that I understood next to none of it. Perhaps a superficial understanding wherein I can tell you some of the specific things he was saying but I was nowhere close to being able to relate it to any overarching "statement" or "thesis" (the latter not so in any meaningful way at least). Perhaps being able to compare the independent style of reasoning in the book with (what I would weakly call) a more "complete" view of his overarching methodology would prove fruitful in the future. God now I have to read Foucault.

Although Discipline and Punish is widely heralded as his magnum opus, Madness and Civilization is -I think- his greatest accomplishment. The basic idea is that while ostensibly the way society treats the mentally ill has changed, it's the result of the evolution of practices of social separation over time. The implication is that social sciences aren't really sciences, so much as (to oversimplify it) a hot mess of moralization. The problem said more abstractly is that madness is silenced, and reason and unreason cannot have a dialogue in the modern field of mental health because madness is confined and isolated.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,382
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2013 1:03:14 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
When Foucault was writing, everyone thought he was talking about power, but really what he was talking about (as he explained in a paper published in the 1980s) was telling the truth. Power has, nevertheless, subject producing capacity -and to examine that process in a variety of areas is what his purpose was. You'll like the History of Sexuality, Vol. 1 especially if you get around to reading it. It's quite worthwhile.
Tsar of DDO
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2013 1:17:22 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/1/2013 1:03:14 AM, YYW wrote:
When Foucault was writing, everyone thought he was talking about power, but really what he was talking about (as he explained in a paper published in the 1980s) was telling the truth. Power has, nevertheless, subject producing capacity -and to examine that process in a variety of areas is what his purpose was. You'll like the History of Sexuality, Vol. 1 especially if you get around to reading it. It's quite worthwhile.

I've always appreciated Foucault from afar, drawing close at some points but never quite close to such a point that I could (in any sense) feign understanding. I certainly plan on re-reading Madness and Civilization (perhaps with the help of a bit of secondary literature) to see if I get a little closer to properly comprehending it.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
YYW
Posts: 36,382
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2013 1:39:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/1/2013 1:17:22 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 6/1/2013 1:03:14 AM, YYW wrote:
When Foucault was writing, everyone thought he was talking about power, but really what he was talking about (as he explained in a paper published in the 1980s) was telling the truth. Power has, nevertheless, subject producing capacity -and to examine that process in a variety of areas is what his purpose was. You'll like the History of Sexuality, Vol. 1 especially if you get around to reading it. It's quite worthwhile.

I've always appreciated Foucault from afar, drawing close at some points but never quite close to such a point that I could (in any sense) feign understanding. I certainly plan on re-reading Madness and Civilization (perhaps with the help of a bit of secondary literature) to see if I get a little closer to properly comprehending it.

I make no claim to being an expert, but I'll be happy to answer any questions or clarify anything to the extent that I am able.
Tsar of DDO
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2013 12:34:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I think part of the reason people association opposing the very concept of the Union fighting the Confederacy is because, bluntly, people don't care that much their motivations were. The South had slavery. Slavery is bad and under certain conditions war might be justified to stop it. This becomes simplified to 'war is justified to stop slavery, period.'

Personally, while I'm aware that no one was a perfect little angel, I support the concept of the Civil War on the grounds that it did help put an end to slavery.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2013 12:42:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/1/2013 12:34:32 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
I think part of the reason people association opposing the very concept of the Union fighting the Confederacy is because, bluntly, people don't care that much their motivations were. The South had slavery. Slavery is bad and under certain conditions war might be justified to stop it. This becomes simplified to 'war is justified to stop slavery, period.'

Personally, while I'm aware that no one was a perfect little angel, I support the concept of the Civil War on the grounds that it did help put an end to slavery.

Do you believe that the civil war was necessary to putting an end to slavery? Because, if you look at trends in industry, and in popular opinion, and international pressures, it's pretty clear that slavery as an institution was doomed in any case.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2013 4:58:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/1/2013 12:42:50 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 6/1/2013 12:34:32 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
I think part of the reason people association opposing the very concept of the Union fighting the Confederacy is because, bluntly, people don't care that much their motivations were. The South had slavery. Slavery is bad and under certain conditions war might be justified to stop it. This becomes simplified to 'war is justified to stop slavery, period.'

Personally, while I'm aware that no one was a perfect little angel, I support the concept of the Civil War on the grounds that it did help put an end to slavery.

Do you believe that the civil war was necessary to putting an end to slavery? Because, if you look at trends in industry, and in popular opinion, and international pressures, it's pretty clear that slavery as an institution was doomed in any case.

Well, slavery probably would have ended eventually. The question was one of time frame. I might point out though, that slavery wouldn't necessarily have vanished--because it still exists in many forms.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2013 12:40:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/1/2013 12:34:32 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
I think part of the reason people association opposing the very concept of the Union fighting the Confederacy is because, bluntly, people don't care that much their motivations were. The South had slavery. Slavery is bad and under certain conditions war might be justified to stop it. This becomes simplified to 'war is justified to stop slavery, period.'

Personally, while I'm aware that no one was a perfect little angel, I support the concept of the Civil War on the grounds that it did help put an end to slavery.

