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

Re: [existlist] My views Re: politics

Expand Messages
  • eupraxis@aol.com
    TC, Agreed. I think. WS ... From: Trinidad Cruz To: existlist@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 9:55 am Subject: [existlist] My views
    Message 1 of 24 , Jul 3 8:08 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      TC,

      Agreed. I think.

      WS







      -----Original Message-----
      From: Trinidad Cruz <TriniCruz@...>
      To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 9:55 am
      Subject: [existlist] My views Re: politics

























      Well Wil, in a real sense this is a dialectical problem of importance.

      CSW wants leadership with a moral compass, as he puts it. We have a

      moral and ethical compass here. It is our constitution and system of

      laws. It is in no way an absolute. It is a chosen consensus containing

      provision for change and adaptation through debate and new consensus

      by freely elected representatives. Because it cannot be taken as an

      absolute it seems to lose importance in the face of both science and

      religion. Neither naturalism nor theism should dictate to our

      synthesis here, only propose and debate; yet we find most often as CSW

      indicates hard-line uncompromising debate between the two. Such

      stubbornness and egotism in debate is not necessarily harmful, in fact

      I am generally encouraged by the fact that discussion in such areas is

      so uncompromising, as such futile discussion shifts importance to the

      synthesis we have developed to make way for such debate in a bloodless

      forum in the first place. As people are faced with the futility of

      absolutes they generally fall back toward a reliance on our synthesis

      here. It has ever been so in our history, and men have suited the

      times when the threat to it was real. It is simply grander than any

      absolute truth.



      Philosophy cannot reject theism out of hand; only monotheism and its

      attendant concepts of omnipotence, omniscience, and creationism.

      Philosophy cannot reject naturalism out of hand; only its

      functionalist arguments for an absolute materialism. Philosophy cannot

      allow for solutions that are absolute. The synthesis becomes of the

      greatest importance. This is not epiphenomenalism because the

      synthesis is not taken as an absolute, only as something of greater

      importance than absolutes and subject to change. It is in this, an

      ethic in a continuously developmental frame. Hobbes, inspired by

      Plato, struggled through the bare bones of this proposition here 400

      years ago; so we cannot argue that philosophy has not been shaping the

      world here all along. The constitution, our system of laws, are a

      philosophy. This cannot be taken, as it so often mistakenly is, as an

      idealism. Idealism is a process of casting ideas as absolutes. In such

      a case then, lower forms in the dialectic to be believed in rather

      than known. All we can ever know are synthetic forms changing with

      consensus. We can believe anything. We may not cast our synthesis here

      as an ideal, as something to believe in; because in doing so we will

      never know it. Its importance is not even in knowing it as an

      experience; but rather in individually working at its continuing

      synthesis. It will not age well. To store it, is to sour it to an

      ideal, and make it dialectically less. It is good that the struggle

      for absolutes is loud. Such a circumstance will push us to attend to

      our synthesis. Only in that attention will it remain healthy and

      sweet, because it cannot be believed in and remain important, only

      worked at. Working at it, is knowing it for what it is.



      Trinidad

















      ________________________________________________________________________
      AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • C. S. Wyatt
      ... To me, political change requires compromise and sometimes slow evolutionary steps. My very deep aversion to the death penalty, for example, is not likely
      Message 2 of 24 , Jul 3 1:36 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
        > 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.

        To me, political change requires compromise and sometimes slow evolutionary steps. My
        very deep aversion to the death penalty, for example, is not likely to be a position adopted
        by most voters / politicians. Instead of trying for an "outright win" in the political arena, I
        try to argue other elements of the problem. For example, it is hard to argue that the
        application reveals social and political biases in the courts. Also, one can point to those
        freed thanks to DNA and modern forensics. In other words, I shift the debate to those
        areas I think there might be consensus.

        Do I surrender my philosophical notion that the state shouldn't take a life? No. But, I also
        realize there is a more effective approach politically.

        I've shifted a lot in life, from the normal "left" of undergraduate years to a libertarian
        approach. The more I worked in / around government, the less I trusted it.

        My philosophical approach is to still dream of a time when people get along and help each
        other voluntarily. I still imagine people have a responsibility to mutually respect each
        other's rights and freedoms.

        Politically? I see government in all nations is about the powerful elites, not idealism.

        Philosophical grounding would help our leaders, as it would any group of people. I want
        people to consider "The Other" and how our choices impinge on the other. I want people
        to consider, "What if country/group X did Y to me? What of my rights, then?"

        Yes, I'm definitely more libertarian than I was two decades ago. I'm also more pro-union,
        I'm generally more ambivalent about my support for the ACLU (I cannot believe they are
        supporting the installation of foot baths in our colleges in Minnesota -- uhg), and still a
        devoted supporter of the National Wildlife Federation (but not the Sierra Club).

        My philosophy remains apart from political action because I have to compromise to get
        things done at the university and in our schools. You cannot go in with "I think we should
        shift taxes collected from one district to the inner city schools" -- a position I hold.
        Instead, you have to explain to the suburbs why they don't want inner city schools
        collapsing and failing. My beliefs have to be mediated to get action.

