Quote:
Originally Posted by JavaBlack
Logic and reason can formulate systems that better harness human nature. It can also do the opposite.
Note the use of "can" instead of "will". Nothing is destined.
And what exactly in human nature needs to be "overcome". Most of the evils we see in human existence are not directly human nature but symptoms of human nature under specific circumstances... or even more often aberrations occurring in certain individuals in accordance with human nature under certain circumstances and as specific to that individuals genetic/social/historical makeup.
|
That better harness human nature? It is human nature to look out for one's self and family members. People make decisions that further their own self interest. The system that I think best harnesses that is a capitalist system where everybody agrees (under the contract of government) to respect one another's rights as human beings. Progressives want to overcome this aspect of human nature through the application of reason through such arguments like "why can't we all share the wealth" and "let's all agree to abandon our self -interest and contribute to the whole." One can, using logic, predict that, if everybody agreed to work for the collective, everybody would have an equal share of wealth and everything would be great. However, you cannot use this argument because it is in people's nature to look out for themselves, and in this case, take advantage of the collective for their own interests (i.e. being lazy and still getting your share).
If you are going to argue that human nature only has bad sides in the situation, then I would argue that the situation is economic scarcity, and that is what is ingrained in our DNA/nature. Even if we were to end scarcity once and for all with some futuristic device that would give us whatever we wanted, people would still want what other people had and would want to secure our future; it's for our future protection.
This argument can lead to the proposition of eugenics and changing human nature to work better in a system where scarcity no longer exists. If anyone can honestly support this then what would they propose the non-improved humans do? It's fundamentally problematic.
Quote:
|
Your critique still does not explain how faith thinking is any better, as we've seen those results. Is that rule by faith not just a harnessing of things reason and science are beginning to understand as picked up through experience rather than through study and then understood through rationalization rather than reason?
|
I am not arguing that faith is better than reason. Reason is always preferable. Rationalization is not truly reason, and is usually
pro tanto invalid, meaning it does not account for every part of the argument. Reason leads people to the development of natural rights, such as life, liberty, and property. It is a complex line of logic, but is linear and logically sound. If you want to see the reason behind it, you should read Locke's
Two Treatises on Civil Government.
Quote:
There will always be crime. There will always be suffering. Not news.
The point is that all these things can be reduced through the application of science and reason. In many cases they have been.
|
I agree, to an extent it can.
Quote:
Thus the importance of encouraging critical thinking and education... rather than taking the cynical point of view and attempting to limit the potential of non-elites to take any part.
But let's be more honest about where "doom's day" "theory" comes from... The Bible. There is a strong need in Christians to believe in this end time. I once was in that trap... and I was still looking for signs of Revelation fora year after I finally broke with the faith... It's amazing how those stories can shape one's perception.
I'm all for keeping most of what people call "natural rights". But let's be honest. No ideological group is consistent with the application of when to limit them and when not to, at least not in terms of "principle" rather than pragmatism. And that is because they do not exist outside of pragmatism. I fail to see how pretending these rights come from an alleged God rather than humanity's own self interest does anything to defend them.
|
You are attempting to associate my beliefs with Christianity. I believe solely in a moral interpretation of the Bible, I go to Church on Christmas and sometimes on Easter, I do not believe in any of the dooms day theories in the Bible. I am consistent in my belief that natural right belong to everyone who has not violated someone else's rights. Pragmatism is evil, does not believe in anything, and is Fascist/Communist/Nazi/totalitarian.
Natural rights come from humanity's own self interest and the compact of civil government.
Quote:
Liberals aren't much different from conservatives in that they are human.
My take on Marx: He did a fine job of noting the problems in capitalism, especially in the early industrial days... but his dream of utopia was just wishful thinking. He made a religion out of it. A lot of liberals do that.
But for conservatives it's the norm. There's no seperating the ideological "theories" from the mumbo jumbo.
|
I agree with your interpretation of Marx, he did a fine job with noting the problems of capitalism, which it does have.
He did make a religion out of it. It is the Sorelian apocalyptic text, everyone has to believe in it for it to come true. However, I don't see how religion is the conservative norm. We don't "worship" natural rights, we think they are logical, and that the results of not having them end in "doom's day" scenarios.
Quote:
Conservatives are too likely to see a historical pattern and assume "human nature" when something occurs again leading to simplistic statements of things like war being human nature. Does human nature cause war? Yes, when combined with other elements. But there is not a human nature that automatically leads to war anymore than there is some historical pattern of conflict that is magically resolved into Utopia when workers unite (I really don't get how Marx came to that conclusion...).
Conservatives eventually impose more limits on humanity due to their out-of-control cynicism, their overconfidence in tradition, and their fear of losing control. Hell, the irony of some modern liberals is that they are taking on the same qualities while we end up with these radical conservatives that sound more like yesterday's Marxists.
|
See the first part of this post for my take on the situations that lead to conflict when combined with human nature.
(Marx didn't really know how he came to that conclusion either, if you read
Das Kapital.)
Philisophical conservatives such as Burke are overconfident in tradition. Mostly, Burke believed that any system of government was good if it already was being practiced by the people living their. Fanatical Christians worship their Christian traditions (surprise). Mostly, I think that pure, Lockeian conservatives believe in natural rights and the importance of those. I think that pure liberal/socialists believe in the opposite. I also think that some to the left, the supporters of mixed-economies, don't emphasize faith over reason, but that the socialist kind do.
If you ever meet a radical conservative that sounds like a hard-liner Marxist, he's secretly a leftist in disguise.
Edit: 100th post!