Kevin's Watch

+JMJ+

ussusimiel wrote:If I understand you properly then you believe that rational discourse/debate is pointless.

So, if rational discourse is not "capable of discerning first principles and deducing final conclusions without any surd of the irrational left over ...", then the only other option is pointlessness? What was that about false dichotomizing?

Wosbald wrote:+JMJ+

ussusimiel wrote:If I understand you properly then you believe that rational discourse/debate is pointless.

So, if rational discourse is not "capable of discerning first principles and deducing final conclusions without any surd of the irrational left over ...", then the only other option is pointlessness? What was that about false dichotomizing?

My phrasing was poor there, further down I qualified 'rational discourse/debate', to 'useful political discussion/debate/discourse'.

If my point is still an inaccurate reflection of your position then please feel free to correct me. (Just to be clear, part of my purpose with this is to continue to explore how we can engage in what you consider to be a useful political discussion.)

u.

+JMJ+

ussusimiel wrote:Just to be clear, part of my purpose with this is to continue to explore how we can engage in what you consider to be a useful political discussion.

You said it yourself in your first post on this thread:

ussusimiel wrote:On a number of occasions when a topic has been fully discussed and at least two positions have been shown to be valid the people holding those two positions have (as Fist alludes to) recognised that their differing starting premises/beliefs are based on their own personal preferences and may actually be a form of expression of their differing characters. This is an overt recognition that irrational/irreducible elements are at play even in the most hyper-rational of debates.

So, sometimes, when it becomes (painfully?) obvious, Tankers may well concede that are arguing over the arbitrary, the conditional, the preferential, the provisional.

Wosbald wrote: So, sometimes, when it becomes (painfully?) obvious, Tankers may well concede that are arguing over the arbitrary, the conditional, the preferential, the provisional.

I don't know about you, but my first principles aren't conditional or provisional. Arbitrary? I don't really know why they are my first principles, rather than other possibilities. But yes, I definitely prefer them.

Fist and Faith wrote:

ussusimiel wrote:The Close is the perfect place for that, but it is unlikely to have real input into the development of practical solutions/approaches to everyday social issues.

See there, I think you guys have it backwards. I think the "first principles" that we've said it all comes down to are better discussed here than in the Tank.

I pretty much agree. The basis of political / social principles are philosophical.

--A

Wosbald wrote: You said it yourself in your first post on this thread:

ussusimiel wrote:On a number of occasions when a topic has been fully discussed and at least two positions have been shown to be valid the people holding those two positions have (as Fist alludes to) recognised that their differing starting premises/beliefs are based on their own personal preferences and may actually be a form of expression of their differing characters. This is an overt recognition that irrational/irreducible elements are at play even in the most hyper-rational of debates.

So, sometimes, when it becomes (painfully?) obvious, Tankers may well concede that are arguing over the arbitrary, the conditional, the preferential, the provisional.

Okay, obviously those engaged in the activity (myself included) think that it is useful. Do you think that it serves any useful purpose?

u.

+JMJ+

ussusimiel wrote:

Wosbald wrote: You said it yourself in your first post on this thread:

ussusimiel wrote:On a number of occasions when a topic has been fully discussed and at least two positions have been shown to be valid the people holding those two positions have (as Fist alludes to) recognised that their differing starting premises/beliefs are based on their own personal preferences and may actually be a form of expression of their differing characters. This is an overt recognition that irrational/irreducible elements are at play even in the most hyper-rational of debates.

So, sometimes, when it becomes (painfully?) obvious, Tankers may well concede that are arguing over the arbitrary, the conditional, the preferential, the provisional.

Okay, obviously those engaged in the activity (myself included) think that it is useful. Do you think that it serves any useful purpose?

u.

Of course, it does. Any notion to the contrary was never in play, AFAIAC. Identifying the limits of a sphere of human activity doesn't equate to nihilating the value of that same sphere. Medicine has a value even though, at the limit, everyone is going to die (well, maybe not according to Peter's thread, but that's another question). Cuisine has a value even though everyone is going to get hungry again.

Wosbald wrote:Of course, it does. Any notion to the contrary was never in play, AFAIAC. Identifying the limits of a sphere of human activity doesn't equate to nihilating the value of that same sphere.

Fair enough, and, so that I can have an idea if we see it the same way, what purpose(s) do you think it serves?

u.

