CDZ Liberal/Conservative Labels Miss the Point

[Pogo]

We're straying off the topic of political philosophies' association with left brain (individual detail/tree) versus right brain (context in the whole/forest)...

 

[Pogo]

You apply the terms with no meaning. What is a conservative? You have Barry Goldwater, who was extremely rational, and Ted Cruz, about as rational as a three year old on a sugar high.

The use of the labels is mostly just to establish camps. Us vs them.

....and in establishing camps, all people are doing is displaying a psychological need for tribe. They derive a sense of identity from it. We have been so conditioned by our political process to view these labels as applying to people rather than political philosophies that it too often devolves into little more than a game of cowboys and indians.

An interesting thought -- are you suggesting we polarize out of a need for self-identity, to "belong" to something?

You may have something here...

Yes. Humans are the silliest people.

It's an open question -- I don't know. Was this meant to be sarcastic?

I'm not a joiner myself so the concept really isn't familiar. The idea of belonging to a political party (or organized religion, etc) just to "belong to" something seems at base pointless.

Not sarcastic at all. As a species I think one of the best descriptions of us is "silly". You may not see the point to belonging to a political party or religion, but obviously other people do. We are a social animal. What makes us unique is we are so adept at living in a world of make believe.

We are a social animal, but does "social" mean one's existence is only validated by "belonging to" something?

 

[PratchettFan]

....and in establishing camps, all people are doing is displaying a psychological need for tribe. They derive a sense of identity from it. We have been so conditioned by our political process to view these labels as applying to people rather than political philosophies that it too often devolves into little more than a game of cowboys and indians.

An interesting thought -- are you suggesting we polarize out of a need for self-identity, to "belong" to something?

You may have something here...

Yes. Humans are the silliest people.

It's an open question -- I don't know. Was this meant to be sarcastic?

I'm not a joiner myself so the concept really isn't familiar. The idea of belonging to a political party (or organized religion, etc) just to "belong to" something seems at base pointless.

Not sarcastic at all. As a species I think one of the best descriptions of us is "silly". You may not see the point to belonging to a political party or religion, but obviously other people do. We are a social animal. What makes us unique is we are so adept at living in a world of make believe.

We are a social animal, but does "social" mean one's existence is only validated by "belonging to" something?

For the most part, yes.

 

[Pogo]

An interesting thought -- are you suggesting we polarize out of a need for self-identity, to "belong" to something?

You may have something here...

Yes. Humans are the silliest people.

It's an open question -- I don't know. Was this meant to be sarcastic?

I'm not a joiner myself so the concept really isn't familiar. The idea of belonging to a political party (or organized religion, etc) just to "belong to" something seems at base pointless.

Not sarcastic at all. As a species I think one of the best descriptions of us is "silly". You may not see the point to belonging to a political party or religion, but obviously other people do. We are a social animal. What makes us unique is we are so adept at living in a world of make believe.

We are a social animal, but does "social" mean one's existence is only validated by "belonging to" something?

For the most part, yes.

Then all of this analysis is meaningless. As are philosophies, as is reason itself.

I dunno about you but I take a position because it makes logical sense on its own, not because of the association that somebody I'm emotionally sympathetic to takes that position.

 

[Boatswain2PA]

And I always laugh when someone talks about religious liberty because a teacher can't lead a class in a prayer and then wants to have all Muslims tossed out of the country. You know that is the kind of intolerance you find in Islamist countries.... right?

I don't know anyone who wants to "have all Muslims tossed out of the country." I certainly don't.

And there is a big difference between not allowing a teacher to LEAD a class in prayer and threatening to jail a pastor for refusing to perform a "gay-marriage" ceremony. The teacher isn't allowed to LEAD the class in prayer because she represents the government and would therefore be endorsing a religion, I am fine with that. But I'm not fine with intolerant illiberal leftists FORCING a pastor to either go to jail or violate his religion.

 

[PratchettFan]

Yes. Humans are the silliest people.

It's an open question -- I don't know. Was this meant to be sarcastic?

