The "Raphael posts links to his latest blog posts"-thread

[Raphael]

Ok, I might post a couple more posts in the near future, and I don't want to keep spamming the Random Thread with them, so I thought I might start this new thread.

Today's post is here:

https://guessishouldputthisupsomewhere. ... hypocrisy/

The three posts from earlier this week, kind of related to each other, are here:

http://guessishouldputthisupsomewhere.n ... on-belief/

http://guessishouldputthisupsomewhere.n ... -morality/

http://guessishouldputthisupsomewhere.n ... s-of-life/

[rotting bones]

As usual, I agree with many of your ideas. I'm only focusing on some points that could be fleshed out more.

Regarding determinism of behavior: I don't know if I'd go quite that far. Isn't behavior is greatly shaped by social class?

Regarding non-scientists not finding scientific explanations attractive:

1. What about the huge popular science industry?

2. I don't know about Christianity, but wondering at the structure of the world has been an act of piety since the earliest days of Islam. Eg. Look at the kinds of miracles that the Quran loves to point at: See how things are created in pairs, see how they are created in layers, ponder the 7 heavens and think about birds being suspended in midair. These verses are trying to evoke a proto-scientific sense of wonder.

3. There are ways to explain abstract subjects that are less dry than their usual treatments. For example, there's a math channel called 3Blue1Brown that was considered the gold standard for many years. Math teachers used it to learn math. Don't you think Platonism was also boring until new religions incorporated it into their theologies?

Regarding Social Darwinism: No doubt it's immoral, but the reason elites don't proclaim it proudly is that the 20th century proved they're too weak to dominate organized masses. Hence all the sneaky rhetoric about "traditional values".

Regarding spreading your opinions: Surely you mean those of your opinions that you like. How do you judge which of your opinions you like? Eg. The Blessed Spinoza says that when a rational man spreads his opinions, that's virtue, but when an irrational man spreads his opinions, that's rank ambition. I'm just asking. I have sometimes found your posts to be shockingly insightful.

Regarding forgiveness: Don't you think socialism could be understood as a program of sustained debt forgiveness? Christianity's position on forgiveness was probably justified on the basis that the world is going to end any day now. Islam's position on forgiveness is often summarized as: An eye for an eye, but forgiveness is better. The victim gets to choose between revenge through the law or personal saintliness. Christianity later developed Canon Law, which I don't know much about.

[Raphael]

As usual, I agree with many of your ideas. I'm only focusing on some points that could be fleshed out more.

Regarding determinism of behavior: I don't know if I'd go quite that far. Isn't behavior is greatly shaped by social class?

Well, I did list childhood experiences as one of the influences on a person's personality; and class is an important factor in what kind of childhood experiences someone makes.

Regarding non-scientists not finding scientific explanations attractive:

1. What about the huge popular science industry?

2. I don't know about Christianity, but wondering at the structure of the world has been an act of piety since the earliest days of Islam. Eg. Look at the kinds of miracles that the Quran loves to point at: See how things are created in pairs, see how they are created in layers, ponder the 7 heavens and think about birds being suspended in midair. These verses are trying to evoke a proto-scientific sense of wonder.

3. There are ways to explain abstract subjects that are less dry than their usual treatments. For example, there's a math channel called 3Blue1Brown that was considered the gold standard for many years. Math teachers used it to learn math. Don't you think Platonism was also boring until new religions incorporated it into their theologies?

All good points. I don't think all non-scientists find scientific explanations unattractive, but I'm pretty sure that many do.

Regarding spreading your opinions: Surely you mean those of your opinions that you like. How do you judge which of your opinions you like? Eg. The Blessed Spinoza says that when a rational man spreads his opinions, that's virtue, but when an irrational man spreads his opinions, that's rank ambition. I'm just asking.

I guess I'm probably not that good at judging how rational or irrational I am. As for liking my opinions - I'm not sure if I have any opinions that I don't like. OK, perhaps some opinions about acknowledging the uglier sides of life and the world where I might be happier if I wouldn't hold them, but even there, I'm all for spreading them. The only opinions where I'm not really interested in spreading them are opinions on what I see as matters of taste. I don't really care that much if anyone else has the same taste as me.

I have sometimes found your posts to be shockingly insightful.

Thank you! Why does it shock you if I write something you find insightful?

For the record, I'm all for debt forgiveness.

