Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1
InvisibleKurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
Correctness: (Comparing Ancient Greek vs. Contemporary Politics)
    #23434070 - 07/12/16 05:21 AM (7 years, 6 months ago)

It seems like most definitions of political correctness are usually fluid. Is there a logical definition?

I mean, if someone tells me what it is, I figure it is going to be basically contextual, a matter of "he said she said", based on the political spectrum that is difficult to get to the bottom of, assuming there is something to get down to.

What seems to be at face value by definition a matter of formality, in how we speak, or what even seems to be just an issue of semantics, in political correctness, is itself a call to arms in politics today. It is a swampy territory wherever anyone stands. What is it?

Seriously considered, how is the way we talk - whether we call this our concern or inconcern in "political correctness" - so important, one way or another, and apparently substantive to a present anglo-american political scene? All I can think to say is this is amazing in one way. Political correctness is not an issue of any policy. But it is a huge and present issue, with whatever irony to us, of how people formally or informally express whatever point they would like to make, and on many people's minds.

So I am trying to get what the general or underlying logic of this discussion is if there is one? Can a general form of logic be distinguished from the gossip? I don't think it is a mistake to look to the possibility of something substantive in this.

I'd venture there seems to be a real issue to speak of, a crisis, even, in the bearing of western liberal values, in respect to an increasingly connected, diverse world. People are responding in different ways.

What is western value? What is authenticity? The first thing to say about this western person's ideals, is that it can be positively acknowledged, in spite of whatever assumption we make of its ubiquity, or universality, at the same time. In other words, we speak of some very high ideals of justice, of rational society, and rights of human beings, and their common tribunal, truth and falsity, and right and wrong, as implicitly foundational to all discussions. Assumptions of platonic "universals", go back to our Greco-Roman antiquity.

Relativism, had respectively been considered dangerous to antiquity as well. That is what the so called sophists, or overly sophisticated wisemen had adopted, as an ethic (or rather implicitly as lack of ethic in the pejorative sense). These "sophists" were usually well traveled round the world, and came and went from the Greek City states, with less concern for a peoples particular values. They were accused of rhetoric, to "make the weaker argument win". Strictly speaking, they were rightly accused of this, because this was an explicit teaching of of many sophists. When one could make the weaker argument win, one was a decent rhetorician. The goal was to please and convince a crowd. Granted that is not what a relativistic discussion necessarily is in every case, but that is a way you can get the two poles, true/false right/wrong, a semblence of dialogue, without a platonic ideal. It could be that some relativists got a bad rap.

I think this sketch could be significant to the contemporary discussion in one way. If there is any example to be seen in this western philosophical tradition, it would seem that a projected ideal (Platonism, ethical-philosophical "justice") assumed the high ground, and the relativists or sophists, were somewhat unconcerned or unburdened by this, or any particular values according to their relativism.

I would observe in our political scene today, things are the other way around. At least, this seems enough to be the case, to reasonably say so. The high ground is supposedly in relativism. Another difference in our society is in the clear polarization of the invective. An accusation of political correctness, is something which typically comes from one side of a political spectrum, the right, which it typically accuses the left of.

It is true that the political landscape has changed, but if the goal that is voiced by conservative politicians is authenticity, what does this mean in a positive sense? I think these are values implicit to us (eg. authenticity, "western liberal values") but how?

Maybe they are there to think about pragmatically. Maybe it is indeed our rationalism, that we balance out relativism by as the Greek polis implied. The virtues and the significance of a singular tribunal in westerner's rationality, are without a doubt crucial to the whole world, today, and also at the same time they are being pressed on. If Plato is any example, they are universal, as much as we project them by standard (the form of the good, the form of justice, etc). We do this by necessity, for any semblence of civil dialogue in our consideration, generally and it is our way. We can expect this way to be pressed on.

Whether it is in terms of culture or socio-economical structure, historical development, or philosophy, the dialogues we have between an east and west, are in some sense significantly and importantly relative. If rationality would be a response in dialogue, it would suggest not just the implied premise, (for example, "common sense" or traditional values) but ability to adapt and think in greater intelligence and depth, ie. rationality in a more practical sense. Could this be significant? In other words I think the appeal to western values should be intellectual. This is significant to say in general, I'd argue, because westerners are called to something nobody today can well grapple with, in the implications of its self created history. We are involved and historically intermeshed with the world, and particularly the middle east (and vice versa no doubt). It is true that one dimensional apologetics, and "relativism" aren't themselves an effective solution, but it seems to me, that is not the point. We are only more pressed on our own terms to smarter and pragmatic solutions.

