stuartw2112
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
OK, so there's a vote between competing ideologies. Let's say one side is saying the earth is round, the other that it's flat. How am I to cast my vote? On a whim? On the idea I find more personally congenial or politically convenient? On what basis?
I know what you're saying, and agree with it to a point, but the point is the rub. You've not answered my question. You say that instead of a disinterested pursuit of the truth we should instead vote between competing ideologies. But how is one to vote? On what basis?
I was for Yes, for some of the reasons articulated here, but I switched to No on the basis of economic and political realism, as expressed nowhere better than here: http://kenmacleod.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/an-argument-against-scottish.html
Yes, I guess this is "the worse, the better" kind of argument than Varoufakis crticises in his article. Syriza and a majority of the Greek people want to stay in the EU, and this seems very sensible to me. Will the SPGB call for an "in" vote in any "in/out" referendum? I know it won't, but it should! Cheers
You say hold a vote, LB, but how is a rational individual to vote? Surely only by making a good faith effort to decide between the alternatives based on their truth value, ie, on how they measure up to reality?
Good review of Diamond here:http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/422223.article
LB, in reply to post No. 50. Thanks, I follow your argument, and I see the (at least apparent) contradiction in mine. How, then, in your view, are we to discriminate between different ideologies or rival scientific theories? Are you saying that there's no way to apart from personal preference? That if you say the earth is flat, and I insist it's round, there's no way to resolve the dispute? If I say the global climate is warming and you say it isn't, these are just different, equally valid ideologies? Likewise if I say we evolved from a chimp-like common ancestor and you say God made us?
mcolome: Thanks for your reply but I disagree with your implications. I don't think I made a mistake joining LU, nor do I regret it for one instant, nor do I think I wasted my time or energies, nor that subsequent developments have proved the critics right particularly. The idea, originally, was to get as many people together as possible to have a discussion and figure out a way forward. That conversation was concluded too soon for my liking, and LU then became just another small left party – something I'd always said I had no interest in joining, having only just left a perfectly good one if that's what you wanted. Anyway, people in glass houses should be warned about the dangers of chucking stones.Alan: Nice analysis Alan, much of which I agree with. I'm particularly with you on the need to do more thinking and work on alternatives – very much in tune with my current interests.ALB: Simon Hardy's a nice decent guy, smart too. Perhaps on the election trail you can make friends.
Hmm, probably not, sorry! I am no longer a member. I think on paper, and in the good intentions of most of the members, LU is as democratic as the SPGB (in the early days, perhaps even more so, since the 'executive' and 'conference' were one and the same and were representative of all members and branches). However, as the SPGB teaches, consciousness is all important. The SP and all its members are thoroughly imbued with a thoroughgoing democratic consciousness – abuses of democracy are more or less unthinkable and quickly stamped out. In LU, this was not operative. Most people wanted a democratic leadership – a body that would take a lead once elected and get things done. Well, that's what they've got. It's one of the reasons my partner and I left.
Very good and clear explanation, I totally agree with you. What you have written is a critique of the science, or the basis of one, drawing attention to the flawed methodologies (assuming for the sake of argument that you're right). What I'm saying is that a non-ideological approach would be to think of a way forward, assuming the question of whether "hunter-gatherers" are "violent" has some meaning or relevance or interest for us. Defining who hunter-gathers are, for example, may be tricky and ideologically loaded. Equally so the evidence, such as it is, of their violence compared to ours. But these difficulties, including your critique of ideologies, are all included in the process, are a part of the overall scientific method – and the result, surely, is to edge beyond ideology and into objective reality?Flawed or not, I believe this is precisely what Diamond was attempting to do. Never mind the "savage", noble or otherwise, what is the truth of the matter?
I see what you're saying, and agree with a fair amount of it, but when you say, "Show me your ideology, I'll show you mine", it's not entirely clear how one is to respond. I don't know the answer. My ideology is that I try, strive, aim to do without one. Will that do?
Thanks LB. If we don't share ideologies, is genuine communication possible? I'd say probably not – perhaps another cause of all the violence and craziness in the world!
I wasn't going to reply to my old sparring partner LBird because I didn't think it was relevant to the subject of this thread. But thinking about it, maybe it is. LB has a point that is now well known – that our ideologies (not to mention our cognitive wiring) colour how we see the world. Indeed, it does so much more than one might guess from a rational or logical point of view – see the work of Daniel Kahneman. However, to take this as something inevitable and therefore to be celebrated and worn as a badge of pride is very strange. Both the scientific and spiritual traditions have always been about enquiring after the truth, into the reality of the world. Knowing that this endeavour is coloured by ideologies in surprising ways, misleading us into falsehoods, we take that into account in our further searches for the truth. We become more humble for a start. We design our experiments in truth to take account of cognitive biases and to correct for them. To take a trivial example, perhaps if we're lefties, we decide to take the Spectator and the Telegraph, rather than the New Statesman and the Guardian. When we feel we know something, we wonder whether it is isn't because our ignorant monkey minds have tricked us into it. If we feel anger, and express it, we look into it and wonder whether that wasn't an incredibly childish way to carry on, and whether we have any choice in the matter. And so on.So LB's remarks are relevant to the discussion. Genes almost certainly play a role in violence. So no doubt do property relations. But ideology plays its part too. Having an ideology is violence in embryo. It's only a few short historical steps from penning a scientific analysis to turning it into a dogma and ideology, to denouncing anyone who doesn't agree as lame-brained idiots, to taking state power and throwing the morons into the gulag (or gas chamber).Don't be so proud of your ideology, LB. Rise above it! Look into the better angels of your nature!
Robin: "Am I to take it that you too have become a pro-statist by virtue of your evident enthusiasm for what Diamond has to say?"Me; No, not at all. Early on in his book, Diamond says explicitly that his book shows why the "dreams" of anarchists can never be realised. I'm fairly sure he's wrong about that – I hope so anyway. I'm sure he's wrong about lots of things. But his books are wonderful.
I didn't realise when I posted it that it was based on an old speech. What impressed me was the intellectual content – he's obviously no fool – and as Adam says, the honesty. He's obviously one of the good guys, and maybe you are right – perhaps the Fellowship For Socialism really can't use the power of the Ring, I mean, the State, to achieve genuine peace. But his argument for doing so, like Boromir's, is pretty compelling.
