Be cerful, yew jus mite learned somethin'
Greetings loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader decided to browse the Poet Laureate's site and discovered that the Poet Laureate had been browsing this site! Egads! Then, he claimed he had to go quickly - but much to my amusement found a way to type out another 1500 words (totaling something like 7800 characters). Your Maximum Leader figures this took at least one hour. So much for not having blog time...
Well, your Maximum Leader decided to add more to this ongoing debate. Here goes...
The good Hominid writes: Having theorized that liberals worship reason (he states at the beginning of his post that he has no intention of substantiating this claim, so it's pretty much an article of faith-- an article routinely contradicted by fellow conservatives who endlessly refer to liberal positions as "irrational" or "unreasonable" or "blinded by ideology"..., Burgess-Jackson valorizes tradition...
Insofar as conservatives calling liberals "irrational," "unreasonable," or "blinded by ideology" goes, it is, for the most part, just name calling. And the name calling is as rampant in the liberal to conservative direction as well. Your Maximum Leader seriously doubts that this name calling is indicative of anything except rhetorical bluster in most cases. Admittedly, in some media (like these blogs for example) when one person claims another is "irrational" the accuser generally cites some particular claim.
Burgess Jackson writes: "Actually, conservatives respect reason as well, but they are skeptical that any particular human or group of humans (think vanguard of the proletariat) can do better than the accumulated wisdom that tradition represents. Tradition is a record of trial and error, success and failure. It is not to be taken lightly. One should tamper with it only where it is unambiguously bad. But this, the conservative says, is rarely the case. So perhaps it's more accurate to say that while both liberals and conservatives respect reason, only liberals exalt it.
Traditions reflect not just trial and error over a long period of time but compromises, some of which are difficult to discern.
The Big Hominid writes: I don't doubt that traditions are successful beneficiaries of trial-and-error, but (1) this doesn't erase the fact that traditions have beginnings, i.e., somebody had to innovate, and probably had to push against a previous paradigm, and (2) there are too many traditions still in existence that produce suffering and injustice... ...stupidity rides along the memeplexes of various traditions. This undercuts the idea that the vaunted trial-and-error process weeds out the bad and leaves only what's worthy of protecting (or that which is "not to be taken lightly," as Burgess-Jackson argues). If you're going to use the Darwinian paradigm to argue your case, as Burgess-Jackson is, you have to explore the analogy more fully. Species survive with a lot of useless crap attached to otherwise useful forms... My point is that the trial-and-error process perpetuates human venality along with human nobility.
Unless I misunderstand him, I believe the Big Hominid is saying that the fact that there are bad or even harmful traditions undercuts the implication that traditions are on the whole good. I disagree. I do not believe that Burgess-Jackson is implying that all traditions are good. Indeed, he recognizes that traditions are a record of past experience; the outcome of that experience might still result in what one might consider a bad or harmful tradition. That tradition can be changed or eliminated when society is ready to make the change. Burgess-Jackson is (and I am as well) not arguing that society is static and unchanging, but that serious consideration of past experience as well as logical reasoning need be applied before a change is made. I believe, and I think history is replete with examples of, times when tradition and custom were completely overthrown for the dictatorship of reason. (Communist Russia and the French Revolution under the Directory and the Committee of Public Safety are the first examples to jump to my mind.) I believe that too many political determinations have been made (or are being made) in our time without proper consideration being given to maintaining the status quo. The very pertinent question of what ELSE could result from a societal change is not often asked, because logically it felt my many not to be germane. This is the crux of the "slippery slope" argument I was making a few months ago in my gay marriage posts. Once you remove the societal barriers to an action, and replace them with only logical barriers, you oftentimes end up with no barriers at all. This is because people can change the definition of terms or set new premises to an argument and thereby achieve a completely new outcome.
The Hominid continues: I think it's a mistake to paint liberals as overly rational when that's not what you generally hear in mainstream conservative rhetoric about liberals. I think it's also a mistake not to point out where tradition is wrong-- and by not pointing these things out, Burgess-Jackson opens himself to accusations of dishonesty, or at least willful ignorance.
