Buchanan “knew that spelling out their prejudices would alienate the country.” Making our case involves spelling out our prejudice because it will serve to galvanize the country in that our prejudice is to abide by the moral “treat others the way you would want to be treated if the shoe was on the othe…
Buchanan “knew that spelling out their prejudices would alienate the country.” Making our case involves spelling out our prejudice because it will serve to galvanize the country in that our prejudice is to abide by the moral “treat others the way you would want to be treated if the shoe was on the other foot” principle, the effect of which is to abstain from Buchanan’s immoral “do unto others before they do unto you” principle.
I suggest we do more than spell it out. I suggest we shout it out.
Tolstoy wrote that all happy families are alike, and that each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way. In addition to being true of families, it is also true of individuals, communities, businesses, political parties, and nations.
Those who adopt the immoral principle might experience short-term pleasure at the expense of innocent victims, but the inevitable long-term outcome is unnecessary suffering for everyone, including themselves. Those who adopt the moral principle inevitably experience short-term suffering, but it’s the necessary suffering that results from being fully human (if you want easy, be a flatworm), and the long-term benefit is joy, a word we seem to be hearing a lot lately.
My mother used to tell me that those who set out to intentionally hurt others will wind up getting hurt worse in the long run. I have seen that to be true with members of our extended family. To rephrase my gentle mother's words, "Karma is a bitch, and she will take you out!"
I love the "Mind your own damn business" mantra from Governor Walz. He doesn't need to talk about abortion rights or "reproductive freedom." Everyone knows what he means, and his statement is LONG overdue!
Those who adopt the immoral principle need a good discussion about what is moral. The immoral can be rationalized to be moral. It is and has been. So we are talking about something we assume is universally understood when it is not. Alternatively people may know what is moral, but it is buried, perhaps deeply...and again rationalized.
You hit the nail on the head. So, based on Aristotle idea that the more you know, the more you know how much you don’t know, I started thinking about your reply, and ended up with the following.
One of Maya Angelou’s famous quotes: “When someone shows you who they are, believe them.” Because I believe Maya, I believe that Trump will put himself and his family ahead of the country and put himself ahead of his family. Likewise, I believe that Joe Biden will put the country ahead of his family and put his family ahead of himself.
Every individual has—and is moral within—an unconscious circle of concern. Intuition tells us to expect a too-small circle in children. And intuition tells us to expect to be included in an adult’s circle, except experience too often teaches us otherwise. When a child has a too-small circle, we call that immaturity. We don’t always think of an adult with a too-small circle as being immature, but they’re showing us that’s who they are.
Wisdom is another name for maturity. Joe Biden is wise. I assume Donald Trump was born caring about his mother, and that it’s plausible to think he may be less mature now than he was then.
Joe Biden disappointed when he first decided to run again after a period of indecision that kept others from running. And we went along with that even though many thought he was too old. And the charge "ageism" popped into discussion as if age could not be disqualifying. Well it is not in and of itself but aging is individual. We began to see Biden aging before our eyes; that he could not campaign effectively and was in fact losing. Still he hung on. Things came to a head after the debate of 6/27/24. Still he hung on. Biden had to be pressured to bow out. To this day he is not really accepting that he had to bow out because he could not win the presidency, and he was not going to be functioning fully as a POTUS needs to for the next four years. Joe Biden was not wise about himself and not acting in the best interests of the country until there was enough pressure.
He's been a good president in many ways and done many good things especially given the opposition. He has been good domestically except rarely. I fault him on being too fearful to give Ukraine what it needed early on to push Putin out. I also fault him on being too acquiescent with re Israel. We are way beyond the point where our military aid should have ended after we so politely asked Netanyahu to stop the slaughter in Gaza. I won't get into the particulars which I presume you know.
So I don't feel Joe Biden was putting the country ahead of his own personal need to save it (perversely).
You don't feel Joe Biden was putting the country ahead of his own personal need to save it, and I do. So, we can’t both be right. But how did we come to those conflicting conclusions?
