Hot Buttons- Political A quick reference to social darwinism and Hurricane Katrina and then something you might find interesting.
The tv in the shop is on and I caught the tail end of an interview of a mid 30's female survivor. The main thread of discussion was her husband, who didn't make it through the flood. She tried to get her husband to leave, but he apparently would have none of it. Judging by her appearance, I'll attempt to extrapolate the conversation.
Alright, I promised something better... and here it is- I'm still reading The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature. I would have had it finished by now if not for doing a ton of work before I went up to NC to finish Level Two GPTP. Anyway, every now and then Stephen Pinker will kick me right in the face and I'll make a note to post a related topic in my blog. Here are some excerpts from his chapter on politics. I'll just post them and see where the comments lead...
Pinker believes that liberalism and conservatism are "not just political belief systems but empirical ones, rooted in different conceptions of human nature." THIS is where things start to get interesting and why I decided to dedicate a post to it. He proposes that (I'll name drop some dead white men for you philosophiles) where you fall on the political spectrum is a result of your adherence to either the vision of man proposed by Edmund Burke or William Godwin.
In the Burke secular conservativist model (referred to as the Tragic Vision by Thomas Sowell) "humans are inherently limited in knowledge, wisdom, and virtue, and all social arrangements must acknowlege those limits." Contrasted is the "Utopian Model" where "psychological limitations are artifacts that come from our social arrangements, and we should not allow them to restrict our gaze from what is possibly in a better world."
Furthermore, in the Tragic Vision,
Notice how inside the club is and how low my left shoulder has dropped
At least I can get back to here... 1000 bonus points to anyone who can tell me why I hit it low left
The tv in the shop is on and I caught the tail end of an interview of a mid 30's female survivor. The main thread of discussion was her husband, who didn't make it through the flood. She tried to get her husband to leave, but he apparently would have none of it. Judging by her appearance, I'll attempt to extrapolate the conversation.
Her- "Let's leave!"Cue Hurricane Katrina and see the gene pool improve before your eyes.
Him- "Fuck that, I gotta case a Bud heavy in the fridge and you don't have any days off left at Wal-Mart."
Her- "It's going to flood! and you can't swim!"
Him- "Move Bitch! I can't see the race!" *SLAP*
Alright, I promised something better... and here it is- I'm still reading The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature. I would have had it finished by now if not for doing a ton of work before I went up to NC to finish Level Two GPTP. Anyway, every now and then Stephen Pinker will kick me right in the face and I'll make a note to post a related topic in my blog. Here are some excerpts from his chapter on politics. I'll just post them and see where the comments lead...
"Social psychologists have found that with divisive moral issues, especially those on which liberals and conservatives disagree, all combatants are intuitively certain they are correct and that their opponents have ugly ulterior motives. They argue out of respect for the social convention that one should always provide reasons for one's opinions but when an argument is refuted, they don't change their minds but work harder to find a replacement argument. Moral debates, far from resolving hostilities, can escalate them, because when people on the other side don't immediately capitulate, it only proves they are impervious to reason."That may be, but regardless of whether I can penetrate the illogical fog surrounding Charles and J. Morgan on issues such as taxation or the Iraq War (which I DON'T want to discuss in this post) I still enjoy trying.
Pinker believes that liberalism and conservatism are "not just political belief systems but empirical ones, rooted in different conceptions of human nature." THIS is where things start to get interesting and why I decided to dedicate a post to it. He proposes that (I'll name drop some dead white men for you philosophiles) where you fall on the political spectrum is a result of your adherence to either the vision of man proposed by Edmund Burke or William Godwin.
In the Burke secular conservativist model (referred to as the Tragic Vision by Thomas Sowell) "humans are inherently limited in knowledge, wisdom, and virtue, and all social arrangements must acknowlege those limits." Contrasted is the "Utopian Model" where "psychological limitations are artifacts that come from our social arrangements, and we should not allow them to restrict our gaze from what is possibly in a better world."
Furthermore, in the Tragic Vision,
"human nature has not changed. Traditions such as religion, the family, social customs, sexual mores, and political institutions are a distillation of time-tested techniques that let us work around the shortcomings of human nature... The tragic vision looks to systems that produce desirable outcomes even when no member of the system is particularly wise or virtuous. Market economies, in this vision, accomplish that goal... no mastermind has to understand the intricate flow of goods and services that make up an economy in order to anticipate who needs what, when, and where."In the Utopian Vision,
"human nature changes with social circumstances, so traditional institutions have no inherent value. Traditions are the dead hand of the past, an attempt to rule from the grave... moreover, the existence of suffering and injustice presents us with an undeniable moral imperative. We don't know what we can achieve until we try, and the alternative, resigning ourselves to these evils as the way of the world, is unconscionable... People with the Utopian Vision point to market failures that can result from having a blind faith in free markets. They also call attention to the unjust distribution of wealth that tends to be produced by free markets."Apparently, conservatives (hereby referred to as "Tragicians") assume the worst about an individuals in general, whereas "Utopians" are reversed. Standingoutinthecold took a beating (I think I remember something along this line) for suggesting that liberals are the more illogical, crazy dreamers looking for utopia, and that conservatives are the more grounded, pragmatic realists. However, if the above explanation holds true, it would follow that there is more truth to his assumption than previously allowed.
