6 ms·

I don't understand your comment. "Either side" of which debate?

coldtea 8y ago
Of the debate between progressivism and conservatism, belief in the important role of maintaining tradition and hierarchies and belief in equalizing everything and a linear view of history as an inevitable march to progress, etc. A discussion that goes back to Plato, and includes tons of great thinking on either side, from the US "Founding Fathers", Tocqueville, Burke, to Enlightenment philosophers like Diderot and Voltaire, to people like Dewey, Elliot (the subject of the article and a huge intellectual force in the early 20th century), modern critics like Bloom and Lasch, all the way to todays cultural wars. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism
- charlesism 8y ago
  Okay, that makes a bit more sense. People will discuss philosophy forever. That doesn't stop society, rightly or wrongly, from forming consensus that some positions are dumb. So with my original comment, I am curious (a) if I understand the article correctly, and (b) why some HN readers support a position that, in my neck of the woods, people consider dumb.
  - coldtea 8y ago
    >People will discuss philosophy forever. That doesn't stop society, rightly or wrongly, from forming consensus that some positions are dumb. No, but it also doesn't stop society from forming dumb consensuses either. It's not like what's dumb is determined by popularity contest (even if one assumed that most of "society" is on the same page on such issues). >(b) why some HN readers support a position that, in my neck of the woods, people consider dumb. Because what people consider dumb and what is dumb is not the same thing. Some people believe that science and tech aside (where progress is cumulative), it's not at all clear that modern norms, culture, practices, art, laws, etc are better than older norms and practices. And it's a totally reasonable stance to have (and a lot of the counter-arguments are not really very deep, e.g. "You prefer the 50s society? But back then they had more racism". Well, it's not like we have to "take-or-leave" everything from today or from a past era. Plus, today we have more of other negatives that they didn't have at some other time -- e.g. the quality of modern politics, for one, the obesity and opioid epidemic, zero corporate loyalty, increased privacy erosion, pricier college education, and other such things...).
    - charlesism 8y ago
      It's not like what's dumb is determined by popularity contest Agreed. There's an amusing quote that goes: One thing is sure: all common knowledge, all traditional opinions, are foolish, for the very reason that the majority agrees with them. But we're still sort of talking at cross purposes here. My personal view is that it's dumb to use 'inherited wealth' as a gauge of a person's character or competence. For the past century, that view has also been the majority view in the West. If the views didn't agree, I would have had to position my original post differently. I probably would have gone with something like "I realize most of you believe inherited wealth is a sign of good genes, but I disagree because.." But then, I wouldn't likely be as interested, since - in such an alternate universe - I would already be aware of the popular reasoning. Eh. At this point, maybe we're off in the weeds
      - coldtea 8y ago
        >My personal view is that it's dumb to use 'inherited wealth' as a gauge of a person's character or competence For others, for example, inherited wealth means inherited culture (from their cultivated parents etc). It's not as much "inherited wealth" but inherited class (as in the sentence "this man has class"). Plus, even if it's not the perfect gauge of "character of competence", respecting such a wealth order can be argued that results in a stabler society than one where people always compete for a place at the top. Not saying that I agree with those arguments (and they are not the sole ones fans of that arrangement make). >For the past century, that view has also been the majority view in the West. Depends, because there's a very real classism in both the US and (even more so) the UK for example. Both in that rich families take care of their own, consider themselves a separate league above the rest, and see outsiders as intruders, and in the very real sense that for all "startup rags to riches" success stories, those in top don't change that much: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-07-10/rich-kids-inheritances-will-last-many-generations https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-07-10/rich-k... https://newrepublic.com/article/116462/family-wealth-lasts-ten-fifteen-generations https://newrepublic.com/article/116462/family-wealth-lasts-t... https://qz.com/694340/the-richest-families-in-florence-in-1427-are-still-the-richest-families-in-florence/ https://qz.com/694340/the-richest-families-in-florence-in-14... And people still consider nouveaux-rich ("new money") as gaudy and uncultivated.
