Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

41760Re: [existlist] My views Re: politics

Expand Messages
  • eupraxis@aol.com
    Jul 3, 2007
    • 0 Attachment

      I think you confuse social discourse with a philosophical position. The
      latter, if one can manage it, is unable to concede to a position that it considers
      anathema to truth (or the Good, etc.) assuming such a conclusion has already
      been made and that that position culminates in something like what Kant called
      a "maxim". As I am on the left, there are some positions that have achieved
      such an axiomatic status and cannot be 'mediated' by anything, especially by
      some nebulous middle. We have already danced that tango, so I will leave it at

      The former, social discourse, is a space wherein a debate can take place, but
      if I am consigned a role in such, I do not see why I should celebrate any
      middle. The middle course in an 'evolution/creation' debate would be what? What
      is the middle course on 'Iraq is an illegal invasion', or 'torture is a crime
      against humanity', or 'the vice president is part of the executive'?

      And as a side in a debate, I have no regard for watering an ethical position
      down to that same middle, radical or not. Philosophy is, for me, a sublated
      manifestation of war. I am not of the mind to allow the right-wing, which has
      all but ruined this country and continues to do so still, to imagine that it has
      anything to say about god and country any longer.

      Finally, we are well aware of your libertarian position, as well as other
      specific positions. I haven't seen any change of mind since I have been at this
      group. You seem as certain, at times, as anyone else here, and on matters that
      I have an almost opposite position. What middle course there?

      'Debate' (what passes for debate in the US is a scandal) presumes a
      compromise between parties, but in many instances this is a mirage. Debates are usually
      held for the sake of affecting listeners, not for achieving a middle path.


      In a message dated 7/2/07 9:36:21 PM, existlist1@... writes:

      > --- In existlist@yahoogrouexistl, "Trinidad Cruz" <TriniCruz@.Tr> wrote:
      > >
      > > happened. Perhaps you can explain for me how my certainty about an
      > > opinion I hold is threatening to you in any way - if I am a law
      > > abiding US citizen?
      > What I worry about is the certainty I hear from the "two sides" (though
      > there are more) in
      > various debates -- and the corresponding divisions in our society. Debate
      > has been
      > replaced by name calling and insinuations that one side alone if privy to
      > the "correct"
      > answers and views on issues.
      > I long for someone, anyone, to come from the radical middle and change the
      > tone of
      > debate so it can be a genuine debate and not the noise that now echoes
      > across the media
      > and Web.
      > > Your arguments seem to indicate that you are less
      > > likely to be involved in any participation in the system than I.
      > My involvement is to oppose almost anything that large organizations,
      > especially the
      > government, claims to be doing for my benefit. I am definitely opposed to
      > any
      > encroachments into my freedoms and those of others. I don't care for any
      > group trying to
      > dictate how private individuals should live.
      > To me, freedoms are under assault from all sides. I think how they view e
      > vents becomes a
      > way to justify which rights will be taken.
      > Free speech is always under assault. Choices in medical care are limited by
      > the FDA's
      > desire to "protect" me from dangerous treatments. (I was denied painkillers
      > here in MN
      > because the use I had in California was considered "off-label" here. Nice to
      > be protected,
      > isn't it?) The right to drink what I want, smoke what I want, or even
      > eventually decide how
      > to exit life are all dictated to me. It's absurd.
      > I spent a lot of time working for the government. I'm a darn good data
      > analyst. From that
      > work, I learned a lot about other cultures and groups. I trust them even
      > less than our own
      > government, if that's possible.
      > I vote, I write, I volunteer -- but I don't trust. I am a skeptic. That's my
      > nature.
      > > laws here that we can safely disagree without slaughter. Debate is
      > > neither about games nor winning and losing. It is about informing of
      > > an opinion.
      > There is little debate in the mainstream. Political consultants, pollsters,
      > and media analysts
      > talk about politics in terms of horse races, winners and losers. The issues
      > get four
      > minutes, on a good night, and then we are told how leads in what poll by how
      > much. Polls
      > are not debate -- they are nothing but ways to create the impression a
      > polling agency
      > wants.
      > I want debate and discussion, but I want it in a way I seldom see it or hear
      > it, even from
      > the sources I read every day. I am a loyal reader of both The Nation and
      > CATO Bulletin. I
      > read The New Republic and National Review, Telegraph.uk and Le Monde. I'm
      > now reading
      > more in Spanish and Hebrew -- but I admit I cannot read Arabic at all and my
      > business
      > partner (who served in the Middle East for several years speaking Arabic)
      > tells me the
      > English "translations" are nothing close to the real meanings.
      > My radio buttons bounce from NPR and Nova M to Air America and several
      > conservative
      > stations. (I cannot stand Bill O'R and Sean Hannity. I try and try, but they
      > annoy me on
      > radio. Randy Rhodes is just as bad. Terrible radio.)
      > There's just not a lot of real debate. That's why I still turn to S.F. radio
      > stations and
      > newspapers online.
      > > Religion will continue to remain a robust factor in our society.
      > Sadly.
      > > above the thesis and the antithesis. We need separation of church and
      > > state, and separation of science and state, for the truth of our
      > > American proposition to hold sway; because in our participation in
      > > this constitutional democracy we are actually all philosophers.
      > Sorry, but I want more science in politics and less religion. A lot less
      > religion.
      > I am glad we have a republican form. I wish we actually respected that form
      > more, but then
      > all three branches would require some leadership.
      > I'll go all the way back to the Greek ideal: a leader needs a moral compass.
      > Wish we had
      > that, but I'm not sure I see many with ethical ideals. We need philosophers
      > in government,
      > men and women with well-rounded educations and experiences. I'm not sure we
      > have
      > that, especially when I have had a chance to talk to leaders one-on-one.
      > Some turned out
      > to be much less intelligent than I had hoped. Some were just plain ignorant.
      > Philosophy is something I support -- or I wouldn't have the Web site and
      > discussion list.
      > What I fear is that divisions have increased and debate has lost to name
      > calling and
      > stubborn egomania.
      > - CSW

      See what's free at http://www.aol.com

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Show all 24 messages in this topic