If two parties understand the reason they came to conflicting conclusions, and if it's important enough to resolved, then the conflict will be resolved.
In one way, we’re both doing the same thing. We’re both looking at the evidence, making assumptions, and drawing a conclusion. In another way, we’re doing something different. We’re looking at different evidence, making different assumptions, and drawing conflicting conclusions.
In other words, the reason two parties come to conflicting conclusions is that they’ve made different assumptions. So, both parties need to state and allow the other party to challenge their assumptions. That way, together, they will identify whenever one party is not being logical, and whenever one party’s assumptions are based on exclusive in lieu of inclusive evidence.
I’m always disappointed when I set out to convince someone I’m right and discover that I’m wrong, but not for long because I know that having my ignorance revealed and expanding my knowledge are different words that express the same meaning.
We can agree to disagree about Biden and the world won’t come to an end. But why aren’t the pundits whose advice we rely on using that simple process to resolve their conflicting opinions of Biden? That’s who I think of when I look for someone to blame for the suffering of the people of Gaza. But then I think it’s up to us to demand that they follow that process, and we don’t. However, and I'm just saying in IMHO, and to everyone and no one in particular, a great place to start is by making sure we’re doing our best to use that simple process in our own close personal relationships.
I'm not sure I agree with Tolstoy on that one. All families are in some ways unique, and in some ways the same, and if there are patterns of choices that more reliably bring contentment, there must be other choices that pretty reliably bring suffering, over and above the slings and arrows we all are heir to. Perceptive awareness of extended consequences would seem to fall on the plus side, perspicacious tactics and strategy.
Speak loud enough to be heard bu leaving shouting to TFG except when there is a fire, and even then, one can be passionate, yet sufficiently calm and focused. We want professional fire fighters to have that. We need all those in socially extremely consequential roles to have that. Greta Thunberg precociously displayed that, which helped make her so effective.
I think that one of the essential qualities of democratic leadership, grass roots or elected, is to help a mass of people to retain their focus on something that really matters. Keep their eyes on the prize and don't let what is achingly wrong be glossed over. Democratic gathering is voluntary, so this is an exercise in education, not use of force; it may involve disruption but not violence. Not unless it's war, and that tends to be ugly and unpredictable, even when justified.
A just democracy is the hard road, though, as you say, the most rewarding. Callow Mitt Romney mused:
"-- I got to go to the Olympic Games in China. It's pretty impressive over there how quickly they can build things, how productive they are as a society. You should see their airport compared to our airports, their highways, their train systems."
Yup. It is easier to get things done in an autocracy, and that appeals to many. But "consent of the governed"? Democratic herding of cats gets things done too; not so easily, yet while preserving, as best we can, essential liberty.
We are human, and we have the free will, so we get to choose how to act. IMHO, Tolstoy is saying our happiness depends on acting in harmony with our human nature, and we don’t get to choose our genetically inherited human nature.
I would say that “adhering to the moral principle,” “staying attached to reality,” and “acting in harmony with our shared human nature” are different phrases expressing the same meaning. When everyone does, the social system is healthy because we’re all staying attached to the one reality. Likewise, “violating the moral principle,” “being detached from reality,” and “acting at cross purposes with our shared human nature” are different phrases expressing the same meaning. When anyone does, it’s a signal that the social system is unhealthy.
Being delusional is easy in the short term because it’s easy to create chaos. Being rational is easier in the long term because, in a healthy social system, whenever the system’s parts are in conflict, the conflict is resolved.
Rationality’s short-term challenge in an unhealthy system is because the harmonious signal gets drown out by noise of discord. As Russell Ackoff put it, “It is far better to do the right thing wrong than do the wrong thing right.” So, Greta Thunberg kept doing the right thing wrong until she found a way to cut through the noise, aka doing the right thing right. That’s where her exceptional intelligence was an asset because it helps to get there faster.
Mr. Smith was popular went he went to Washington because he was unsophisticated, and he was successful because he was mature. Sarah Palin was popular because she was unsophisticated, and she was unsuccessful because she was immature. Mr. Romney is sophisticated and immature. Translation: don’t confuse “sophisticated” with “mature.”