I'm not a joiner myself so the concept really isn't familiar. The idea of belonging to a political party (or organized religion, etc) just to "belong to" something seems at base pointless.

Not sarcastic at all. As a species I think one of the best descriptions of us is "silly". You may not see the point to belonging to a political party or religion, but obviously other people do. We are a social animal. What makes us unique is we are so adept at living in a world of make believe.

We are a social animal, but does "social" mean one's existence is only validated by "belonging to" something?

For the most part, yes.

Then all of this analysis is meaningless. As are philosophies, as is reason itself.

I dunno about you but I take a position because it makes logical sense on its own, not because of the association that somebody I'm emotionally sympathetic to takes that position.

I am not going to doubt what you say as I don't know you. However, when Ted Cruz talks about banning flights from West Africa the people who are cheering him aren't doing it because of a logical review of the facts. They are doing it because fear sells. When a teenager decides to end their life, they don't do it because they feel they are too accepted by their peers. If you do indeed take positions only based upon logic, then I would say you are a fairly unique individual. Which does not change the nature of our species.

 

[PratchettFan]

And I always laugh when someone talks about religious liberty because a teacher can't lead a class in a prayer and then wants to have all Muslims tossed out of the country. You know that is the kind of intolerance you find in Islamist countries.... right?

I don't know anyone who wants to "have all Muslims tossed out of the country." I certainly don't.

And there is a big difference between not allowing a teacher to LEAD a class in prayer and threatening to jail a pastor for refusing to perform a "gay-marriage" ceremony. The teacher isn't allowed to LEAD the class in prayer because she represents the government and would therefore be endorsing a religion, I am fine with that. But I'm not fine with intolerant illiberal leftists FORCING a pastor to either go to jail or violate his religion.

Go to the religion section and you will find examples aplenty. I don't know of anyone who is threatening to jail a pastor for refusing to perform a marriage ceremony.

 

[Pogo]

And I always laugh when someone talks about religious liberty because a teacher can't lead a class in a prayer and then wants to have all Muslims tossed out of the country. You know that is the kind of intolerance you find in Islamist countries.... right?

I don't know anyone who wants to "have all Muslims tossed out of the country." I certainly don't.

And there is a big difference between not allowing a teacher to LEAD a class in prayer and threatening to jail a pastor for refusing to perform a "gay-marriage" ceremony. The teacher isn't allowed to LEAD the class in prayer because she represents the government and would therefore be endorsing a religion, I am fine with that. But I'm not fine with intolerant illiberal leftists FORCING a pastor to either go to jail or violate his religion.

Go to the religion section and you will find examples aplenty. I don't know of anyone who is threatening to jail a pastor for refusing to perform a marriage ceremony.

I don't either. I agree with the poster that such an action would be "illiberal" if it existed, though I don't see it happening.

 

[Pogo]

It's an open question -- I don't know. Was this meant to be sarcastic?

I'm not a joiner myself so the concept really isn't familiar. The idea of belonging to a political party (or organized religion, etc) just to "belong to" something seems at base pointless.

Not sarcastic at all. As a species I think one of the best descriptions of us is "silly". You may not see the point to belonging to a political party or religion, but obviously other people do. We are a social animal. What makes us unique is we are so adept at living in a world of make believe.

We are a social animal, but does "social" mean one's existence is only validated by "belonging to" something?

For the most part, yes.

Then all of this analysis is meaningless. As are philosophies, as is reason itself.

I dunno about you but I take a position because it makes logical sense on its own, not because of the association that somebody I'm emotionally sympathetic to takes that position.

I am not going to doubt what you say as I don't know you. However, when Ted Cruz talks about banning flights from West Africa the people who are cheering him aren't doing it because of a logical review of the facts. They are doing it because fear sells. When a teenager decides to end their life, they don't do it because they feel they are too accepted by their peers. If you do indeed take positions only based upon logic, then I would say you are a fairly unique individual. Which does not change the nature of our species.

Emphatically agreed. It's a point I make continually around here.

But that's political rhetoric, not political philosophy. The latter is defined, factually based and rationally expressed for the purpose of directing the political structure; the former is amorphous, implicative, and implies whatever it wants for the purpose of selling the product.

