Total Posts:6|Showing Posts:1-6
Jump to topic:

Politics and Social Progress

YYW
Posts: 36,294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2016 7:03:58 AM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
This post regards the political aspects of social progress. When I say "political aspects," I mean that in the broadest sense of the word.

There are some of the great thinkers (Hegel, for example) who thought that the cause of human progress was through a sort of dialogue of contrasting positions.

The steps are straightforward: One side poses a proposition, perhaps reflective of the status quo on some issue. A group challenges the status quo, or person who is dissatisfied with it poses a counterpoint. From the resultant conflict, we generate new understandings and progress results.

There's probably some merit to that model, even if it doesn't capture the complete picture and even if you don't buy into dialectics (the process I just described), or, at the very least, Hegelian dialectics or German Idealism, or anything like that.

I should note that progress, at least in the dialectical sense, isn't per se contingent on individual proposers (e.g. an advocate against gay marriage, versus an advocate for gay marriage) shifting their particular views as much as society generally taking note of the opposing sides and shifting from the status quo as a result.

It should also be noted that this model of history is highly antagonistic to notions of conservatism in any form, where to be conservative is to preserve the status quo and thwart change.

(Note: There was a time when, for example, notions of identity politics were not prominently displayed on the surface of (at least American) political discourse. Now, they form the core of it. So, I guess it's fitting to discuss it. Politics, in that sense, mean everything from power to individual identities, and all in between.)

The questions I have for you are these:

1. Do you feel as if you have a solid understanding of your country (especially if you are American)? Where did that understanding come from?

2. What is that understanding defined against? When I say "defined against" what I mean is "what is the distinguishable opposite of your world view or understanding"?

3. When you are presented with new information or ideas that conflict with your world view or some aspect of it, what impact does that have on you? What do you do with the information or idea which had the effect of challenging your world view?
Tsar of DDO
AlyceTheElectrician
Posts: 233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2016 2:06:11 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
The questions I have for you are these:

1. Do you feel as if you have a solid understanding of your country (especially if you are American)? Where did that understanding come from?

Generally yes, understanding from life experience, as well as shared experiences of others, and observation.

: 2. What is that understanding defined against? When I say "defined against" what I mean is "what is the distinguishable opposite of your world view or understanding"?
The distinguishable opposite of my world view is claims not backed by logic, evidence, or proof.

: 3. When you are presented with new information or ideas that conflict with your world view or some aspect of it, what impact does that have on you?
I always consider the possibilities, if it's valid it will make sense, If it doesn't make sense then I will dig further until I reach a logical brick wall to help me decide whether the claim is valid or not.

:What do you do with the information or idea which had the effect of challenging your world view?
look for solid evidence of claims, then decide whether the claims are valid through logic and provided evidence.
Be who you are, Say what you feel, Because those who mind don"t matter, And those who matter don't mind.

BANGTAN! Blood, Sweat, & Tears> Check it out yes! https://www.youtube.com...
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,177
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2016 3:10:01 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/20/2016 7:03:58 AM, YYW wrote:
This post regards the political aspects of social progress. When I say "political aspects," I mean that in the broadest sense of the word.

There are some of the great thinkers (Hegel, for example) who thought that the cause of human progress was through a sort of dialogue of contrasting positions.

The steps are straightforward: One side poses a proposition, perhaps reflective of the status quo on some issue. A group challenges the status quo, or person who is dissatisfied with it poses a counterpoint. From the resultant conflict, we generate new understandings and progress results.

There's probably some merit to that model, even if it doesn't capture the complete picture and even if you don't buy into dialectics (the process I just described), or, at the very least, Hegelian dialectics or German Idealism, or anything like that.

I should note that progress, at least in the dialectical sense, isn't per se contingent on individual proposers (e.g. an advocate against gay marriage, versus an advocate for gay marriage) shifting their particular views as much as society generally taking note of the opposing sides and shifting from the status quo as a result.

It should also be noted that this model of history is highly antagonistic to notions of conservatism in any form, where to be conservative is to preserve the status quo and thwart change.

(Note: There was a time when, for example, notions of identity politics were not prominently displayed on the surface of (at least American) political discourse. Now, they form the core of it. So, I guess it's fitting to discuss it. Politics, in that sense, mean everything from power to individual identities, and all in between.)

The questions I have for you are these:

1. Do you feel as if you have a solid understanding of your country (especially if you are American)? Where did that understanding come from?

Yes, by personal experience.
What I have seen, read, heard.

2. What is that understanding defined against? When I say "defined against" what I mean is "what is the distinguishable opposite of your world view or understanding"?

Those who disagree with my world view, in regards to my country.
This will often include a difference in understanding the intentions of the founding fathers, a difference in what determines quality of life, a difference in the importance of personal liberties (which really just refers back to the previous two).

3. When you are presented with new information or ideas that conflict with your world view or some aspect of it, what impact does that have on you? What do you do with the information or idea which had the effect of challenging your world view?

