4 ms·

I can't comment much about Marx as I don't know the details of his claims or how they relate to implemented politics. What I enjoyed very much was the claimed

I can't comment much about Marx as I don't know the details of his claims or how they relate to implemented politics. What I enjoyed very much was the claimed position of Raymond Aron's w.r.t. intellectualism: "Aron’s generosity of spirit was a coefficient of his recognition that reality was complex, knowledge limited, and action essential. The leitmotif of Aron’s career was responsibility. He understood that political wisdom rests in the ability to choose the better course of action even when the best course is unavailable--which is always. The subject of politics, Aristotle noted, is “the good life for man.” What constitutes the good life? Aron cannily reminds us that the more extravagant answers to this question are often the most malevolent. They promise everything. They tend to deliver misery and impoverishment." I think this is a great thing to be reminded of, constantly -- in particular for intellectuals and scientists. It is almost too easy to be fooled in thinking the scientific principles or intellectual ideals will apply nicely to humans, the complexities of the real world; that we can be certain about what is truly good or the true nature of reality. It's not that we shouldn't investigate political systems, moral systems, economic theory, metaphysics, etc; it's that we should be specially skeptic about grandiose claims that go against common sense or personal freedom. And quoting the recent Aaronson AMA: "(...) partly it's because I take it as almost an axiom of rationality that, if a metaphysical belief leads you to do "obviously insane" things with your life, then it's probably time to look for a better metaphysical belief. :-) (I wouldn't say the same about scientific or mathematical beliefs.)"

TheOtherHobbes 8y ago
Is a cult of “personal freedom” that creates its own extinction event and alters the climate of its own planet to make it less habitable more or less insane than Marxism?
- latte 8y ago
  As if the non-capitalist world had cared more about the environment. Kyshtym, Chernobyl and Aral Sea disasters have no relation to the "cult" of personal freedom in any way. The only reason the Western / capitalist world had a greater impact on the planet is because they were able to build industrial power faster than the Marxist countries, not because they were less concerned about the environment (looking at the Soviet Union and China, I would rather say the opposite is true).
- dnautics 8y ago
  in a large part the excessive consumerism and concommitant environmental destruction that is characteristic of the 20th century comes from deliberate, centralized attempts to encourage consumerism (e.g. lowering interest rates, inflating currencies) on the part of governments, on "behalf" of the common people, to prop up "figures of merit" such as employment, which is hardly an expression of personal freedom. The fact that capitalism is able to channel and bring to productive efficiency greener solutions out of collective individual preferences for a better world in spite of the artificial rolling economic treadmill, is a testament to capitalism.
extralego 8y ago
This actually builds on my point. In the abstract, I can certainly appreciate the ideas here. But in the abstract it is fairly unobjectionable (still useful!) wisdom. So, what purpose do the wisdoms serve in this context? For you, they served the entire takeaway value of the article. But their relation to the thesis was something like philosophical fortune cookies. They operate in that future space where the thesis has been auto-accepted and the audience is now advised by the author how they can prevent falling victim to the threats they are now afraid of.

TheOtherHobbes 8y ago

Is a cult of “personal freedom” that creates its own extinction event and alters the climate of its own planet to make it less habitable more or less insane than Marxism?

latte 8y ago
As if the non-capitalist world had cared more about the environment. Kyshtym, Chernobyl and Aral Sea disasters have no relation to the "cult" of personal freedom in any way. The only reason the Western / capitalist world had a greater impact on the planet is because they were able to build industrial power faster than the Marxist countries, not because they were less concerned about the environment (looking at the Soviet Union and China, I would rather say the opposite is true).
dnautics 8y ago
in a large part the excessive consumerism and concommitant environmental destruction that is characteristic of the 20th century comes from deliberate, centralized attempts to encourage consumerism (e.g. lowering interest rates, inflating currencies) on the part of governments, on "behalf" of the common people, to prop up "figures of merit" such as employment, which is hardly an expression of personal freedom. The fact that capitalism is able to channel and bring to productive efficiency greener solutions out of collective individual preferences for a better world in spite of the artificial rolling economic treadmill, is a testament to capitalism.

extralego 8y ago

This actually builds on my point. In the abstract, I can certainly appreciate the ideas here. But in the abstract it is fairly unobjectionable (still useful!) wisdom. So, what purpose do the wisdoms serve in this context? For you, they served the entire takeaway value of the article. But their relation to the thesis was something like philosophical fortune cookies. They operate in that future space where the thesis has been auto-accepted and the audience is now advised by the author how they can prevent falling victim to the threats they are now afraid of.