        I am not a politician, since I couldn't compromise nearly as often as it is required. But, I
        have been much better at compromise in the last four years than in the past.

        Pragmatism becomes more appealing when I need to accomplish something. At those
        moments, Rorty and Schiappa guide my reasoning. When I shift to freedoms, I still turn to
        a mix of Continental thinkers.

        Philosophy and the reality conflict. I support republican ideals, with limits on the majority.
        I always fear the majority and its ability to abuse power -- even when my views might be
        in the majority.

        When we implement a philosophy, it changes. What is good in the ideal is always off when
        men and women try to implement those ideals.

        Politics is about getting things done. It means terrible choices, like which houses must
        give way to new roads and transit lines. Politics is not philosophy, at those moments. But, I
        think philosopher-leaders would ask, "Is it really fair that we always put the roads through
        poor or middle-income neighborhoods?" I want politicians to feel some internal agony
        over every choice, while still making a choice.

        Isn't that the core of existentialism? Most choices have a negative, Sartre said, but we tend
        to ignore the negatives so we can act free of guilt. I want more guilt from our leaders. Lots
        more guilt.
      • bhvwd
        ... take place, but ... celebrate any ... evolutionary steps. My ... to be a position adopted ... win in the political arena, I ... to argue that the ...
        Message 3 of 24 , Jul 3 1:59 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "C. S. Wyatt" <existlist1@...>
          wrote:
          >
          > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@ wrote:
          > > 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.
          >
          > To me, political change requires compromise and sometimes slow
          evolutionary steps. My
          > very deep aversion to the death penalty, for example, is not likely
          to be a position adopted
          > by most voters / politicians. Instead of trying for an "outright
          win" in the political arena, I
          > try to argue other elements of the problem. For example, it is hard
          to argue that the
          > application reveals social and political biases in the courts.
          Also, one can point to those
          > freed thanks to DNA and modern forensics. In other words, I shift
          the debate to those
          > areas I think there might be consensus.
          >
          > Do I surrender my philosophical notion that the state shouldn't
          take a life? No. But, I also
          > realize there is a more effective approach politically.
          >
          > I've shifted a lot in life, from the normal "left" of undergraduate
          years to a libertarian
          > approach. The more I worked in / around government, the less I
          trusted it.
          >
          > My philosophical approach is to still dream of a time when people
          get along and help each
          > other voluntarily. I still imagine people have a responsibility to
          mutually respect each
          > other's rights and freedoms.
          >
          > Politically? I see government in all nations is about the powerful
          elites, not idealism.
          >
          > Philosophical grounding would help our leaders, as it would any
          group of people. I want
          > people to consider "The Other" and how our choices impinge on the
          other. I want people
          > to consider, "What if country/group X did Y to me? What of my
          rights, then?"
          >
          > Yes, I'm definitely more libertarian than I was two decades ago.
          I'm also more pro-union,
          > I'm generally more ambivalent about my support for the ACLU (I
          cannot believe they are
          > supporting the installation of foot baths in our colleges in
          Minnesota -- uhg), and still a
          > devoted supporter of the National Wildlife Federation (but not the
          Sierra Club).
          >
          > My philosophy remains apart from political action because I have to
          compromise to get
          > things done at the university and in our schools. You cannot go in
          with "I think we should
          > shift taxes collected from one district to the inner city schools" -
          - a position I hold.
          > Instead, you have to explain to the suburbs why they don't want
          inner city schools
          > collapsing and failing. My beliefs have to be mediated to get
          action.
          >
          > I am not a politician, since I couldn't compromise nearly as often
          as it is required. But, I
          > have been much better at compromise in the last four years than in
          the past.
          >
          > Pragmatism becomes more appealing when I need to accomplish
          something. At those
          > moments, Rorty and Schiappa guide my reasoning. When I shift to
          freedoms, I still turn to
          > a mix of Continental thinkers.
          >
          > Philosophy and the reality conflict. I support republican ideals,
          with limits on the majority.
          > I always fear the majority and its ability to abuse power -- even
          when my views might be
          > in the majority.
          >
          > When we implement a philosophy, it changes. What is good in the
          ideal is always off when
          > men and women try to implement those ideals.
          >
          > Politics is about getting things done. It means terrible choices,
          like which houses must
          > give way to new roads and transit lines. Politics is not
          philosophy, at those moments. But, I
          > think philosopher-leaders would ask, "Is it really fair that we
          always put the roads through
          > poor or middle-income neighborhoods?" I want politicians to feel
          some internal agony
          > over every choice, while still making a choice.
          >
          > Isn't that the core of existentialism? Most choices have a
          negative, Sartre said, but we tend
          > to ignore the negatives so we can act free of guilt. I want more
          guilt from our leaders. Lots
          > more guilt.
          >CSW, With the people we have at the top there is no guilt.
          Caligula rules and look out if you are his horse or sister. Bill
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.