- msla 8y ago
  > belief in the important role of maintaining tradition and hierarchies and belief in equalizing everything and a linear view of history as an inevitable march to progress Holy False Dichotomy, Batman! I don't believe in an inevitable march, but I'm definitely not enamored of keeping social norms the way they are just because they're social norms. I think society can and should be improved based on sound policy, but my ideas aren't teleological; that is, they don't move towards a specific long-term end goal, just a short- or medium-term goal which is, essentially, a position better than this one, from which we can plot the next improvements. Do I believe in questioning everything? Sure, with the caveat that I'm willing to accept "We don't know how to improve it" or "It isn't something we can improve" as answers. Do I believe in equalizing everything? The question is unanswerable as posed, not least because "equality" means different things in different contexts, and some people have a distressing propensity for equivocation.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- ian0 8y ago
  Serious question - why didn't rationality kill off this debate? We have consensus on basic ethical norms - isnt it possible to identify which courses of action/inaction (regardless of bent) lead to ethical outcomes - and review the results of past actions under an ethical lens? This debate just seems like some (maybe great) philosophy buried under a mountain of incentivised people searching for ammo.
  - gameswithgo 8y ago
    > why didn't rationality kill off this debate? Because half of the world has an IQ under 100 and it takes about an IQ of 120 to have a small chance of thinking about these ideas rationally. There are still people who are way smarter than that who believe Zombie Jesus was real and thus being gay is evil. So progress is hard.
    - nyolfen 8y ago
      damn, did you discover a portal from 2004?
      - gameswithgo 8y ago
        was 2004 peak angry atheist year or something?
        nyolfen 8y ago
        more or less
    - coldtea 8y ago
      Apparently there are still people who believe in IQ as some kind of metric for "rational decisions" (as opposed to a metric for general intelligence problem solving skills). >There are still people who are way smarter than that who believe Zombie Jesus was real and thus being gay is evil. There are people so uninformed and uneducated as to reduce all kind of religious or moral question to BS Americanisms like "Zombie Jesus".

Of the debate between progressivism and conservatism, belief in the important role of maintaining tradition and hierarchies and belief in equalizing everything and a linear view of history as an inevitable march to progress, etc. A discussion that goes back to Plato, and includes tons of great thinking on either side, from the US "Founding Fathers", Tocqueville, Burke, to Enlightenment philosophers like Diderot and Voltaire, to people like Dewey, Elliot (the subject of the article and a huge intellectual force in the early 20th century), modern critics like Bloom and Lasch, all the way to todays cultural wars. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism

charlesism 8y ago
Okay, that makes a bit more sense. People will discuss philosophy forever. That doesn't stop society, rightly or wrongly, from forming consensus that some positions are dumb. So with my original comment, I am curious (a) if I understand the article correctly, and (b) why some HN readers support a position that, in my neck of the woods, people consider dumb.
- coldtea 8y ago
  >People will discuss philosophy forever. That doesn't stop society, rightly or wrongly, from forming consensus that some positions are dumb. No, but it also doesn't stop society from forming dumb consensuses either. It's not like what's dumb is determined by popularity contest (even if one assumed that most of "society" is on the same page on such issues). >(b) why some HN readers support a position that, in my neck of the woods, people consider dumb. Because what people consider dumb and what is dumb is not the same thing. Some people believe that science and tech aside (where progress is cumulative), it's not at all clear that modern norms, culture, practices, art, laws, etc are better than older norms and practices. And it's a totally reasonable stance to have (and a lot of the counter-arguments are not really very deep, e.g. "You prefer the 50s society? But back then they had more racism". Well, it's not like we have to "take-or-leave" everything from today or from a past era. Plus, today we have more of other negatives that they didn't have at some other time -- e.g. the quality of modern politics, for one, the obesity and opioid epidemic, zero corporate loyalty, increased privacy erosion, pricier college education, and other such things...).