I look for the reasons why the information contradicts my own understanding.
I look for errors in the facts or permisses, faulty reasoning, hidden agendas, the motivation of the source offering the contradiction.
I look for a difference in core beliefs between myself and the source of the contradictions.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,177
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2016 3:13:42 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/20/2016 2:06:11 PM, AlyceTheElectrician wrote:
The questions I have for you are these:

1. Do you feel as if you have a solid understanding of your country (especially if you are American)? Where did that understanding come from?

Generally yes, understanding from life experience, as well as shared experiences of others, and observation.


: 2. What is that understanding defined against? When I say "defined against" what I mean is "what is the distinguishable opposite of your world view or understanding"?
The distinguishable opposite of my world view is claims not backed by logic, evidence, or proof.


: 3. When you are presented with new information or ideas that conflict with your world view or some aspect of it, what impact does that have on you?
I always consider the possibilities, if it's valid it will make sense, If it doesn't make sense then I will dig further until I reach a logical brick wall to help me decide whether the claim is valid or not.

Well, valid claims are in the eye of the beholder.
I suggest that claims that contradict your world view will not be seen as valid, in most situations. You may say your position can be changed, but if it contradicts your world view, that means you will have to change your world view - no easy matter.
You are extremely unlikely to do this.

:What do you do with the information or idea which had the effect of challenging your world view?
look for solid evidence of claims, then decide whether the claims are valid through logic and provided evidence.

World views are supported by a few major pillars, that are self supporting.
They are arrived at through fallacious and or circular reasoning.
If you are to replace them, that is, change your worldview, you would have to replace it/them with other self supporting, fallacious pillars. This is so unlikely as to be virtually impossible.
I can predict with 99.99% certainty that you would find any such claims as not valid, and you would reject them.
Fernyx
Posts: 326
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2016 3:24:50 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
1. Do you feel as if you have a solid understanding of your country (especially if you are American)? Where did that understanding come from?

Fairly solid, but have to live with a completely unpredictable president-elect. Mainly understanding came through traveling, specifically to the northern states and colleges, but from podcasts and news broadcasts (after filtering bias).

2. What is that understanding defined against? When I say "defined against" what I mean is "what is the distinguishable opposite of your world view or understanding"?

SJWs, or pretty much against anyone who is irreverent yet thinks their opinion matters. Also most Middle Eastern countries who think it is okay to throw acid in the face of women or throw gays off buildings.

3. When you are presented with new information or ideas that conflict with your world view or some aspect of it, what impact does that have on you? What do you do with the information or idea which had the effect of challenging your world view?

It depends on weather I can take it serious, for example if it was an article from HuffPo, BuzzFeed, or NBC typically I dismiss it. If it is from a credible person or if it forms well thought out arguments I try to compare my beliefs to it. I try to dispute their points, if I can't I ask a couple friends if they can, if they can't I see if there are any flaws in research, and if there are not than I usually add it to my beliefs or change my beliefs.
AlyceTheElectrician
Posts: 233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2016 3:37:55 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/20/2016 3:13:42 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 11/20/2016 2:06:11 PM, AlyceTheElectrician wrote:
The questions I have for you are these:

1. Do you feel as if you have a solid understanding of your country (especially if you are American)? Where did that understanding come from?

Generally yes, understanding from life experience, as well as shared experiences of others, and observation.


: 2. What is that understanding defined against? When I say "defined against" what I mean is "what is the distinguishable opposite of your world view or understanding"?
The distinguishable opposite of my world view is claims not backed by logic, evidence, or proof.


: 3. When you are presented with new information or ideas that conflict with your world view or some aspect of it, what impact does that have on you?
I always consider the possibilities, if it's valid it will make sense, If it doesn't make sense then I will dig further until I reach a logical brick wall to help me decide whether the claim is valid or not.

Well, valid claims are in the eye of the beholder.
I suggest that claims that contradict your world view will not be seen as valid, in most situations. You may say your position can be changed, but if it contradicts your world view, that means you will have to change your world view - no easy matter.
You are extremely unlikely to do this.


:What do you do with the information or idea which had the effect of challenging your world view?
look for solid evidence of claims, then decide whether the claims are valid through logic and provided evidence.

World views are supported by a few major pillars, that are self supporting.
They are arrived at through fallacious and or circular reasoning.
If you are to replace them, that is, change your worldview, you would have to replace it/them with other self supporting, fallacious pillars. This is so unlikely as to be virtually impossible.
I can predict with 99.99% certainty that you would find any such claims as not valid, and you would reject them.

Sure, but my world view never has been and never will be an absolute. There is always an opportunity to learn, and always an opportunity for change, especially if you have a receptive mind.
Be who you are, Say what you feel, Because those who mind don"t matter, And those who matter don't mind.

BANGTAN! Blood, Sweat, & Tears> Check it out yes! https://www.youtube.com...