Time To Abandon The Terms "Left" And "Right"

[deke t lefel]

No they're not. They are a substitute for independent thought.

Take for example.... oh I don't know... the issue of God. As we see here on a regular basis, when this issue comes up, most people on the Left simply think to themselves: "God = right wing: Me = left wing: Ergo God = Bad."

And this occurs with regard to a huge range of issues, thus effectively preventing people from thinking "outside the box."

in the seating arrangement of parliament during the French revolution the supporters of the monarchy, the aristocracy and the church sat on the right and the commoners sat on the left

this seating arrangement originated from the belief that the position of honour in heaven is on the right hand of god

the left hand was traditionally associated with sinister and the devil and the right hand associated with dexter and god

so, if anything, throughout most of recent history right has been interpreted as errr....right and left has been interpreted as wrong

 

[gorski]

You will never learn, Jonti: you can not know "reality" from an absolute perspective/standpoint but from a Human one and an individual, [in your case especially] limited singular, short perspective which depends on many things, from your basic capabilities and leanings, to schooling, languages spoken, books read, school of thought you are belonging to etc. etc.

As for effective engagement with the world: we all hope we can. There are many intelligent people who think otherwise...

But being Human means we can also do wrong. Even badly wrong!!!

Only time will tell...

 

[Jonti]

you can not know "reality" from an absolute perspective

where did I say you can?

I said, "there is such a thing as reality".

So why get your knickers in a twist like a postmodernist twit!

 

[revol68]

where did I say you can?

I said, "there is such a thing as reality".

So why get your knickers in a twist like a postmodernist twit!

who on earth doesn't think there is such a thing as reality, the issue with what you said is the notion of 'objective social conditions' which is positivist shit.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Forgive me for sounding thick, but what are 'objective social conditions'?

 

[Jonti]

Just call them social facts, if you prefer.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Eg?

 

[Jonti]

How about the distribution of wealth? That's the sort of thing I have in mind.

 

[revol68]

Just call them social facts, if you prefer.

in what sense are they objective though, surely they are inherently subjective, requiring as they a perspective within such conditions themselves.

like i said it's positivist crap.

 

[danny la rouge]

i claim theyre to the left of the other two and the centre has mover to the right in relative terms.

What does God say, that's what I want to know.

We know He says Jesus is a right winger. (Romans 8:34, Matthew 22:44).

 

[revol68]

How about the distribution of wealth? That's the sort of thing I have in mind.

beyond anything more banal than jumped up accountancy you're going to run into difficulties and even then the whole notion of wealth , currency, inflation, interest, stock portfolio's etc all rest upon subjectivity.

fuck money itself is worthless outside of peoples belief in it.

 

[Jonti]

money itself is worthless outside of peoples belief in it

this much is true; but it's also true that that belief works, and not all beliefs work

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Something can be both contingent and objective, though, revol, as in 'as long as confidence in the currency continues, I'm rich because I have all this money'.

 

[revol68]

this much is true; but it's also true that that belief works, and not all beliefs work

yes, so you have to look at the social forces that uphold belief in money and these aren't simply objective facts.

the notion of objective social conditions is absurd and counter productive to trying to understand how society functions, there should be no shame or embarrassment that attempts to develop such knowledge are always roooted in a subjective perspective within the very conditions one seeks to grasp, and that the very struggle to understand them infact changes them.

dialectics mutha fucka do you do them?

 

[revol68]

Something can be both contingent and objective, though, revol, as in 'as long as confidence in the currency continues, I'm rich because I have all this money'.

subjectivity becomes reified as objective fact...

basic marxism.

 

[Jonti]

waffle ...
dialectics mutha fucka do you do them?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Yes, you have a point. Hard to tell a poor person who's run out of money that their poverty is a subjective fact, though. There are conditions in which, given certain subjective assumptions, it is useful then to talk of objective reality.

given a is true, it follows that b is true.

You can build a whole, consistent logical system like that. As long as you remember that it is built on said assumptions, it is practically useful to talk without constant reference to them. Otherwise you won't get far.