 

[jwoodie]

Interesting the way this discussion has come around full circle, exemplifying my conclusion that "never the twain shall meet."

 

[Pogo]

Interesting the way this discussion has come around full circle, exemplifying my conclusion that "never the twain shall meet."

But I don't think you ever rationally worked out the left-right brain thing.
I wouldn't mind getting back into that. IMO you've got a conclusion, and it may be valid, but haven't constructed a bridge to it.

 

[PratchettFan]

Not sarcastic at all. As a species I think one of the best descriptions of us is "silly". You may not see the point to belonging to a political party or religion, but obviously other people do. We are a social animal. What makes us unique is we are so adept at living in a world of make believe.

We are a social animal, but does "social" mean one's existence is only validated by "belonging to" something?

For the most part, yes.

Then all of this analysis is meaningless. As are philosophies, as is reason itself.

I dunno about you but I take a position because it makes logical sense on its own, not because of the association that somebody I'm emotionally sympathetic to takes that position.

I am not going to doubt what you say as I don't know you. However, when Ted Cruz talks about banning flights from West Africa the people who are cheering him aren't doing it because of a logical review of the facts. They are doing it because fear sells. When a teenager decides to end their life, they don't do it because they feel they are too accepted by their peers. If you do indeed take positions only based upon logic, then I would say you are a fairly unique individual. Which does not change the nature of our species.

Emphatically agreed. It's a point I make continually around here.

But that's political rhetoric, not political philosophy. The latter is defined, factually based and rationally expressed for the purpose of directing the political structure; the former is amorphous, implicative, and implies whatever it wants for the purpose of selling the product.

Ok. Let's deal with that specifically. What political philosophy would you say is not emotionally driven?

 

[PratchettFan]

Interesting the way this discussion has come around full circle, exemplifying my conclusion that "never the twain shall meet."

I don't think that was ever in dispute. However, I do dispute your reason for it. I believe the reason they do not meet is that they are essentially the same - emotionally driven and irrational.

 

[Pogo]

We are a social animal, but does "social" mean one's existence is only validated by "belonging to" something?

For the most part, yes.

Then all of this analysis is meaningless. As are philosophies, as is reason itself.

I dunno about you but I take a position because it makes logical sense on its own, not because of the association that somebody I'm emotionally sympathetic to takes that position.

I am not going to doubt what you say as I don't know you. However, when Ted Cruz talks about banning flights from West Africa the people who are cheering him aren't doing it because of a logical review of the facts. They are doing it because fear sells. When a teenager decides to end their life, they don't do it because they feel they are too accepted by their peers. If you do indeed take positions only based upon logic, then I would say you are a fairly unique individual. Which does not change the nature of our species.

Emphatically agreed. It's a point I make continually around here.

But that's political rhetoric, not political philosophy. The latter is defined, factually based and rationally expressed for the purpose of directing the political structure; the former is amorphous, implicative, and implies whatever it wants for the purpose of selling the product.

Ok. Let's deal with that specifically. What political philosophy would you say is not emotionally driven?

We're defining terms -- I think ALL philosophies are by definition rational. If they're not rational, then they can't qualify as philosophies. Rhetoric though is just emotional candy as you pointed out; a catchphrase to sell a product (idea or candidate). It's not logical.

 

[PratchettFan]

For the most part, yes.

Then all of this analysis is meaningless. As are philosophies, as is reason itself.

I dunno about you but I take a position because it makes logical sense on its own, not because of the association that somebody I'm emotionally sympathetic to takes that position.

I am not going to doubt what you say as I don't know you. However, when Ted Cruz talks about banning flights from West Africa the people who are cheering him aren't doing it because of a logical review of the facts. They are doing it because fear sells. When a teenager decides to end their life, they don't do it because they feel they are too accepted by their peers. If you do indeed take positions only based upon logic, then I would say you are a fairly unique individual. Which does not change the nature of our species.

Emphatically agreed. It's a point I make continually around here.