Again, I think the mainstream commentary from both political parties consists of way too much name calling. Generally when a conservative calls a liberal irrational, it is because a particular idea they are espousing makes no sense in the context of society. But that is not to say that the idea being espoused does not make logical sense in the abstract. In the abstract, "not making enemies" (as Sheryl Crow recently suggested in one of her first foreign policy addresses) is a great idea. But practically it is not viable option in real-world diplomacy. I don't think Burgess-Jackson is being dishonest or willfully ignorant. As I read him, he recognizes that traditions change on the one hand (but hopes that it will not change too quickly or without plenty of thought); and on the other point he states that liberals believe that reason applied to any problem will find a solution. If anything Burgess-Jackson should give some examples of this. I contend that he is assuming that examples are taken "as read" by the reader.
Then we move on to the contentious issue of gay marriage.
Burgess-Jackson points out at first that simple arguments by conservatives are not adequate for dealing with an institution like marriage. To which the Hominid writes:
We are indeed dealing with an institution, but one that has no universally agreed-upon definition, which has been my point since I wrote my gay marriage post... Marriage is a multifaceted, multilayered institution. It has sexual, social, legal, psychological, and economic dimensions... And nowhere in this post, aside from a vaguely-proposed paradigm of trial-and-error, does Burgess-Jackson deal with the empirically obvious fact that "marriage," like all reality, is a changing, dynamic thing... This debate isn't really about changing the institution: at this point in the game, the change is already occurring. The question is whether and how the change should be acknowledged. This has been my point from the beginning: the people who are legislating meaning are the people unwilling to acknowledge the social changes that have already occurred and are continuing to gain momentum.
Update: Your Maximum Leader must point out, for the sake of accuracy, that the line: "Marriage is a multifaceted, multilayered institution. It has sexual, social, legal, psychological, and economic dimensions." Belongs to Prof. Burgess-Jackson, not the Poet Laureate.
Here is where I will take issue with the Hominid. While I agree that marriage may have no universally agreed-upon definition, it does, in the context of our Anglo-American/Judeo-Christian society have a commonly agreed-upon definition. Recognizing that in this society a significant number of people have started to change their personal definition of marriage, the fact remains that there is a commonly held definition which up to this point has had the force of law behind it. And that definition has been binding socially for centuries. While in the abstract we can debate that marriage might not have a single universal definition, in the world of civil society it does. Yes the reality of the situation is changing, insomuch as this wouldn't have been an issue at all 100, 50, or even 25 years ago. It is an issue now. A significant number of people believe that the common definition of marriage is in need of some change. They are advocating this position in society and asking courts to make determinations. The reason we are having this discussion is that there is change is not generally agreed upon (or I would contend, even agreed upon by a simple majority of people). This is where reason and its application come into the equation. The Massachusetts Supreme Court very logically held that if the state constitution prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, then the commonly-held definition of marriage is discriminatory. What I believe Burgess-Jackson, and I, have been saying is that this is reason at its most destructive. By looking at this issue purely from an abstract and rational position, the court's decision is a perfectly sound one. But the slippery-slope of reason does start to apply. Why stop with gay marriage? Why not allow brothers and sisters to marry? Boys and Men? How can you determine a logically sound limitation to two willing people getting married? You can't. In the abstract there is no reason. This is the problem with this issue when examining it from another angle.
(And I will not even touch on a very important sub-debate here. Namely, is this an issue for courts to decide or for a legislative body to address.)
The Hominid wrote: I appreciate Burgess-Jackson's caution about exalting reason. I'm a religion student, so I don't give reason primacy of place, either. To phrase this in a Christian way: faith and reason can never be equal partners. Logical reasoning, in order to be at all relevant to human existence, has to begin with postulates, and last I checked, these are usually considered unprovable. All reason begins with a leap (or maybe several leaps) of faith. So if Burgess-Jackson and the Maximum Leader are both saying that exalting reason is bad, then I actually agree, because a worldview that exalts reason to the exclusion of tradition, etc. is bound to fail.
I think we are both saying that exalting reason to the detriment of tradition and custom (however irrational) is generally bad.