 

[Jonti]

* applauds

 

[revol68]

Yes, you have a point. Hard to tell a poor person who's run out of money that their poverty is a subjective fact, though. There are conditions in which, given certain subjective assumptions, it is useful then to talk of objective reality.

given a is true, it follows that b is true.

You can build a whole, consistent logical system like that. As long as you remember that it is built on said assumptions, it is practically useful to talk without constant reference to them. Otherwise you won't get far.

oh of course, a world in which we constantly qualified our every sentence like Judith Butler would be hell, and of course unworkable. A doctor who waffled on about the history of science and the social contingent nature of our concept of disease before adding "and so if one is working on those assumptions I can say that, again within that discursive field of play, you have cancer" would be due a good kicking.

But in the context of a discussion about post modernism and reality it is only reasonable to take someone to task for the claim that there is objective social conditions.

 

[revol68]

it's far from waffle, infact it's pretty clear what i'm saying.

if it's over your head that's your own problem.

 

[Jonti]

You're like a comedy character out of life of Brian ...

Help! Help! I'm being oppressed. He said objective

Amusing enough, but quite useless for practical purposes.

 

[phildwyer]

this much is true; but it's also true that that belief works, and not all beliefs work

You wot? Belief in money "works?" It doesn't work for me. What do you think it works for?

 

[gorski]

Here are Jonti's rather "learned" and "considered" musings on the "nature" of science, his "methodology" [deep insights ] and "gnoseology"... Please, note that his "small and rather a few assumptions are by no means 'values' and 'ideological' in any sense"... I suppose it's all just "common sense" that whatever works is - well, right... whatever that means...

But he is sooooo innocent of anything critically minded re. positivism and pragmatism that we can not dump it all on him. Rather, I blame it on the education system...

As for the fact he is refusing to "pick up ANY stuff" from us, on a forum like this one... Oh, well... some people just like to waste their time on Earth and would rather not touch their prejudices, for fear of.... faaaaallllliiiinnngggg [apart... which means "too much hard work, so better not"...]...

To be clear on terminology, humans are animals!

Yes, it is difficult to formulate a definition of instinct which can be theoretically defended against all possible criticisms; indeed it is difficult to come up with scientific theories which are similarly invulnerable. This is not such a problem as may at first appear, for science is a practical art, so we can, arguably must, form judgments about our definitions and theories on pragmatic grounds.

This may seem unsatisfactory to those approaching questions about the human animal from the direction of the humanities or political theory. But, if the resultant science works well enough, the difficulty lies more in understanding why the science is successful, not with the science as such.

There's a fairly full discussion of the meaning of instinct and the difficulties in precisely pinning it down at http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Instinct

From here: http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=208276&highlight=evolutionary+psychology&page=2

 

[Jonti]

You wot? Belief in money "works?" It doesn't work for me. What do you think it works for?

Bankers, mainly.

 

[Jonti]

To be clear on terminology, humans are animals!

So, gorski, do you believe this is true?

 

[Blagsta]

I really don't see 'left' or 'right wing' anymore. It is such a distraction. Pro/anti civil liberties is so much more important, as is not being America's bitch with foreign policy. More still, pro/anti our current banking system.

"democracy is the best political system money can buy"

That's 'cos you're firmly on the right.

 

[Blagsta]

yeah, right wing is usually accepted as being capitalist and left wing as communist

liberal is usually described as left wing although can be right wing
conservative is usually described as right wing although can be left wing
socialism is usually described as left wing although can be right wing
fascism is usually described as right wing although can be left wing
anarchy is usually described as left wing although can be right wing
elitism is usually described as right wing although can be left wing

it'll take more than two wings for this lot to fly!

 

[deke t lefel]

oh dear! did that give you a headache.......nevermind

 

[Blagsta]

no headache here just despair at another idiot

 

[revol68]

no headache here just despair at another idiot

I dunno, his point was pretty damn deep.