But that's political rhetoric, not political philosophy. The latter is defined, factually based and rationally expressed for the purpose of directing the political structure; the former is amorphous, implicative, and implies whatever it wants for the purpose of selling the product.

Ok. Let's deal with that specifically. What political philosophy would you say is not emotionally driven?

We're defining terms -- I think ALL philosophies are by definition rational. If they're not rational, then they can't qualify as philosophies. Rhetoric though is just emotional candy as you pointed out; a catchphrase to sell a product (idea or candidate). It's not logical.

Nothing is ever true by definition. Either the definition is correct or it is not, but it only attempts to describe a thing. It does not create the thing. And in response, I would suggest that all philosophies are irrational unless they take into account the fact that human beings actually exist. I'm not sure I've seen a political philosophy which did that.

If all are rational, then pick one at random. Let's look at it.

 

[jwoodie]

Interesting the way this discussion has come around full circle, exemplifying my conclusion that "never the twain shall meet."

But I don't think you ever rationally worked out the left-right brain thing.
I wouldn't mind getting back into that. IMO you've got a conclusion, and it may be valid, but haven't constructed a bridge to it.

My OP wasn't intended as a treatise on brain physiology; rather, it was an observation that Liberals and Conservatives tend to form their conclusions from different thought patterns. As a result, they do not speak the same language when discussing most political issues. This causes Liberals to believe that Conservatives are evil, while Conservatives believe Liberals are stupid. Neither is correct, but these beliefs make consensus an elusive goal.

 

[Rikurzhen]

We're defining terms -- I think ALL philosophies are by definition rational.

There's a difference between rational and rationalized.

Here's a liberal rational position - society shouldn't interfere in what consenting adults do. This position starts with the axiom that an individual knows what is in his best interests better than does society at large. From this axiom is built sexual consent law, then we proceed upwards to homosexual acts not being criminalized, then upwards to homosexual "marriage."

The homosexual "marriage" issue isn't being advanced on rational lines though, it's an emotional issue for most liberals, it signals that they're enlightened, that they're the champions of the downtrodden, it makes them feel good about themselves. The existence of the rational in most cases simply provides ammunition for the rationalizers.

Remember that axiom of consent? Liberals throw it out of the window when it comes to CEO pay and income inequality. A CEO and his board of directors voluntarily agree to a pay package for the CEO. Liberals though are extremely upset about these two private, and CONSENTING, parties are doing and believe that they know better what is in the interests of the shareholders and the CEO. The same applies to a poor person - no one is forcing poor people to stay in jobs which don't pay them what they "deserve." Liberals aren't being guided by reason on this issue either

Liberals can certainly use the tool of reason but they use it principally to rationalize, as in the homosexual "marriage" debate and then they abandon reason altogether in other battles.

Liberal analyst Thomas Frank wrote a book titled "What's the Matter with Kansas?" in which he expressed his bafflement that poor or middle class Kansans weren't crying out for an economic revolution which would provide direct economic gains to them. Those voters voted to support an unequal society, even though they didn't benefit as much from that society, because they understood the gains to society from having such a system and the indirect gains to them from living in such a system. The emotional response would be to have a Soviet Revolution and to seize all of the wealth from the undeserving rich and dole it out to the deserving poor but they chose to forgo these benefits, much to Frank's bafflement.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Yeah. I always laugh at the stupidity when an intolerant, illiberal leftist supports imprisoning a baker for not baking a gay-wedding cake in one sentence, and then supports Islam in the next sentence. I'm like "You know that in many Islamist countries you would be subject to stoning for your first sentence...right?"

These sorts of leftists have abandoned liberalism as their guiding principle, and embraced racialism as their guiding principle. It isn't what is being said that concerns them, only who is saying it, as they give people a free pass as long as they are not white because they are so absolutely fearful of being accused of racism.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The adoption of Liberal or Conservative positions is based more on personal psychology than it is on political philosophy. It has been said that politics is the religion of the Left, but this observation misses an essential point: One's political affinity is really based on which area of the brain is most activated by this subject area.