But the Hominid's other hand says: But by the same token, swinging totally in the other direction...is just as bad.
Also agreed. I think the sub text here is (as I have said before) there is something inherently unsatisfying about saying "We've always done it this way and let's not change." Perhaps an analogy is appropriate. When debating major changes in the way society behaves, change should have the burden of proof. Assume "the way it is" is the accused party in a trial. Those advocating change can apply reason to the circumstances and have the burden to demonstrate clearly that the status quo is not satisfactory. This would build consensus that a change should be made. Unfortunately, this is not what most people who want to change the status quo want to do. They present a logically sound argument and become indignant (or resort to name calling) when other don't immediately come around. Additionally, we live in a society that happens to like change. This is the blessing and curse of being Americans. Change is our tradition. (Unlike many Asian or European societies where the status quo is much more entrenched.) You're poor? Get a job, work hard, change yourself and you could become rich. You don't like your church? Great, change churches. Want start over? Great, move to a new town, reinvent yourself, change your surroundings and bingo - a whole new you.
I believe what Burgess-Jackson and I are saying is that perhaps we should become a little more fond of the status quo (tradition and custom) and a little less fond of reason and change.
Finally, the Hominid gets to my "reason is destructive" exhortation: From my nondualist perspective I contend: reason isn't inherently bad or destructive. Nothing is inherently anything. Reason is a tool. In science, the application of reason can produce bombs (themselves tools for good or ill) or new agricultural techniques (also tools for good or ill). I reject any objectivist claims about what reason is or isn't.
Your Maximum Leader stands by his claim that reason (outside of math and science) is a destructive faculty. Outside of math and science what is it used for? Destroying something or another. The outcome of that destruction might end up being judged as a "good" thing. But it is destruction nonetheless.
And as an aside to the Big Hominid, as a non-dualist, is there anything that can be inherently something? Although he knows better, your Maximum Leader was afraid you were slipping into some sort of Post-modernist trance. He feared that somewhere out there Jacques Derrida or Michel Foucault had a little (perhaps 1/4 scale) Hominid voodoo doll and was casting a spell on you.
Well, another theoretical discussion continues my minions. Your Maximum Leader hopes you are learning something from all this.
Carry on.
Well, your Maximum Leader decided to add more to this ongoing debate. Here goes...
The good Hominid writes: Having theorized that liberals worship reason (he states at the beginning of his post that he has no intention of substantiating this claim, so it's pretty much an article of faith-- an article routinely contradicted by fellow conservatives who endlessly refer to liberal positions as "irrational" or "unreasonable" or "blinded by ideology"..., Burgess-Jackson valorizes tradition...
Insofar as conservatives calling liberals "irrational," "unreasonable," or "blinded by ideology" goes, it is, for the most part, just name calling. And the name calling is as rampant in the liberal to conservative direction as well. Your Maximum Leader seriously doubts that this name calling is indicative of anything except rhetorical bluster in most cases. Admittedly, in some media (like these blogs for example) when one person claims another is "irrational" the accuser generally cites some particular claim.
Burgess Jackson writes: "Actually, conservatives respect reason as well, but they are skeptical that any particular human or group of humans (think vanguard of the proletariat) can do better than the accumulated wisdom that tradition represents. Tradition is a record of trial and error, success and failure. It is not to be taken lightly. One should tamper with it only where it is unambiguously bad. But this, the conservative says, is rarely the case. So perhaps it's more accurate to say that while both liberals and conservatives respect reason, only liberals exalt it.
Traditions reflect not just trial and error over a long period of time but compromises, some of which are difficult to discern.
The Big Hominid writes: I don't doubt that traditions are successful beneficiaries of trial-and-error, but (1) this doesn't erase the fact that traditions have beginnings, i.e., somebody had to innovate, and probably had to push against a previous paradigm, and (2) there are too many traditions still in existence that produce suffering and injustice... ...stupidity rides along the memeplexes of various traditions. This undercuts the idea that the vaunted trial-and-error process weeds out the bad and leaves only what's worthy of protecting (or that which is "not to be taken lightly," as Burgess-Jackson argues). If you're going to use the Darwinian paradigm to argue your case, as Burgess-Jackson is, you have to explore the analogy more fully. Species survive with a lot of useless crap attached to otherwise useful forms... My point is that the trial-and-error process perpetuates human venality along with human nobility.