+JMJ+

ussusimiel wrote:

Wosbald wrote:Of course, it does. Any notion to the contrary was never in play, AFAIAC. Identifying the limits of a sphere of human activity doesn't equate to nihilating the value of that same sphere.

Fair enough, and, so that I can have an idea if we see it the same way, what purpose(s) do you think it serves?

u.

Like any other sphere of human activity, it serves the Common Good.

What is the definition of common good?

--A

Avatar wrote:What is the definition of common good?

I know this is addressed to Wosbald, but having had to check the term myself I'll have a go at a definition. (From Wiki) the Common Good is:

what is shared and beneficial for all or most members of a given community, or alternatively, what is achieved by citizenship, collective action, and active participation in the realm of politics and public service.

I think I am finally beginning the properly understand the OP (I know, I know, I'm slow! )

So, just to be clear, the basic contention of the OP is that the purpose of political debate is to find solutions/policies to issues to further the Common Good. That being so, the kind of hyper-rational debate that the 'Tank typifies which tends towards a conflict between ideologies rather than the development of solutions, means that from a certain perspective the 'Tank is not fit for purpose (and so there is something 'wrong' with it).

This may provide an interesting insight into the nature of the 'Tank. My intuition is that due to the materialist nature of the extreme-Left and extreme-Right ideologies there are no actual philosophical differences between them. The result is an ongoing argument about practical outcomes which can't be resolved because they are still in progress (and are essentially historical).

The idea of the Common Good doesn't apply (or has little traction) because both of the extreme ideologies believe that only their pure implementation can lead to the best Common Good outcome (essentially a Utopian end). It also means that there is very little room for moderate/centrist positions as these will most likely involve compromise of some sort.

If this is the actual case with the 'Tank then it may explain some of the hyper-rationality and also why the atmosphere tends towards the extreme rather than the moderate.

u.

+JMJ+

ussusimiel wrote:

Avatar wrote:What is the definition of common good?

I know this is addressed to Wosbald, but having had to check the term myself I'll have a go at a definition. (From Wiki) the Common Good is:

what is shared and beneficial for all or most members of a given community, or alternatively, what is achieved by citizenship, collective action, and active participation in the realm of politics and public service.

I think I am finally beginning the properly understand the OP (I know, I know, I'm slow! )

So, just to be clear, the basic contention of the OP is that the purpose of political debate is to find solutions/policies to issues to further the Common Good. That being so, the kind of hyper-rational debate that the 'Tank typifies which tends towards a conflict between ideologies rather than the development of solutions, means that from a certain perspective the 'Tank is not fit for purpose (and so there is something 'wrong' with it).

This may provide an interesting insight into the nature of the 'Tank. My intuition is that due to the materialist nature of the extreme-Left and extreme-Right ideologies there are no actual philosophical differences between them. The result is an ongoing argument about practical outcomes which can't be resolved because they are still in progress (and are essentially historical).

The idea of the Common Good doesn't apply (or has little traction) because both of the extreme ideologies believe that only their pure implementation can lead to the best Common Good outcome (essentially a Utopian end). It also means that there is very little room for moderate/centrist positions as these will most likely involve compromise of some sort.

If this is the actual case with the 'Tank then it may explain some of the hyper-rationality and also why the atmosphere tends towards the extreme rather than the moderate.

u.

^This^

I've never thought anyone expected what they say in the Tank to have any impact on anything. It is only extremely rarely that anyone has changed their opinion on any issue because of what others have said in the Tank. It's a place to express your stance on issues. Most people like to do that from time to time. I want my ideas heard, my words read, yadda yadda. If you're goal was to change things, you wouldn't be hanging out at the Watch. We're here because of SRD's works.

Now that I finally understand the thrust of this thread, I see that it fits with something that I have suggested before. My suggestion was that for people who would prefer to discuss an issue in a more moderate (and now, possibly solution-oriented) manner it would be a good idea to start such a thread somewhere outside the 'Tank, such as General Discussion or here in the Close.

I know that there is a risk of political discussions spilling over into other forums, but if the discussion becomes polarising or hyper-rational a parallel thread could be started in the 'Tank, and that style of discussion could be continued there. (This might not be feasible if the Watch was busier, but with the current relatively low level of activity I reckon that there wouldn't be too many threads multiplying outside the 'Tank.) I tried this before but it didn't take off, however, it remains an option (and if it were to get too messy the Mods would be able to tidy it up easily enough).