Ah, shit- it's Friday. Now I'm going to have to wait until Monday for any action on this post. And uh... here is what's wrong with my golf swing.
Notice how inside the club is and how low my left shoulder has dropped
At least I can get back to here... 1000 bonus points to anyone who can tell me why I hit it low left posted by Justin at 2:51 PM 
6 Comments:
Jacks - great post and I think you are definitely on to something. It might be too easy to characterize liberal's philosophy of human nature as "people are good" vs. conservative's "people are evil", but there is certainly something to it. I think capitalism's success is mainly due to its correct understanding of human nature. People are not inherently go-getters (in general), so there needs to be incentives. Now if we were all like St. Francis maybe the Utopian model would work. But then we might spend most of our time preaching to birds, small rocks, or churches.
I don't know about the golf swing, maybe too much weight transfer to your left foot? That's what makes me turn the club head over the top and results in a nice low screamer. Worms, look out!
Hey, I'm reading "The Blank Slate" too! Awesome! I bought the last clearance copy at Borders the other day for $4--it was perhaps the greatest triumph of this summer. I'm really enjoying it, and largely agreeing with everything he has to say. I take his point to be that the advancers of human rights hold to the blank slate conception of human nature because they think losing it would entail losing the progress they have made as well. Devastatingly insightful. I'm going to have to read it 3 or 4 times to get everything out of it.
Here's my comment on your post. The tragic vision and the utopian vision don't exhaust the possibilities--that's like telling me in a house full of food that I can have either chicken or beef for dinner. What if I want pork? I believe that there IS a human nature, but ALSO that are standards of decency are evolving. For example, imagine suggesting to a blacksmith in the 1850s that he should provide comprehensive health care for his employees. That would have been ridiculous. It's not anymore--it's ridiculous to take a job that doesn't provide health care if you can get one that does. I believe that capitalism, with a few controls, is the best and only viable economic system. For me, conservatives rightly acknowledge (unlike the more radical proponents of the blank slate, who mistakenly believe that their points of view depend on it) that we have a human nature, but liberals point out that our STANDARDS can evolve (and I think it's incontrovertible that they have.) Liberals who believe that evil is found ONLY in social structures are naive and ridiculous. Conservatives who think that there should be no controls on capitalism are heartless.
Join the progressives, jackscolon, and we can rule the galaxy as...corporate tool and golfer?
Another thought I just had. I think that conservatism in practice tends to contradict conservatism in theory, just as liberalism in practice contradicts liberalism in theory. If people are evil and government is inefficient, why in the world do we have a state army? And on the flip side, if people are basically good, why do we need welfare and social security?
Thoughts on this? Am I on to something?
Nice! Only now I won't be able to take him out of context... and I refuse your offer to join the dark side, provided the dark we are talking about is defined as this.
Ok, first- I'll concede your point but dispute your example. I don't really think health care is an example of human decency, perhaps a better example would be the modern aversion to slavery.
Unfortunately, I don't think you are on to anything. A military governed by the state is one of the main roles, if not THE main role, of government- as it exists to protect the people.
And well, I don't think people are basically good- but that doesn't mean the logical extension of that is welfare or social security. The government's role is to protect the people from outside agencies, not themselves.
If people are basically evil, how can you NOT have an army?? I understand what you're saying, Chuck - that our army would be an extension of that evil. But the conservative assumption would be that while people are inherently flawed and their goodness not to be trusted to, they can be united in common interest towards a necessary cause (national security), and, with the necessary checks and balances in place, that evil put in check. Conservativism doesn't say people are ultimately and entirely evil - just that left to their own devices, people will choose greed over honesty. We need an army because other nations will have them, and we have to assume that they might choose to advance themselves by our detriment, ESPECIALLY since so many other nations have armies WITHOUT the checks and balances we use in this country to try to prevent the natural greed of one or several person from taking control.
The answer to the golf question is simpler than you might expect. The face of the club is closed (delofted and points left).
Post a Comment
<< Home