My question to the forum, is what is political correctness to you?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleairclay
Morbid and Wrong
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/13/11
Posts: 2,788
Loc: Texas
Re: Correctness: (Comparing Ancient Greek vs. Contemporary Politics) [Re: Kurt]
    #23434139 - 07/12/16 06:24 AM (7 years, 6 months ago)

I think you hit on a good point here that translates well into modern partisanship

Quote:

I think this sketch could be significant to the contemporary discussion in one way. If there is any example to be seen in this western philosophical tradition, it would seem that a projected ideal (Platonism, ethical-philosophical "justice") assumed the high ground, and the relativists or sophists, were somewhat unconcerned or unburdened by this, or any particular values according to their relativism.




I need to read this again and spend more time digesting it to reply tho.


--------------------
Give no fucks, take no orders, smash the prisons and the borders. Circle that A motherfucker!


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
Re: Correctness: (Comparing Ancient Greek vs. Contemporary Politics) [Re: airclay]
    #23434930 - 07/12/16 01:15 PM (7 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

airclay said:
I think you hit on a good point here that translates well into modern partisanship

Quote:

I think this sketch could be significant to the contemporary discussion in one way. If there is any example to be seen in this western philosophical tradition, it would seem that a projected ideal (Platonism, ethical-philosophical "justice") assumed the high ground, and the relativists or sophists, were somewhat unconcerned or unburdened by this, or any particular values according to their relativism.




I need to read this again and spend more time digesting it to reply tho.




Appreciate the read and response.

I'd venture the same issues seem to rise through history whenever you consider the most general view of our dialogues, and that was what I was getting at. It is interesting that if we can take an example from philosophical rationalism, even by that consideration, it never was really a fundamentally consistent process exactly, a case of just the true thesis against the false, working its way out.

Relativism always presented itself as a basic challenge for philosophy, and no doubt as in its own way, this has itself played out in history, again and again, thematically. We basically accept it as part of the essential social dialogue. For example, maybe "realistically" speaking, we all have a partiality to left or right, and we lean in on these sides, whenever we express what is true or false to us. There is this tendency anyway. We object to these politics, and yet we must apparently be partial to them, practically speaking.

It seems to me that what we are able to study as politics, in one sense, is the inclusion and theme of this radical relative element, in dialogue over history. What I wanted to contribute here, is a proposition (mostly just as a basis of insight), in these terms, that if a philosophical tradition, or "rationalism" is what is directly appealed to as an example of liberal values, we can clearly see it has remained mostly constant and generally conservative. With whatever basis, moral relativism has traditionally been considered to be the low, sophistic, or immoral position that only obstinantly cropped up through history, all the way down to philosophers like Nietzsche, and the world historical events of the first half of the 20th century. Admittedly, then, it became a lot more difficult to understand the world and ideology, but this was a long time coming.

How relativity and flexibility of views gradually shifted (with whatever partialities) from basic sophistry, to be considered as the ideal, or de facto, ethical high ground is something that could be seen with this backdrop of this broader history. From the latter half of the 20th century, to Alan Bloom's statement of skepticism to political correctness, to a current dialogue and political movement with popular appeal, we can see through these strata as relatively isolated statements. Historically considered, things have actually almost never been this way. But then the world was never so complicated and diverse in its many conflicting elements as today, right here and right now.

I guess it's just my two cents, and I don't feel it is any groundbreaking suggestion, but I wonder if we could look to move from the obligatory partisanship of the divide to actually consider these poles differently, in these basic elements; of philosophical rationality and relativism. If philosophy is any example of western culture, this interplay seems to structure the poles of dialogue.


Edited by Kurt (07/12/16 03:08 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblemillzy
Male

Registered: 05/12/10
Posts: 12,404
Re: Correctness: (Comparing Ancient Greek vs. Contemporary Politics) [Re: Kurt]
    #23435201 - 07/12/16 03:11 PM (7 years, 6 months ago)

thoughtful post op. i've broken down my response into the three main areas you seem to be discussing.