Unless I misunderstand him, I believe the Big Hominid is saying that the fact that there are bad or even harmful traditions undercuts the implication that traditions are on the whole good. I disagree. I do not believe that Burgess-Jackson is implying that all traditions are good. Indeed, he recognizes that traditions are a record of past experience; the outcome of that experience might still result in what one might consider a bad or harmful tradition. That tradition can be changed or eliminated when society is ready to make the change. Burgess-Jackson is (and I am as well) not arguing that society is static and unchanging, but that serious consideration of past experience as well as logical reasoning need be applied before a change is made. I believe, and I think history is replete with examples of, times when tradition and custom were completely overthrown for the dictatorship of reason. (Communist Russia and the French Revolution under the Directory and the Committee of Public Safety are the first examples to jump to my mind.) I believe that too many political determinations have been made (or are being made) in our time without proper consideration being given to maintaining the status quo. The very pertinent question of what ELSE could result from a societal change is not often asked, because logically it felt my many not to be germane. This is the crux of the "slippery slope" argument I was making a few months ago in my gay marriage posts. Once you remove the societal barriers to an action, and replace them with only logical barriers, you oftentimes end up with no barriers at all. This is because people can change the definition of terms or set new premises to an argument and thereby achieve a completely new outcome.
The Hominid continues: I think it's a mistake to paint liberals as overly rational when that's not what you generally hear in mainstream conservative rhetoric about liberals. I think it's also a mistake not to point out where tradition is wrong-- and by not pointing these things out, Burgess-Jackson opens himself to accusations of dishonesty, or at least willful ignorance.
Again, I think the mainstream commentary from both political parties consists of way too much name calling. Generally when a conservative calls a liberal irrational, it is because a particular idea they are espousing makes no sense in the context of society. But that is not to say that the idea being espoused does not make logical sense in the abstract. In the abstract, "not making enemies" (as Sheryl Crow recently suggested in one of her first foreign policy addresses) is a great idea. But practically it is not viable option in real-world diplomacy. I don't think Burgess-Jackson is being dishonest or willfully ignorant. As I read him, he recognizes that traditions change on the one hand (but hopes that it will not change too quickly or without plenty of thought); and on the other point he states that liberals believe that reason applied to any problem will find a solution. If anything Burgess-Jackson should give some examples of this. I contend that he is assuming that examples are taken "as read" by the reader.
Then we move on to the contentious issue of gay marriage.
Burgess-Jackson points out at first that simple arguments by conservatives are not adequate for dealing with an institution like marriage. To which the Hominid writes:
We are indeed dealing with an institution, but one that has no universally agreed-upon definition, which has been my point since I wrote my gay marriage post... Marriage is a multifaceted, multilayered institution. It has sexual, social, legal, psychological, and economic dimensions... And nowhere in this post, aside from a vaguely-proposed paradigm of trial-and-error, does Burgess-Jackson deal with the empirically obvious fact that "marriage," like all reality, is a changing, dynamic thing... This debate isn't really about changing the institution: at this point in the game, the change is already occurring. The question is whether and how the change should be acknowledged. This has been my point from the beginning: the people who are legislating meaning are the people unwilling to acknowledge the social changes that have already occurred and are continuing to gain momentum.
Update: Your Maximum Leader must point out, for the sake of accuracy, that the line: "Marriage is a multifaceted, multilayered institution. It has sexual, social, legal, psychological, and economic dimensions." Belongs to Prof. Burgess-Jackson, not the Poet Laureate.