  - charlesism 8y ago
    It's not like what's dumb is determined by popularity contest Agreed. There's an amusing quote that goes: One thing is sure: all common knowledge, all traditional opinions, are foolish, for the very reason that the majority agrees with them. But we're still sort of talking at cross purposes here. My personal view is that it's dumb to use 'inherited wealth' as a gauge of a person's character or competence. For the past century, that view has also been the majority view in the West. If the views didn't agree, I would have had to position my original post differently. I probably would have gone with something like "I realize most of you believe inherited wealth is a sign of good genes, but I disagree because.." But then, I wouldn't likely be as interested, since - in such an alternate universe - I would already be aware of the popular reasoning. Eh. At this point, maybe we're off in the weeds
    - coldtea 8y ago
      >My personal view is that it's dumb to use 'inherited wealth' as a gauge of a person's character or competence For others, for example, inherited wealth means inherited culture (from their cultivated parents etc). It's not as much "inherited wealth" but inherited class (as in the sentence "this man has class"). Plus, even if it's not the perfect gauge of "character of competence", respecting such a wealth order can be argued that results in a stabler society than one where people always compete for a place at the top. Not saying that I agree with those arguments (and they are not the sole ones fans of that arrangement make). >For the past century, that view has also been the majority view in the West. Depends, because there's a very real classism in both the US and (even more so) the UK for example. Both in that rich families take care of their own, consider themselves a separate league above the rest, and see outsiders as intruders, and in the very real sense that for all "startup rags to riches" success stories, those in top don't change that much: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-07-10/rich-kids-inheritances-will-last-many-generations https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-07-10/rich-k... https://newrepublic.com/article/116462/family-wealth-lasts-ten-fifteen-generations https://newrepublic.com/article/116462/family-wealth-lasts-t... https://qz.com/694340/the-richest-families-in-florence-in-1427-are-still-the-richest-families-in-florence/ https://qz.com/694340/the-richest-families-in-florence-in-14... And people still consider nouveaux-rich ("new money") as gaudy and uncultivated.
msla 8y ago
> belief in the important role of maintaining tradition and hierarchies and belief in equalizing everything and a linear view of history as an inevitable march to progress Holy False Dichotomy, Batman! I don't believe in an inevitable march, but I'm definitely not enamored of keeping social norms the way they are just because they're social norms. I think society can and should be improved based on sound policy, but my ideas aren't teleological; that is, they don't move towards a specific long-term end goal, just a short- or medium-term goal which is, essentially, a position better than this one, from which we can plot the next improvements. Do I believe in questioning everything? Sure, with the caveat that I'm willing to accept "We don't know how to improve it" or "It isn't something we can improve" as answers. Do I believe in equalizing everything? The question is unanswerable as posed, not least because "equality" means different things in different contexts, and some people have a distressing propensity for equivocation.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
ian0 8y ago
Serious question - why didn't rationality kill off this debate? We have consensus on basic ethical norms - isnt it possible to identify which courses of action/inaction (regardless of bent) lead to ethical outcomes - and review the results of past actions under an ethical lens? This debate just seems like some (maybe great) philosophy buried under a mountain of incentivised people searching for ammo.
- gameswithgo 8y ago
  > why didn't rationality kill off this debate? Because half of the world has an IQ under 100 and it takes about an IQ of 120 to have a small chance of thinking about these ideas rationally. There are still people who are way smarter than that who believe Zombie Jesus was real and thus being gay is evil. So progress is hard.
  - nyolfen 8y ago
    damn, did you discover a portal from 2004?
    - gameswithgo 8y ago
      was 2004 peak angry atheist year or something?
      - nyolfen 8y ago
        more or less
  - coldtea 8y ago
    Apparently there are still people who believe in IQ as some kind of metric for "rational decisions" (as opposed to a metric for general intelligence problem solving skills). >There are still people who are way smarter than that who believe Zombie Jesus was real and thus being gay is evil. There are people so uninformed and uneducated as to reduce all kind of religious or moral question to BS Americanisms like "Zombie Jesus".