Yes, but what's the counterargument?
Buchanan “knew that spelling out their prejudices would alienate the country.” Making our case involves spelling out our prejudice because it will serve to galvanize the country in that our prejudice is to abide by the moral “treat others the way you would want to be treated if the shoe was on the other foot” principle, the effect of which is to abstain from Buchanan’s immoral “do unto others before they do unto you” principle.
I suggest we do more than spell it out. I suggest we shout it out.
Tolstoy wrote that all happy families are alike, and that each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way. In addition to being true of families, it is also true of individuals, communities, businesses, political parties, and nations.
Those who adopt the immoral principle might experience short-term pleasure at the expense of innocent victims, but the inevitable long-term outcome is unnecessary suffering for everyone, including themselves. Those who adopt the moral principle inevitably experience short-term suffering, but it’s the necessary suffering that results from being fully human (if you want easy, be a flatworm), and the long-term benefit is joy, a word we seem to be hearing a lot lately.
My mother used to tell me that those who set out to intentionally hurt others will wind up getting hurt worse in the long run. I have seen that to be true with members of our extended family. To rephrase my gentle mother's words, "Karma is a bitch, and she will take you out!"
I love the "Mind your own damn business" mantra from Governor Walz. He doesn't need to talk about abortion rights or "reproductive freedom." Everyone knows what he means, and his statement is LONG overdue!
Those who adopt the immoral principle need a good discussion about what is moral. The immoral can be rationalized to be moral. It is and has been. So we are talking about something we assume is universally understood when it is not. Alternatively people may know what is moral, but it is buried, perhaps deeply...and again rationalized.
You hit the nail on the head. So, based on Aristotle idea that the more you know, the more you know how much you don’t know, I started thinking about your reply, and ended up with the following.
One of Maya Angelou’s famous quotes: “When someone shows you who they are, believe them.” Because I believe Maya, I believe that Trump will put himself and his family ahead of the country and put himself ahead of his family. Likewise, I believe that Joe Biden will put the country ahead of his family and put his family ahead of himself.
Every individual has—and is moral within—an unconscious circle of concern. Intuition tells us to expect a too-small circle in children. And intuition tells us to expect to be included in an adult’s circle, except experience too often teaches us otherwise. When a child has a too-small circle, we call that immaturity. We don’t always think of an adult with a too-small circle as being immature, but they’re showing us that’s who they are.
Wisdom is another name for maturity. Joe Biden is wise. I assume Donald Trump was born caring about his mother, and that it’s plausible to think he may be less mature now than he was then.
Joe Biden disappointed when he first decided to run again after a period of indecision that kept others from running. And we went along with that even though many thought he was too old. And the charge "ageism" popped into discussion as if age could not be disqualifying. Well it is not in and of itself but aging is individual. We began to see Biden aging before our eyes; that he could not campaign effectively and was in fact losing. Still he hung on. Things came to a head after the debate of 6/27/24. Still he hung on. Biden had to be pressured to bow out. To this day he is not really accepting that he had to bow out because he could not win the presidency, and he was not going to be functioning fully as a POTUS needs to for the next four years. Joe Biden was not wise about himself and not acting in the best interests of the country until there was enough pressure.
He's been a good president in many ways and done many good things especially given the opposition. He has been good domestically except rarely. I fault him on being too fearful to give Ukraine what it needed early on to push Putin out. I also fault him on being too acquiescent with re Israel. We are way beyond the point where our military aid should have ended after we so politely asked Netanyahu to stop the slaughter in Gaza. I won't get into the particulars which I presume you know.
So I don't feel Joe Biden was putting the country ahead of his own personal need to save it (perversely).
You don't feel Joe Biden was putting the country ahead of his own personal need to save it, and I do. So, we can’t both be right. But how did we come to those conflicting conclusions?
If two parties understand the reason they came to conflicting conclusions, and if it's important enough to resolved, then the conflict will be resolved.