[Raphael]

New post:

http://guessishouldputthisupsomewhere.n ... -and-bias/

I've also added an index:

http://guessishouldputthisupsomewhere.n ... -of-posts/

[rotting bones]

All good points. I don't think all non-scientists find scientific explanations unattractive, but I'm pretty sure that many do.

I might be in a bubble because I've never met anyone who was repulsed by science in principle. Wasn't the inquisitorial mindset that actively opposes science murdered last century? Even creationists try to come up with bad arguments for their beliefs instead of trying to stifle scientific investigation.

I guess I'm probably not that good at judging how rational or irrational I am. As for liking my opinions - I'm not sure if I have any opinions that I don't like. OK, perhaps some opinions about acknowledging the uglier sides of life and the world where I might be happier if I wouldn't hold them, but even there, I'm all for spreading them. The only opinions where I'm not really interested in spreading them are opinions on what I see as matters of taste. I don't really care that much if anyone else has the same taste as me.

Don't you have some conception of trying to develop your opinions by, e.g., making them more systematic?

Thank you! Why does it shock you if I write something you find insightful?

Because your analogy Ukraine:Russia::Latin America:USA, for example, was worthy of the god Apollo?

[rotting bones]

New post:

http://guessishouldputthisupsomewhere.n ... -and-bias/

I've also added an index:

http://guessishouldputthisupsomewhere.n ... -of-posts/

I guess postmodernists would ask that since everyone is embedded in power structures and lying to promote their interests, how exactly would you go about figuring out the absolute truth?

[Raphael]

I guess postmodernists would ask that since everyone is embedded in power structures and lying to promote their interests, how exactly would you go about figuring out the absolute truth?

To some extent, we simply don't. My point is that the truth exists (on matters of fact), not that we can ever completely figure it out. To the limited extent to which we can try to at least get somewhat closer to the truth, we deal with the factors you mention by trying to be as aware as possible of them.

[Raphael]

And another post:

https://guessishouldputthisupsomewhere. ... al-theory/

[Ares Land]

Sometimes I feel there should a bit more political theory. Current politicians seem to focus on 'pragmatism' -- in other words, some form of conservatism or other. 'What works' means 'what has worked before', hence a general distrust of new ideas.

There's a lack of new political theories. Socialism is more than a century old; neo-liberalism is a continuation of a laissez-faire tradition that is about that old. It'd be nice if they at least were refreshed a little and updated with the whole century of data we have now.

This seems to be mostly a problem on the left. Maybe the right doesn't need a theoretical framework as much (see conservativism above.) Maybe they're better at it. Or maybe as a left-winger (or at least a non-conservative) I'm not as interested in right-wing theories.
The weight of Marxism bothers me. Marx made some great points for his day; that was 150 years ago plus he had to do with very limited data. Plenty of activists are actual Marxists -- that may be specific to France though -- but even excluding actual Marxist a lot of the vocabulary is reused. People will complain about capitalism, or social class -- but what exactly are they talking about? Does social-democracy count as capitalism? Who exactly counts as a bourgeois? (A highly paid coder isn't a bourgeois, but proletarian doesn't fit either.)

The theoretical underpinnings of democracy are fairly dated. Here in France, they can be traced to the Revolution -- so an attempt by a ruling class of wealthy landowners that mostly doesn't exist anymore to rule over a mostly rural countries where travel times were counted in days or week; with no expectation that the government would do much besides run the courts and the army.

[Raphael]

Who exactly counts as a bourgeois? (A highly paid coder isn't a bourgeois, but proletarian doesn't fit either.)

IMO the constant Marxist bashing of all things really or supposedly bourgeois is one of the least attractive features of the hard Left. If, by "bourgeois", you mean "middle and upper class, except for people with actual titles of nobility", then I disagree with many bourgeois people on economic and socio-economic policy, and I disagree with the more old-fashioned ones among them on issues related to people's sex life, but aside from that, I quite like a lot of bourgeois habits, manners, and tastes. Besides, under the definition I just provided, most of the people complaining about bourgeois this and bourgeois that and bourgeois whatever are bourgeois themselves - there don't seem to be many proletarians among them. Psychologically, of course, that's mostly a result of people who were raised as bourgeois revolting against their upbringing.

I'd say if I have some sympathy for socialism, it's not so much Marxism and more a kind of "Wildean socialism" - that is, the problem with capitalism is not so much that it is run by the bourgeois, but that, by impoverishing large numbers of people, it makes it impossible for those people to be bourgeois:

https://zompist.wordpress.com/2018/09/2 ... socialism/

[Ares Land]

IMO the constant Marxist bashing of all things really or supposedly bourgeois is one of the least attractive features of the hard Left.

