5 ms·

> Liberalism and pluralism do not attempt to deny other ways of life or philosophies. Isn’t that what you just did?

xpe 4y ago
>> Liberalism and pluralism do not attempt to deny other ways of life or philosophies. > Isn’t that what you just did? The key is understanding what I mean by "deny". First, I'll define liberalism and pluralism as I'm using them (from Wikipedia): > Pluralism as a political philosophy is the recognition and affirmation of diversity within a political body, which is seen to permit the peaceful coexistence of different interests, convictions, and lifestyles. > Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed and equality before the law. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but they generally support individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), liberal democracy, secularism, rule of law, economic and political freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, private property and a market economy. I'm going to abbreviate liberalism as L and pluralism as P from here on. With this said, you can see that both L and P recognize diversity and individual freedoms to a large degree. But this is not an unfettered, unbounded, nor uncritical viewpoint. Some worldviews cannot coexist together. For example, a philosophy claiming that one group is superior and therefore may inflict suffering on others is not showing respect for the ideas of P or L. So, it is clear that neither P nor L are compatible with authoritarian philosophies. If you want to say "P and L deny authoritarian philosophies" I suppose that is fair enough. But I don't think deny captures what is going on very well. P and L go to great length to allow many worldviews -- hopefully to celebrate them if possible and at least tolerate them to whatever extent possible. This is quite different than dogmatic religions, many of whom claim to have absolute truth. If you want to see a more detailed articulation of why one can accept pluralism and liberalism without resorting to moral relativism, read "Through the Moral Maze" by Robert Kane. I'd expect there are other philosophers that hold similar views. His lecture series "The Quest for Meaning" is quite good -- roughly at the level of an introductory philosophy class at the US undergraduate level, more or less.
- LudwigNagasena 4y ago
  - xpe 4y ago
    (facepalm) The world is so interesting and nuanced! It would be tragic to expect one word answers to deep questions.
    - LudwigNagasena 4y ago
      The world is too interesting and too nuanced to waste time trying to decipher a worldview obscured with wordplay.
      - xpe 4y ago
        That does not mean it is obscured intentionally. quite the contrary -- if you read my comments I've explained my views in many different ways. I've put the effort in.
        LudwigNagasena 4y ago
        If you start with "L and P don't deny other viewpoints" and then you spend 3 paragraphs explaining why they do exactly that but you feel justified to say the opposite, it just sounds like needless obscurantism.
        xpe 4y ago
        I see quite often that many people here on HN lack basic awareness of others, empathy, and humility. It comes with the territory. It has taken me years to recognize and outgrow those points of view. Perhaps the reason I persist is the hope that I can help others see how self-defeating such behaviors can be. Most people will not engage with people like I do -- it exacts a cost to deal with people that don't show much generosity or willingness to meet in the middle. I'm not saying this is you -- I don't know you -- only you and people that know you can reflect on it and assess. I would encourage you to ask people that know you well. You call my writing obscurantism ("the practice of deliberately preventing the facts or full details of something from becoming known: I've been accused of obscurantism and willful misdirection.") which implies that it was willful. This is in incorrect assumption on your part. I was elaborating in the hopes that you would understand. If you re-read the comments, it is clear that I pushed back against the desire for a simplistic answer, since I think doing so is limiting and foolish. My elaboration provides context to help you understand. Put another way, what you call obscurantism is better thought of as elaboration. You didn't understand, and then you lashed out. That was an egotistical, unkind thing to do. It is hard to admit you don't understand. It is easy to blame someone else for not explaining it well. Also, using a term like obscurantism makes it plain that you are making assumptions about people's intentions. Another approach would be to simply ask and/or operate on good faith, which generally meshes with the HN guidelines. Being judgy won't do much to encourage people to take the time to discuss with you. A useful approach here is to be patient and recognize that communication is a sense-making process. Based on your other comments, I'm inclined to think you probably are aware of Theory of Mind, at least intellectually. The upshot is this: it is very hard to communicate effectively when you don't know what other people know. Acting in ways that do not build goodwill tend to make it even harder. So that leaves a key question: why would you make it harder on yourself? Because of the human condition. Call it pride, ego, status-seeking, venting, whatever. But it doesn't really help much in the long term. I'll try to summarize in the hopes that it will be clear this time. If you are willing to let go of the desire for simplistic questions and simplistic answers, then I hope you will be able to understand. (You don't have to agree to understand.) Liberalism and pluralisms don't categorically deny the truth of other viewpoints. But they are incompatible with some other viewpoints.