I think it would be incomplete to just look at it like:

>Slavery before Civil War
>No Slavery after the Civil War

You still had the 100 odd years of de facto (and in many cases official) subjugation, a completely destroyed Southern economy/landscape, and over half a million people dead. It isn't as if some measly war ended that terrible injustice. The injustice continued for a century (arguably still exists in some form today) with a frightening amount of collateral damage (some of which wasn't incidental at all).
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
1Devilsadvocate
Posts: 1,518
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2013 4:09:00 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/31/2013 11:45:16 PM, Noumena wrote:
This is just for me (or others) to ramble about misunderstandings that frequently arise by the adoption of a radically heterodox approach to understanding political conditions and evaluating historical phenomenon.

For example: Getting called a neo-Confederate or being accused of supporting the slave-holding Confederacy because you (a) hold the view that Lincoln and the North weren't fighting for the freedom of the slaves, (b) argue that "keeping da country together" isn't a worthwhile justification for blocking secession, and (c) think that both the Northern (violently holding off the justified act of secession) and Southern (violently subjecting human beings to slavery) governments were entirely illegitimate and should have been opposed by any and all decent people.

Classic ad-hom, don't let them get away with it, call em out on it.
I cannot write in English, because of the treacherous spelling. When I am reading, I only hear it and am unable to remember what the written word looks like."
"Albert Einstein

http://www.twainquotes.com... , http://thewritecorner.wordpress.com... , http://www.onlinecollegecourses.com...
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2013 4:17:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/2/2013 4:09:00 AM, 1Devilsadvocate wrote:
At 5/31/2013 11:45:16 PM, Noumena wrote:
This is just for me (or others) to ramble about misunderstandings that frequently arise by the adoption of a radically heterodox approach to understanding political conditions and evaluating historical phenomenon.

For example: Getting called a neo-Confederate or being accused of supporting the slave-holding Confederacy because you (a) hold the view that Lincoln and the North weren't fighting for the freedom of the slaves, (b) argue that "keeping da country together" isn't a worthwhile justification for blocking secession, and (c) think that both the Northern (violently holding off the justified act of secession) and Southern (violently subjecting human beings to slavery) governments were entirely illegitimate and should have been opposed by any and all decent people.

Classic ad-hom, don't let them get away with it, call em out on it.

Wasn't really my point. The point is how easily an error like this comes about. The orthodox nature of viewing the Civil War comes to defending X or Y and almost nothing else (room is allowed for some variance but it comes short of allowing for total disassociation with both sides it seems). I choose neither X nor Y so the orthodox seem to necessarily include me in whichever side is their Other. So for example, someone who thinks the war was justified would view me as a defender of their Other i.e., the South and vice versa for the defender of the opposite. Whether their equivocation has normative implications (as an ad hom would suggest) really doesn't concern me too much.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2013 1:37:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/31/2013 11:45:16 PM, Noumena wrote:
This is just for me (or others) to ramble about misunderstandings that frequently arise by the adoption of a radically heterodox approach to understanding political conditions and evaluating historical phenomenon.

For example: Getting called a neo-Confederate or being accused of supporting the slave-holding Confederacy because you (a) hold the view that Lincoln and the North weren't fighting for the freedom of the slaves, (b) argue that "keeping da country together" isn't a worthwhile justification for blocking secession, and (c) think that both the Northern (violently holding off the justified act of secession) and Southern (violently subjecting human beings to slavery) governments were entirely illegitimate and should have been opposed by any and all decent people.

Agreed.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2013 3:16:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/2/2013 12:40:39 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 6/1/2013 12:34:32 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
I think part of the reason people association opposing the very concept of the Union fighting the Confederacy is because, bluntly, people don't care that much their motivations were. The South had slavery. Slavery is bad and under certain conditions war might be justified to stop it. This becomes simplified to 'war is justified to stop slavery, period.'

Personally, while I'm aware that no one was a perfect little angel, I support the concept of the Civil War on the grounds that it did help put an end to slavery.

I think it would be incomplete to just look at it like:

>Slavery before Civil War
>No Slavery after the Civil War

You still had the 100 odd years of de facto (and in many cases official) subjugation, a completely destroyed Southern economy/landscape, and over half a million people dead. It isn't as if some measly war ended that terrible injustice. The injustice continued for a century (arguably still exists in some form today) with a frightening amount of collateral damage (some of which wasn't incidental at all).

While I agree with your analysis, I know better to ask you the question: "Why do you think the Civil War occurred?" because I'm pretty sure I already know your answer, that "statism is the root cause for all suffering", or some similar assertion.

Asking an anarchist on their opinion of government of any sort is like asking someone that has a fatal reaction to wheat what they think about various kinds of wheat bread.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2013 3:17:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/1/2013 12:42:50 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 6/1/2013 12:34:32 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
I think part of the reason people association opposing the very concept of the Union fighting the Confederacy is because, bluntly, people don't care that much their motivations were. The South had slavery. Slavery is bad and under certain conditions war might be justified to stop it. This becomes simplified to 'war is justified to stop slavery, period.'

Personally, while I'm aware that no one was a perfect little angel, I support the concept of the Civil War on the grounds that it did help put an end to slavery.

Do you believe that the civil war was necessary to putting an end to slavery? Because, if you look at trends in industry, and in popular opinion, and international pressures, it's pretty clear that slavery as an institution was doomed in any case.

Now, you I would ask that question.

Why do you think the Civil War occurred?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?