I. while many attribute 'platonism' to plato himself, it is a tad more modern; the neo-platonists promoted ontological models - models of reality itself - using plato's ideas, going back to about the 6th century. contemporary scholarship on plato promotes the view that the models were epistemological - models for knowing reality. think of them as tools for solving various types of problems. for example, if you need to circle a square, use pi. if you need to sort out a political or ethical issue, seek the forms and pursue the good. it's quite intuitive. most of us are platonist whether we admit it or not.

II. while relativism dominates much of our political life, it is ultimately untenable. nobody who seriously studies ethics defends it. here's the relativist argument's basic form.

1. it is good to be tolerant.
2. relativism is true.
3. the best way to be tolerant is through relativism.
therefore, you should be relativist.

premise 1 assumes objective good exists (i.e. 'it is good") while premise 2 assumes that objective universals do not (i.e. "relativism is true"). the argument for relativism is invalid and unsound.

i'm hesitant to draw the connection between the sophists and our world. the sophists were, at the very most, a class of for-profit tutors who espoused relativistic attitudes. the relativism of today is more systemic, doctrinal. it persists because it benefits those in power. take, for example, the business world: the endless cycle of mergers, layoffs and increasingly precarious conditions for workers is justified through the 'free market' ideology of elites, who operate under the central belief that companies - whose sole purpose is to earn profits - are amoral entities, set apart from the real world of human affairs.

what's always amused me is to hear about some of these elites never missing church on sundays while perpetuating mass suffering monday through friday. the fact that lower level workers imitate elites by espousing the very ideas that injure them is no less ironic. but that's what pernicious belief systems do: they disconnect us from reality while we do harm, even if, perhaps especially if, it's to ourselves.

III. 'pc culture' is a pejorative term used to describe overly policed speech. it's a perversion of well intentions. a big component of the problem, at least to me, is fascism. being open minded is just not easy for most people. antiquity was no different; plato's political models - if taken literally - are extremely fascist; aristotle's aren't much better.


--------------------
I'm up to my ears in unwritten words. - J.D. Salinger


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
Re: Correctness: (Comparing Ancient Greek vs. Contemporary Politics) [Re: millzy]
    #23436485 - 07/12/16 11:12 PM (7 years, 6 months ago)

Hey engaging post, yourself. I'll try to hit all your points. Apologies for the length. I tend to try to be exhaustive, rather than concise. :-)

Quote:

while many attribute 'platonism' to plato himself, it is a tad more modern; the neo-platonists promoted ontological models - models of reality itself - using plato's ideas, going back to about the 6th century. contemporary scholarship on plato promotes the view that the models were epistemological - models for knowing reality. think of them as tools for solving various types of problems. for example, if you need to circle a square, use pi. if you need to sort out a political or ethical issue, seek the forms and pursue the good. it's quite intuitive. most of us are platonist whether we admit it or not.





Interesting take on Plato. I think I might be on the similar page. I'd say we seem to associate basically, and yet broadly with the philosophical dialogue in Plato, somehow. For instance, his dialogues have probably inspired most, if not all the branches of philosophy we can think of. To your point, I agree, and appreciate the informative historical sensibility you suggested. What I think is similar. Sure, we could imagine that the "view" attributed to Plato in contemplation of forms, implies abstract being, and beings, and that is not a misinterpretation. Form is primordial, and basic to Plato.but I would also say that Plato is not explicit to make this his own assumption. So I agree that he is not particularly inclined to what we might call ontology. It is broader association, and the going between reified thought or shadows on the cave wall, and the light of day that I see in Plato. "What is" appears to Plato more in the rational dialogue, in truth and falsity, of appearance in this sensibility. Asyou say, it is probably what we would tend to intepret pragmatically as epistemological pursuit. Plato is in a certain sense epistemologically basic, and I agree with your insight there too. But I would add, he is also pretty ethical thinker, at the same time. Perhaps it would not be a statement of knowledge, for Plato, that was basic, but the priority and virtue of knowledge? In any case, Plato debates aside, as you mentioned yourself, ethics and "the good" was at least part of his concern.