xpe 4y ago

>> Liberalism and pluralism do not attempt to deny other ways of life or philosophies. > Isn’t that what you just did? The key is understanding what I mean by "deny". First, I'll define liberalism and pluralism as I'm using them (from Wikipedia): > Pluralism as a political philosophy is the recognition and affirmation of diversity within a political body, which is seen to permit the peaceful coexistence of different interests, convictions, and lifestyles. > Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed and equality before the law. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but they generally support individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), liberal democracy, secularism, rule of law, economic and political freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, private property and a market economy. I'm going to abbreviate liberalism as L and pluralism as P from here on. With this said, you can see that both L and P recognize diversity and individual freedoms to a large degree. But this is not an unfettered, unbounded, nor uncritical viewpoint. Some worldviews cannot coexist together. For example, a philosophy claiming that one group is superior and therefore may inflict suffering on others is not showing respect for the ideas of P or L. So, it is clear that neither P nor L are compatible with authoritarian philosophies. If you want to say "P and L deny authoritarian philosophies" I suppose that is fair enough. But I don't think deny captures what is going on very well. P and L go to great length to allow many worldviews -- hopefully to celebrate them if possible and at least tolerate them to whatever extent possible. This is quite different than dogmatic religions, many of whom claim to have absolute truth. If you want to see a more detailed articulation of why one can accept pluralism and liberalism without resorting to moral relativism, read "Through the Moral Maze" by Robert Kane. I'd expect there are other philosophers that hold similar views. His lecture series "The Quest for Meaning" is quite good -- roughly at the level of an introductory philosophy class at the US undergraduate level, more or less.

LudwigNagasena 4y ago
- xpe 4y ago
  (facepalm) The world is so interesting and nuanced! It would be tragic to expect one word answers to deep questions.
  - LudwigNagasena 4y ago
    The world is too interesting and too nuanced to waste time trying to decipher a worldview obscured with wordplay.
    - xpe 4y ago
      That does not mean it is obscured intentionally. quite the contrary -- if you read my comments I've explained my views in many different ways. I've put the effort in.
      - LudwigNagasena 4y ago
        If you start with "L and P don't deny other viewpoints" and then you spend 3 paragraphs explaining why they do exactly that but you feel justified to say the opposite, it just sounds like needless obscurantism.
        xpe 4y ago
        I see quite often that many people here on HN lack basic awareness of others, empathy, and humility. It comes with the territory. It has taken me years to recognize and outgrow those points of view. Perhaps the reason I persist is the hope that I can help others see how self-defeating such behaviors can be. Most people will not engage with people like I do -- it exacts a cost to deal with people that don't show much generosity or willingness to meet in the middle. I'm not saying this is you -- I don't know you -- only you and people that know you can reflect on it and assess. I would encourage you to ask people that know you well. You call my writing obscurantism ("the practice of deliberately preventing the facts or full details of something from becoming known: I've been accused of obscurantism and willful misdirection.") which implies that it was willful. This is in incorrect assumption on your part. I was elaborating in the hopes that you would understand. If you re-read the comments, it is clear that I pushed back against the desire for a simplistic answer, since I think doing so is limiting and foolish. My elaboration provides context to help you understand. Put another way, what you call obscurantism is better thought of as elaboration. You didn't understand, and then you lashed out. That was an egotistical, unkind thing to do. It is hard to admit you don't understand. It is easy to blame someone else for not explaining it well. Also, using a term like obscurantism makes it plain that you are making assumptions about people's intentions. Another approach would be to simply ask and/or operate on good faith, which generally meshes with the HN guidelines. Being judgy won't do much to encourage people to take the time to discuss with you. A useful approach here is to be patient and recognize that communication is a sense-making process. Based on your other comments, I'm inclined to think you probably are aware of Theory of Mind, at least intellectually. The upshot is this: it is very hard to communicate effectively when you don't know what other people know. Acting in ways that do not build goodwill tend to make it even harder. So that leaves a key question: why would you make it harder on yourself? Because of the human condition. Call it pride, ego, status-seeking, venting, whatever. But it doesn't really help much in the long term. I'll try to summarize in the hopes that it will be clear this time. If you are willing to let go of the desire for simplistic questions and simplistic answers, then I hope you will be able to understand. (You don't have to agree to understand.) Liberalism and pluralisms don't categorically deny the truth of other viewpoints. But they are incompatible with some other viewpoints.