I think it's also a sign that Marx's analysis is pretty outdated.

If I'm not mistaken the bourgeoisie is defined as the capital holding class. It certainly made sense as an approximation in Marx's centuries. I don't think it's really workable now -- though capital vs. labor is still a very relevant issue.

[Raphael]

I think it's also a sign that Marx's analysis is pretty outdated.

If I'm not mistaken the bourgeoisie is defined as the capital holding class. It certainly made sense as an approximation in Marx's centuries. I don't think it's really workable now -- though capital vs. labor is still a very relevant issue.

Arguably, the problem here is that Marx looked at a number of mid-19th-century German, French, and British industrial towns where society really did seem to consist entirely or almost entirely of a few rich capital holders and a large number of industrial workers, and then falsely assumed that in the future, the entire world would look like that.

[Travis B.]

IMO the constant Marxist bashing of all things really or supposedly bourgeois is one of the least attractive features of the hard Left.

I think it's also a sign that Marx's analysis is pretty outdated.

If I'm not mistaken the bourgeoisie is defined as the capital holding class. It certainly made sense as an approximation in Marx's centuries. I don't think it's really workable now -- though capital vs. labor is still a very relevant issue.

I too dislike the Marxist "bourgeois" bashing myself, particularly because it tends to frequently turn into a lifestyle matter - that one must be the enemy if one does not live a traditionally working-class life, even if one is not actually bourgeois in the original Marxian usage of the term (e.g. if one is a programmer, one may be paid better than the average working-class individual and not live a traditionally working-class lifestyle, but one's relationship with capital may be little different from that of a more traditionally working-class individual).

[Ares Land]

There are many social class related things though (speaking of theoricians, Bourdieu is good on these.) but they're more sociology than economy.
There's the matter of inherited wealth; there's also a matter of inherited skills -- how to go about making money, how to handle it and make more money out of it once you have it.

[Raphael]

And today's post:

https://guessishouldputthisupsomewhere. ... ompromise/

[Ares Land]

Ahh, just to be a contrarian:

• Compromise will also strengthen the opposite party's position. You can't compromise with fascists or any kind of totalitarian. With some people, it's best that they achieve none of their policy goals. You can compromise only if you can accept to have the other side stick around.
• Something we see a fair bit with environmentalists: some people will use their party's or organization's resources to 'compromise' by which they mean selling out completely.
• For a compromise to work, the other side has to offer something in exchange. Here in France people bemoan our trade unions' unwillingness to compromise. This is generally stated in the context of some conflict with government; but the government starts out unwilling to give anything in return, or only very little. (A popular strategy is to set up as bait some vastly unpopular measure they don't have any intention to actually implement, and then make a show of giving it up.)
• Related to the previous point: there's a question of bargaining power. If a government is strong enough to pass a law anyway, why compromise? If a trade union can block all traffic for two months, why should they back away? It's not pretty, really ugly in fact, but it's rational not to compromise if you don't need to.

That said, I'm generally in favor of political compromise, especially between left and right. Neither side is going anywhere -- we'll never get rid of conservatives, they'll never get rid of socialists -- so while neither side is going to like it very much, they will have to find some middle ground.

[Raphael]

No disagreement with any of those points. The kind of compromise that I'm mainly thinking of is compromising in order to win elections, or in order to enter a coalition after an election. You're right that that doesn't work with fascists, but the world doesn't just consist of one's own friends and the fascists.

[Raphael]

Oh, and fun fact: According to the Wordpress stats, on this day, so far, my blog got two different visitors from three different countries. Is that some kind of quantum thing?

[Ares Land]

On the subject of coalition, what I heard is that in Germany the SPD really suffered electorally, as a direct result of coalitions with the CDU.
If true, this might explain a certain reluctance to compromise now

[Raphael]

On the subject of coalition, what I heard is that in Germany the SPD really suffered electorally, as a direct result of coalitions with the CDU.
If true, this might explain a certain reluctance to compromise now

Generally, in recent years, being in government has usually hurt German parties, while being out of government has usually helped them. Personally, I'm still mostly in "The most important thing is to stop the bleeding" mode, so I'm all for entering coalitions with the CDU or the FDP if that keeps those parties from doing the things they would ideally want to do.