So I think I am agreeing with you here. In some provision, we broadly and basically associate with something in Plato. What I suggested was what we consider universal in ideals like rational society, or justice. I would also say the loose sense of Plato's stance which we can relate to is not abstract, in form, but in the dialectic method he championed. In Plato's sense, what is so broad and basic to us, I think can be seen in how principled or rational dialogue is foundational to human society. Yes he had a political inkling or two.

Quote:


II. while relativism dominates much of our political life, it is ultimately untenable. nobody who seriously studies ethics defends it. here's the relativist argument's basic form.

1. it is good to be tolerant.
2. relativism is true.
3. the best way to be tolerant is through relativism.
therefore, you should be relativist.

premise 1 assumes objective good exists (i.e. 'it is good") while premise 2 assumes that objective universals do not (i.e. "relativism is true"). the argument for relativism is invalid and unsound.





Ah right to pandoras box then, a grand old time. I respect that! :-)

This is a good point, and worth impressing, particularly in the relavence you suggest. Your argument reminds me of some of the quick and dirty philosophy proofs against relativism, and yet it is interesting to see it put in these terms of political correctness, and I take it basically you are saying the same thing. Here we have a basic reductio ad absurdum - It's like the ground comes right out up from under people who claim things are relative. I always found the classic philosophical arguments a bit stilted and absolutist. Things aren't relative because it is the way the world is, but because we are practically limited in our capacities to know things, and this is effectively reality, or because this is a living element in our social dialogues. This is something people usually figure out, and can argue with more or less nuance. For example, I appreciate a maxim of "perspectivism" (basically a Nietzschean View):

"This means that there are many possible conceptual schemes, or perspectives in which judgment of truth or value can be made. This is often taken to imply that no way of seeing the world can be taken as definitively "true", but does not necessarily entail that all perspectives are equally valid."

While I think that's important to maintain the rational argument, I have never been able to help but see that these arguments against relativism are not really too convincing. Yours is actually much more convincing, in the terms you draw it, (for instance, in finding the relativists relying on the assumption of goodness). That is a sound argument, but then it is not exhaustive. Relativism can be seen more as the element of dissolution (eg. nihilism) in the implicit framework of Platonic ideals. It is not rational, or ideal, but just what happens for humans. Many people, like Nietzscheans, aren't arguing that relativism or having an open perspective and living according to this, is itself a classical platonic assertion of truth. That platonic ideal itself could be examined a bit in general on its own terms.

It is not like we practically build up our world from a clean slate, or upon a few given premises. There is social and historical contexts which are complicated and embedded and inmeshed and intertwined. The bare schematic of argument, is not the condition of the world that speaks, even ideally as nature, just our practical way of thinking, and breaking down thoughts as best as we can when we come to them. The world itself is not just rational, or logical in other words. We project that. We also address an empirical, or experience based reality, and here reality and especially our relative human realities, are more impinging on us, upon their edges, more than in their bases and centers or supposedly consistent and intellgible foundations.

Hopefully you understand in part I am stepping into devils advocate, because I think the argument is sound for what it stands forin the premises you suggested. I think it speaks to our contemporary political reality, I would just say that this doesn't wrap everything up.  When someone says things are relative, the issue is not in truth or falsity of what is being said in a classical rational sense. What is relativity? Well, what is something relative to what? Sometimes perspective, and as such what stands to be considered as human being's truth, is relative to a way of being. Naturally most relativism, is not a strict logic and not absolute, in this sense but it is not unsound.

For example (and sticking with philosophical examples) I can state for pretty much a fact of the world that the ontological and epistemelogical assumptions of a westerner, and how they inform a particular idea of consciousness, and how we gather things about the world according to this, is pretty different and almost irreconcilable to the way a yogi or buddhist monk might conceive things. A concept of mind and body, and consciousness that is basic to our western view of the world, was a rationalization and construct of modern philosophy in the 17th century, for a hindu the view of consciousness is not an artificial rationalization, a development to modernity, and a cognitive attitude, but a way of life that goes back to the axial age. It is very easy to see the incommensurability of dialogue between eastern and western philosophers, on this dualism of mind and body. What is considered basic to one kind of person, like something to just wrap your hand around, like nature, is different to another.

Of course, I will be the first to admit it is much more convenient to say this about philosophy, than a socio-political realities. But this is what people speak to, when they say things are relative to a way of life. Where we have such an obligation to be pragmatic, and keep the peace, we obviously can't just dwell on theories, and conceptual differences. I am only saying that these analogies speak to something potentially important.