Here is where I will take issue with the Hominid. While I agree that marriage may have no universally agreed-upon definition, it does, in the context of our Anglo-American/Judeo-Christian society have a commonly agreed-upon definition. Recognizing that in this society a significant number of people have started to change their personal definition of marriage, the fact remains that there is a commonly held definition which up to this point has had the force of law behind it. And that definition has been binding socially for centuries. While in the abstract we can debate that marriage might not have a single universal definition, in the world of civil society it does. Yes the reality of the situation is changing, insomuch as this wouldn't have been an issue at all 100, 50, or even 25 years ago. It is an issue now. A significant number of people believe that the common definition of marriage is in need of some change. They are advocating this position in society and asking courts to make determinations. The reason we are having this discussion is that there is change is not generally agreed upon (or I would contend, even agreed upon by a simple majority of people). This is where reason and its application come into the equation. The Massachusetts Supreme Court very logically held that if the state constitution prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, then the commonly-held definition of marriage is discriminatory. What I believe Burgess-Jackson, and I, have been saying is that this is reason at its most destructive. By looking at this issue purely from an abstract and rational position, the court's decision is a perfectly sound one. But the slippery-slope of reason does start to apply. Why stop with gay marriage? Why not allow brothers and sisters to marry? Boys and Men? How can you determine a logically sound limitation to two willing people getting married? You can't. In the abstract there is no reason. This is the problem with this issue when examining it from another angle.
(And I will not even touch on a very important sub-debate here. Namely, is this an issue for courts to decide or for a legislative body to address.)
The Hominid wrote: I appreciate Burgess-Jackson's caution about exalting reason. I'm a religion student, so I don't give reason primacy of place, either. To phrase this in a Christian way: faith and reason can never be equal partners. Logical reasoning, in order to be at all relevant to human existence, has to begin with postulates, and last I checked, these are usually considered unprovable. All reason begins with a leap (or maybe several leaps) of faith. So if Burgess-Jackson and the Maximum Leader are both saying that exalting reason is bad, then I actually agree, because a worldview that exalts reason to the exclusion of tradition, etc. is bound to fail.
I think we are both saying that exalting reason to the detriment of tradition and custom (however irrational) is generally bad.
But the Hominid's other hand says: But by the same token, swinging totally in the other direction...is just as bad.
Also agreed. I think the sub text here is (as I have said before) there is something inherently unsatisfying about saying "We've always done it this way and let's not change." Perhaps an analogy is appropriate. When debating major changes in the way society behaves, change should have the burden of proof. Assume "the way it is" is the accused party in a trial. Those advocating change can apply reason to the circumstances and have the burden to demonstrate clearly that the status quo is not satisfactory. This would build consensus that a change should be made. Unfortunately, this is not what most people who want to change the status quo want to do. They present a logically sound argument and become indignant (or resort to name calling) when other don't immediately come around. Additionally, we live in a society that happens to like change. This is the blessing and curse of being Americans. Change is our tradition. (Unlike many Asian or European societies where the status quo is much more entrenched.) You're poor? Get a job, work hard, change yourself and you could become rich. You don't like your church? Great, change churches. Want start over? Great, move to a new town, reinvent yourself, change your surroundings and bingo - a whole new you.
I believe what Burgess-Jackson and I are saying is that perhaps we should become a little more fond of the status quo (tradition and custom) and a little less fond of reason and change.
Finally, the Hominid gets to my "reason is destructive" exhortation: From my nondualist perspective I contend: reason isn't inherently bad or destructive. Nothing is inherently anything. Reason is a tool. In science, the application of reason can produce bombs (themselves tools for good or ill) or new agricultural techniques (also tools for good or ill). I reject any objectivist claims about what reason is or isn't.
Your Maximum Leader stands by his claim that reason (outside of math and science) is a destructive faculty. Outside of math and science what is it used for? Destroying something or another. The outcome of that destruction might end up being judged as a "good" thing. But it is destruction nonetheless.
And as an aside to the Big Hominid, as a non-dualist, is there anything that can be inherently something? Although he knows better, your Maximum Leader was afraid you were slipping into some sort of Post-modernist trance. He feared that somewhere out there Jacques Derrida or Michel Foucault had a little (perhaps 1/4 scale) Hominid voodoo doll and was casting a spell on you.
Well, another theoretical discussion continues my minions. Your Maximum Leader hopes you are learning something from all this.
Carry on.
posted by The Maximum Leader at 11/21/2003 12:37:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home