3 ms·

Sorry, but its quite difficult for me to understand the assertion that a failure to agree upon borders is a breakdown of a shared "reality" as anything but an a

Sorry, but its quite difficult for me to understand the assertion that a failure to agree upon borders is a breakdown of a shared "reality" as anything but an assertion that certain perceptions should be elevated to the level of natural laws. I don't dispute the utility of shared social conventions and rules. They are very handy, no doubt. But they aren't reality, and, in my experience, the people most vociferously asserting that they are are the jerks. If two nation states _agree_ on a border because it simplifies administration, then bravo. If two nation states disagree about a border then the problem isn't that one has lost touch with reality. The problem is just a dispute about power and suggesting its a problem with perception of reality is propaganda. At a fundamental level borders aren't real. If there is a conflict over them, the only recourse is to the human beings involved, hopefully through diplomacy, but unfortunately often through violence, but never via an objective process which reveals by experimental or theoretical action an objective truth. Confusion between that which is real and that which is not is the deepest, most destructive of intellectual maladies.

harimau777 3y ago
Shared reality doesn't break down when people disagree. It breaks down when people are unable to understand the other side's perceptions/interpretations enough to understand the disagreement. As a concrete example, many conservatives in the United States understand border control in terms of national security, sovereignty, cultural integrity, etc. They often do not understand the interpretations that advocates of open borders base their views upon; things like viewing freedom of movement as an inherent human right, seeing borders as a way that corporations undermine labor, seeing Mexicans as having historically inhabited the American South West, etc. As a result, those conservatives misinterpret advocates of open borders as unpatriotic, attempting to undermine America's sovereignty, attempting to replace their culture, etc. Basically, the issue isn't the disagreement, it's lacking the shared understanding of the situation that would allow discussion of the disagreement.

harimau777 3y ago

Shared reality doesn't break down when people disagree. It breaks down when people are unable to understand the other side's perceptions/interpretations enough to understand the disagreement. As a concrete example, many conservatives in the United States understand border control in terms of national security, sovereignty, cultural integrity, etc. They often do not understand the interpretations that advocates of open borders base their views upon; things like viewing freedom of movement as an inherent human right, seeing borders as a way that corporations undermine labor, seeing Mexicans as having historically inhabited the American South West, etc. As a result, those conservatives misinterpret advocates of open borders as unpatriotic, attempting to undermine America's sovereignty, attempting to replace their culture, etc. Basically, the issue isn't the disagreement, it's lacking the shared understanding of the situation that would allow discussion of the disagreement.