The sophist Protagoras wrote "human beings are the measure of all things". It means that by a burden we can recognize humans will invariably attune their understanding of nature, and their idolizations, and their gods, in a resemblence of themselves. The locus of relativity (of always being relative to something) does not mainly reach out necessarily, but also speaks to the flipside namely, of what isn't always groundable, by the ubiquitous and implied Platonic ideal. If you want a pragmatic expression, of this it is taking human rationale in piecemeal (relativity is like dialectic) and what we realistically get from our human dialogues, in a kind of grapple, particularly when the ends don't always meet. I wouldn't really expect anyone to take this on argument though. Really it is a skepticism, to our implicit Platonism.

Quote:


i'm hesitant to draw the connection between the sophists and our world. the sophists were, at the very most, a class of for-profit tutors who espoused relativistic attitudes. the relativism of today is more systemic, doctrinal.





Here I would say I agree and I would say I am conscious that the philosophical-socio political connection is an analogy. Critics do basically say that the attitude behind excessive relativism today, of political correctness, is something overly "sophisticated" and irresponsible. It is systemic today, and that is different. Still at the same time I would be heartened to see a critique could come down to intellectual stances, which maintain these institutions, since after all since, we construct reality. It is true though that assumptions and prejudices can harden into beuaracratic structure and institutions and just how they function as machines.

Quote:


It persists because it benefits those in power. take, for example, the business world: the endless cycle of mergers, layoffs and increasingly precarious conditions for workers is justified through the 'free market' ideology of elites, who operate under the central belief that companies - whose sole purpose is to earn profits - are amoral entities, set apart from the real world of human affairs.

what's always amused me is to hear about some of these elites never missing church on sundays while perpetuating mass suffering monday through friday. the fact that lower level workers imitate elites by espousing the very ideas that injure them is no less ironic. but that's what pernicious belief systems do: they disconnect us from reality while we do harm, even if, perhaps especially if, it's to ourselves.





I kind of lost you on the logic of your point about relativism, but I get what you are saying. For example, an engineer works and does his job, and lives a family life, and it is all nuts and bolts. Marketing does its job, and finds someone to sell to. It sells to a department of defense. The military does its job, protecting and defending the engineers and marketers, who are not considered part of the goals of the military but just doing their jobs. They are just protected from mortal threats, or what they happen to feel threatened by in their safe existence. The term Hannah Arendt used to describe evils of the modern world, was just banality.

Quote:


III. 'pc culture' is a pejorative term used to describe overly policed speech. it's a perversion of well intentions. a big component of the problem, at least to me, is fascism. being open minded is just not easy for most people. antiquity was no different; plato's political models - if taken literally - are extremely fascist; aristotle's aren't much better.





Interesting... I am not sure how literally I take Plato. The soul writ large. Aristotle could be kind of a tyrant as I understand some of his views, but also just a very systematic or heirarchical and basically cold thinker. Anyway...

Thanks for the response and perspective.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Hitler V Saddam
( 1 2 all )
germin8tionn8ion 4,258 28 07/03/04 09:20 AM
by Ed1
* Blair accused by Greeks of crimes against humanity wingnutx 622 7 07/29/03 01:28 PM
by luvdemshrooms
* Prof Won't Back Down On Comparing WTC Victims To Nazis
( 1 2 3 4 all )
RandalFlagg 3,890 62 02/03/05 10:27 PM
by Mushmonkey
* Textbooks and Political Correctness Phred 819 17 08/19/03 06:44 AM
by Phred
* Mushrooms v. murder: Sentences in Kansas don't fit toxick 1,072 3 12/02/03 07:27 PM
by Learyfan
* Got hassled by cops. Need to know what corrective action I should take as an American.
( 1 2 3 all )
Baby_Hitler 3,768 52 12/15/04 12:11 AM
by Divided_Sky
* Israel v Palestine: who is right?
( 1 2 3 all )
Phalanxx 3,823 50 06/10/03 03:36 PM
by Phalanxx
* Political Correctness? RandalFlagg 654 7 09/22/03 03:24 PM
by monoamine

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
355 topic views. 1 members, 6 guests and 3 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.022 seconds spending 0.006 seconds on 14 queries.