Fist and Faith wrote:I've never thought anyone expected what they say in the Tank to have any impact on anything. It is only extremely rarely that anyone has changed their opinion on any issue because of what others have said in the Tank. It's a place to express your stance on issues. Most people like to do that from time to time. I want my ideas heard, my words read, yadda yadda. If you're goal was to change things, you wouldn't be hanging out at the Watch. We're here because of SRD's works.

I don't think anyone has felt that their participation in discussions in the 'Tank was going to change the world, however, it is a place where you can express opinions about issues that you have strong feelings about. In some cases those feelings and positions are misplaced or can be based on imperfect information or false assumptions*. In the 'Tank positions like these will generally be challenged and tested rather than allowed to stand as simple expressions of opinion.

My own experience is that through being challenged I have been forced to examine my positions and their underlying assumptions (e.g. the idea of equality). This has resulted in a better understanding of what I stand for and an improved ability to articulate and substantiate my positions. I may not have moved very far from where I started, but I have a much better understanding of where I stand and also a clearer picture of where others stand (especially those who disagree with me).

u.

* For my own part I have come to have much better understanding of what underpins American identity and why it is distinctly different from that of a European. While this doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things it does make an important difference for me, especially when I meet people from the US, or I am discussing issues relating to the US with other Europeans. I am now in a position to correct certain mistaken assumptions and judgements and I am able to explain an issue that can seem incomprehensible (like the right to bear arms, money in politics) to a European.

See, the problem is, everybody thinks they know what will be in the common good. But everybodies idea of what is is different.

What makes one assumption more valid than another?

--A

That's the case up to a point, Av, and I think that what Wosbald is saying is that, unless extreme ideological purity is involved, there will always be some common ground between people. And with a bit of give-and-take (compromise not possible for the purely ideological) reasonable and effective solutions can be worked out.

u.

ussusimiel wrote:Now that I finally understand the thrust of this thread, I see that it fits with something that I have suggested before. My suggestion was that for people who would prefer to discuss an issue in a more moderate (and now, possibly solution-oriented) manner it would be a good idea to start such a thread somewhere outside the 'Tank, such as General Discussion or here in the Close.

I like the "and now, possibly solution-oriented" part..

I tried this before but it didn't take off...

(I went and looked.)

I feel like there's a bazillion reasons why individual threads don't take off... and I am never quite sure if I figure out the right reason why ones that I create either don't take off, or get stuck... (but darnit, usually I've gotten so attached to my idea of how things will go, and then.... noooothing like what I expected.)

Some days, I wish I were more like peter (or old Lord Foul), and gamely keeping at it... if one thread I try to start happens to flop, just... try something new!

ussusimiel wrote:That's the case up to a point, Av, and I think that what Wosbald is saying is that, unless extreme ideological purity is involved, there will always be some common ground between people.

I certainly agree that we have more in common than what keeps us apart, I just sometimes despair of people ever generally realising it. And I think that talking about compromise is a great idea. We could do it, and reach viable solutions via compromise. (In the world, not the 'Tank.) (Although, in the 'Tank too really.)

But for some reason we don't.

What is that reason?

Linna Heartlistener wrote:Some days, I wish I were more like peter (or old Lord Foul), and gamely keeping at it... if one thread I try to start happens to flop, just... try something new!

You can do it Linna. Like in conversation...sometimes you just have to change the subject.

--A

RIP Dude - Gold

There's a mountain and it's mighty high
You cannot see the top unless you fly
There's a molehill on proven ground
Ain't nowhere to go if you hang around

Everyone wants to sell whats already been sold
Everyone wants to tell whats already been told
What's the use of money if you ain't gonna break the mould
Even at the centre of the fire, there is cold

All that glitters, ain't gold

There's an ocean of despair
There are people living there
They're unhappy each and every day
But hell is not fashion so what you trying to say

Everyone wants to sell whats already been sold
Everyone wants to tell whats already been told
What's the use of money if you ain't gonna break the mould
Even at the centre of the fire, there is cold

All that glitters, ain't gold

There's a lady 999 years old
If she led a good life heaven takes her soul
That's the theory and if you don't wanna know
Step aside and make a way for those who want to go

Everyone wants to sell whats already been sold
Everyone wants to tell whats already been told
What's the use of being young if you ain't gonna get old
Even at the centre of the fire, there is cold

All that glitters, ain't gold

All that glitters
All that glitters
All that glitters
Ain't gold

Oh, I get it. Heh