A practical application of socialist ideas (Read 1168 times)

    Wow, I'm sticking with clever bit.

     

    Okay, this is a third type of gesture.

     

    You asked me to explain what I meant by public reasons. I just tried.

     

    By the way, there is a huge difference between thinking that reasons are public and saying that the masses are the ultimate authority on the validity of claims. One way to explain this difference is by looking to the nature of scientific reasoning. Scientific reasoning tries to strip away the idiosyncrasy of experience through the laboratory apparatus. By doing so, it produces an essentially public method of verification--the idea can be repeated by anyone who can reproduce the conditions of the laboratory. The lab conditions create a kind of universal, public space where in principle anyone could verify a claim.

     

    Of course, when we go to verify political claims, there's no laboratory. There's just life. So, the best we can do is create a collective, imaginary laboratory in which we try out ideas and test their implications. That's the public space of reasons. If you enter that space with only your narrow personal experience backing up your claim, there's a sense in which you violate the "laboratory conditions" of public reason--because of the contingent nature of your reasoning. It's kind a like what happens when you bring your common sense intuitions into a science lab--they simply impede the process of inquiry. Mass reasoning is the "messy space" of common sense. We attempt to do something like "public reasoning" when we are consciously aware and self-critical of the limits of our common sense and personal experience, and looking to respect the "public" conditions of the "laboratory."

     

    [Yes, I am enjoying this.]


    Feeling the growl again

      . In fact, I have exactly as much experience living in this world as you do, spaniel.

       

       

      I'm not sure what necessitated this comment, I said nothing about your experience level.  One could argue simple duration of general experiences (ie being alive) vs experience relevant to a specific topic, but I didn't do (nor intend to do) that.  For other topics discussed in the past perhaps but I didn't see that can opened here...at least not by me.

      "If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does.  There's your pep talk for today.  Go Run." -- Slo_Hand

       

        I'm not sure what necessitated this comment, I said nothing about your experience level.  One could argue simple duration of general experiences (ie being alive) vs experience relevant to a specific topic, but I didn't do (nor intend to do) that.  For other topics discussed in the past perhaps but I didn't see that can opened here...at least not by me.

         

        Sorry 'bout that. A little jab. Couldn't help it.

          Runners run.


          HobbyJogger & HobbyRacer

            If I do not believe in personal property, I simply take what I want and rationalize it by saying it was part mine to begin with.

             

            If I am an anarchist, I kill someone and take their Air Jordans and rationalize it by saying anything goes and there are no rules.

             

            In other words, one can rationalize whatever behavior they want with philosophy; I bet few people deliberately do things that they truly believe are wrong.  They always rationalize it somehow, but I don't see what this has to do with establishing uniform rules to make sure society can function.

             

             

            A priest once explained it to me thus -- if I remember correctly (and I may not): every one does good in their own eyes. I think his point was that most vice consists of an excess of a naturally good drive, and failure to take into other goods into sufficient account.

             

            It doesn't sound quite as coherent now that I try to explain it, so it has apparently lost something in translation & memory.

            It's a 5k. It hurt like hell...then I tried to pick it up. The end.

            juniordo1


              Okay, this is a third type of gesture.

               

              You asked me to explain what I meant by public reasons. I just tried.

               

              By the way, there is a huge difference between thinking that reasons are public and saying that the masses are the ultimate authority on the validity of claims. One way to explain this difference is by looking to the nature of scientific reasoning. Scientific reasoning tries to strip away the idiosyncrasy of experience through the laboratory apparatus. By doing so, it produces an essentially public method of verification--the idea can be repeated by anyone who can reproduce the conditions of the laboratory. The lab conditions create a kind of universal, public space where in principle anyone could verify a claim.

               

              Of course, when we go to verify political claims, there's no laboratory. There's just life. So, the best we can do is create a collective, imaginary laboratory in which we try out ideas and test their implications. That's the public space of reasons. If you enter that space with only your narrow personal experience backing up your claim, there's a sense in which you violate the "laboratory conditions" of public reason--because of the contingent nature of your reasoning. It's kind a like what happens when you bring your common sense intuitions into a science lab--they simply impede the process of inquiry. Mass reasoning is the "messy space" of common sense. We attempt to do something like "public reasoning" when we are consciously aware and self-critical of the limits of our common sense and personal experience, and looking to respect the "public" conditions of the "laboratory."

               

              [Yes, I am enjoying this.]

               

              I'm glad you are enjoying yourself. I am entertained which I believe is your intent. OR, it is you who are seeking validation for your reasoning.

              2013 -Sub 2:00 for 1/2 marathon


              A Saucy Wench

                Don't you people have jobs? (I mean apart from Jeff for whom this quite possibly counts as doing work.)