In one way, we’re both doing the same thing. We’re both looking at the evidence, making assumptions, and drawing a conclusion. In another way, we’re doing something different. We’re looking at different evidence, making different assumptions, and drawing conflicting conclusions.
In other words, the reason two parties come to conflicting conclusions is that they’ve made different assumptions. So, both parties need to state and allow the other party to challenge their assumptions. That way, together, they will identify whenever one party is not being logical, and whenever one party’s assumptions are based on exclusive in lieu of inclusive evidence.
I’m always disappointed when I set out to convince someone I’m right and discover that I’m wrong, but not for long because I know that having my ignorance revealed and expanding my knowledge are different words that express the same meaning.
We can agree to disagree about Biden and the world won’t come to an end. But why aren’t the pundits whose advice we rely on using that simple process to resolve their conflicting opinions of Biden? That’s who I think of when I look for someone to blame for the suffering of the people of Gaza. But then I think it’s up to us to demand that they follow that process, and we don’t. However, and I'm just saying in IMHO, and to everyone and no one in particular, a great place to start is by making sure we’re doing our best to use that simple process in our own close personal relationships.
I'm not sure I agree with Tolstoy on that one. All families are in some ways unique, and in some ways the same, and if there are patterns of choices that more reliably bring contentment, there must be other choices that pretty reliably bring suffering, over and above the slings and arrows we all are heir to. Perceptive awareness of extended consequences would seem to fall on the plus side, perspicacious tactics and strategy.
Speak loud enough to be heard bu leaving shouting to TFG except when there is a fire, and even then, one can be passionate, yet sufficiently calm and focused. We want professional fire fighters to have that. We need all those in socially extremely consequential roles to have that. Greta Thunberg precociously displayed that, which helped make her so effective.
I think that one of the essential qualities of democratic leadership, grass roots or elected, is to help a mass of people to retain their focus on something that really matters. Keep their eyes on the prize and don't let what is achingly wrong be glossed over. Democratic gathering is voluntary, so this is an exercise in education, not use of force; it may involve disruption but not violence. Not unless it's war, and that tends to be ugly and unpredictable, even when justified.
A just democracy is the hard road, though, as you say, the most rewarding. Callow Mitt Romney mused:
"-- I got to go to the Olympic Games in China. It's pretty impressive over there how quickly they can build things, how productive they are as a society. You should see their airport compared to our airports, their highways, their train systems."
Yup. It is easier to get things done in an autocracy, and that appeals to many. But "consent of the governed"? Democratic herding of cats gets things done too; not so easily, yet while preserving, as best we can, essential liberty.
We are human, and we have the free will, so we get to choose how to act. IMHO, Tolstoy is saying our happiness depends on acting in harmony with our human nature, and we don’t get to choose our genetically inherited human nature.
I would say that “adhering to the moral principle,” “staying attached to reality,” and “acting in harmony with our shared human nature” are different phrases expressing the same meaning. When everyone does, the social system is healthy because we’re all staying attached to the one reality. Likewise, “violating the moral principle,” “being detached from reality,” and “acting at cross purposes with our shared human nature” are different phrases expressing the same meaning. When anyone does, it’s a signal that the social system is unhealthy.
Being delusional is easy in the short term because it’s easy to create chaos. Being rational is easier in the long term because, in a healthy social system, whenever the system’s parts are in conflict, the conflict is resolved.
Rationality’s short-term challenge in an unhealthy system is because the harmonious signal gets drown out by noise of discord. As Russell Ackoff put it, “It is far better to do the right thing wrong than do the wrong thing right.” So, Greta Thunberg kept doing the right thing wrong until she found a way to cut through the noise, aka doing the right thing right. That’s where her exceptional intelligence was an asset because it helps to get there faster.
Mr. Smith was popular went he went to Washington because he was unsophisticated, and he was successful because he was mature. Sarah Palin was popular because she was unsophisticated, and she was unsuccessful because she was immature. Mr. Romney is sophisticated and immature. Translation: don’t confuse “sophisticated” with “mature.”