If one views politics as a problem solving (right brain) activity, the resulting answers will tend to be more "conservative." If one views politics as a therapeutic (left brain) activity, a more "liberal" orientation will emerge. In other words, Conservatives seek answers, while Liberals seek personal ratification. Thus, "never the twain shall meet."

Well you're close... Conservatism is merely the recognition and defense of, the respect for and adherence to the observed principles of nature that govern human behavior... which is typical of the masculine perspective.

While the need for protection, to require others to bear the responsibilities for one's existence, to demand the property of others on the basis of one's subjective need is the feminine perspective.

Conservatism, OKA: Americanism... is the only sustainable means for people to govern themselves... and since the United States rests entirely upon that foundation and we, the Americans reject anything else, refusing any further compromise with the Feminine perspective, in terms of government, we'll be PLAYING THROUGH the Ideological Left, returning the US Culture to its soundly reasoned foundation.

Sadly, in the very near future, the Left's sabotaging of the US Economy will come to fruition... and civil war will likely come as a result of it as the feminized idiots burn down everything around them, through their rage as they watch everything they 'foolishly 'trusted' as truth... turn to dust before their very eyes. They're RIGHTS to the property of others, by virtue of their existence... will finally be seen by them as the fool's errand which is has always been.

I wish that their species of reason had a rational component and I wish that such was not so readily subject to being afflicted by evil... but such is not the case.

Brace yourselves... 'cause we're about to be set upon by a shit-storm the likes of which few of the living have ever witnessed.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

We're defining terms -- I think ALL philosophies are by definition rational.

There's a difference between rational and rationalized.

Here's a liberal rational position - society shouldn't interfere in what consenting adults do. This position starts with the axiom that an individual knows what is in his best interests better than does society at large. From this axiom is built sexual consent law, then we proceed upwards to homosexual acts not being criminalized, then upwards to homosexual "marriage."

The homosexual "marriage" issue isn't being advanced on rational lines though, it's an emotional issue for most liberals, it signals that they're enlightened, that they're the champions of the downtrodden, it makes them feel good about themselves. The existence of the rational in most cases simply provides ammunition for the rationalizers.

Remember that axiom of consent? Liberals throw it out of the window when it comes to CEO pay and income inequality. A CEO and his board of directors voluntarily agree to a pay package for the CEO. Liberals though are extremely upset about these two private, and CONSENTING, parties are doing and believe that they know better what is in the interests of the shareholders and the CEO. The same applies to a poor person - no one is forcing poor people to stay in jobs which don't pay them what they "deserve." Liberals aren't being guided by reason on this issue either

Liberals can certainly use the tool of reason but they use it principally to rationalize, as in the homosexual "marriage" debate and then they abandon reason altogether in other battles.

Liberal analyst Thomas Frank wrote a book titled "What's the Matter with Kansas?" in which he expressed his bafflement that poor or middle class Kansans weren't crying out for an economic revolution which would provide direct economic gains to them. Those voters voted to support an unequal society, even though they didn't benefit as much from that society, because they understood the gains to society from having such a system and the indirect gains to them from living in such a system. The emotional response would be to have a Soviet Revolution and to seize all of the wealth from the undeserving rich and dole it out to the deserving poor but they chose to forgo these benefits, much to Frank's bafflement.

The distinction literally rests in the distinction between the objective and the subjective.

The 'Liberal' mindset rests in relativism. Relativism axiomatically rejects objectivity.

Absent objectivity, there can be no recognition of the Truth, as objectivity is the essential element of truth, just as truth is the essential element of trust.

Objective truth and trust are the essential elements of a soundly reasoned morality and a soundly reasoned morality is essential to Justice.

And THAT is why, wherever you find the Left you will find no recognition of truth, no trust, no morality and no justice.

Which is why in just the 8 short years since the Left came to power in 07, we look around our culture and recognize a scene better suited to a "The Far Side" calendar than 'reality'.

And that is how we can know that the perspective of the Left is that common to Evil and the only result that comes with the tolerance of evil is chaos, calamity and catastrophe. A result we're within months of getting a cultural mouth full... .