                 Smile

                I have become Death, the destroyer of electronic gadgets

                 

                "When I got too tired to run anymore I just pretended I wasnt tired and kept running anyway" - dd, age 7

                  I'm glad you are enjoying yourself. I am entertained which I believe is your intent. OR, it is you who are seeking validation for your reasoning.

                   

                  My intent is to entertain and also explain what I meant by public reason as simply as possible. Yes, I am seeking validation for my reasoning. Or, in more neutral terms, simply trying to communicate with a stranger.

                   

                  So, what do you think? Bunch of hogwash and eye-glitter?

                  juniordo1


                    My intent is to entertain and also explain what I meant by public reason as simply as possible. Yes, I am seeking validation for my reasoning. Or, in more neutral terms, simply trying to communicate with a stranger.

                     

                    So, what do you think? Bunch of hogwash and eye-glitter?

                     

                     I think it's refreshing to listen to you express your thoughts. That doesn't mean I agree with you.

                     

                     In most of my discussions with those that vote Democratic, the discussion quicly deteriorates to "Bush did it" and "the fat cats don't pay their fair share" which as you put it, exist in the messy space along with claims of communist ideology and birthers.

                     

                     I oversestimated my zeal for the the argument today when I happened across this thread. I'm really worn out with politics and I need to pace myself because it's going to be  a long year.

                     

                     I'm starting week two of marathon training and the messy space in my mind doesn't have room for this right now. I'll be back at the end of May.

                     

                    I'm officially surrendering without a fight - for now.

                    2013 -Sub 2:00 for 1/2 marathon

                      Good luck with that marathon!

                        I read this, but I'm not sure where he is getting his "facts".  He says, "Overall government employment has declined by 2.6% in the last 3 years.", but the Office of Personnel Managment contradicts this... from their website:

                         http://www.opm.gov/feddata/HistoricalTables/TotalGovernmentSince1962.asp

                         

                        I agree though, his version of the facts help to make his point much more effectively.

                         

                        Obama's long game. 


                        Lazy idiot

                          I made an assumption that by overall he was referencing state and local in addition to federal.  But then some might say I saw what I wanted to see.

                           

                          I dunno.  I do know I should get to bed and out of this thread.

                          Tick tock


                          an amazing likeness

                            "Richard Wilkinson: How economic inequality harms societies"

                             

                            " We feel instinctively that societies with huge income gaps are somehow going wrong. Richard Wilkinson charts the hard data on economic
                            inequality, and shows what gets worse when rich and poor are too far apart: real effects on health, lifespan, even such basic values as trust."

                             

                            Sharing this Ted talk link in case some my find it worth their time.

                            Choosing my words carefully has never been my strength I've been known to be vague and often pointless


                            Prince of Fatness

                              I read this, but I'm not sure where he is getting his "facts".  He says, "Overall government employment has declined by 2.6% in the last 3 years.", but the Office of Personnel Managment contradicts this... from their website:

                               http://www.opm.gov/feddata/HistoricalTables/TotalGovernmentSince1962.asp

                               

                              I agree though, his version of the facts help to make his point much more effectively.

                               

                              I agree that everyone has their own version of the facts, including the author.  At least he pulls no punches about where he is coming from.  That allows us to parse the information without having to figure out whether or not there is a hidden agenda.  Makes it easier to sort through.  Whether you agree with him or not I think that that makes the article worth reading.

                               

                              A caveat: I write this as an unabashed supporter of Obama from early 2007 on. I did so not as a liberal, but as a conservative-minded independent appalled by the Bush administration’s record of war, debt, spending, and torture. I did not expect, or want, a messiah. I have one already, thank you very much. And there have been many times when I have disagreed with decisions Obama has made—to drop the Bowles-Simpson debt commission, to ignore the war crimes of the recent past, and to launch a war in Libya without Congress’s sanction, to cite three. But given the enormity of what he inherited, and given what he explicitly promised, it remains simply a fact that Obama has delivered in a way that the unhinged right and purist left have yet to understand or absorb. Their short-term outbursts have missed Obama’s long game—and why his reelection remains, in my view, as essential for this country’s future as his original election in 2008.

                              Semi-retired.


                              Prince of Fatness

                                ... requires TWO parties to play. From day 1, the Republicans in office have not been willing to play, no matter how traditionally conservative some of Obama's policies have been.

                                 

                                You'll never get me to buy into the fact that partisanship is the fault of one party.  You can argue "well they did it first", but that won't get us anywhere.  When my kids would get into an argument one would say "he or she started it.".  My response was "I don't care, you're both doing it now.".  I blame both parties equally.

                                 

                                It's not easy, moving to bipartisanship.  I think that the thing that makes it toughest on both sides is the grief that you get from your own party when you try moving toward the middle.

                                Semi-retired.