It's all politics

[wmw999 2,116]

This is from an article I read today (A Philosophy Professor's Final Class (New Yorker)

It's just so perfect, because it sums up humans vs. politics vs. reason beautifully in my mind. The whole article is worth reading, but this paragraph is particularly topical to SC, where we talk about, yes, politics. You can google Bernstein and Habermas; I hadn't heard of either of them, either.

Quote

The two philosophers (Bernstein and Habermas) agreed that the seed of sectarian politics seemed to lie within the rational project of modernity: people had tried to establish the one true political system on the basis of reason when, really, all politics had to be rooted in a social give-and-take with others. But Habermas argued that, in the process of rationally justifying our moral and political beliefs to one another, the force of the better argument could lead us to moral and political norms that transcend the limits of our communities. Bernstein would not go that far. To think like that, he maintained, one would have to believe that there was a fundamental difference between the way we know the world and the way we decide how to behave—or, in Kantian terms, between theoretical and practical uses of reason. A mistake, in his view.

Wendy P

[kallend 1,621]

"To borrow Warren Buffett’s take about investing, the conservative movement went from innovation to imitation to idiocy. It’s how the movement embraced Donald Trump as a standard-bearer and role model. All the rest, as they say, is Commentary."; Bret Stephens (Pulitzer winning conservative columnist).

[Phil1111 908]

On 1/11/2023 at 2:24 PM, wmw999 said:

This is from an article I read today (A Philosophy Professor's Final Class (New Yorker)

It's just so perfect, because it sums up humans vs. politics vs. reason beautifully in my mind. The whole article is worth reading, but this paragraph is particularly topical to SC, where we talk about, yes, politics. You can google Bernstein and Habermas; I hadn't heard of either of them, either.

Wendy P

The ideals of defining political debate. End up in the dustbin when tribalism, ignorance, bad faith and a lack of reason, infect the discussion.

[Coreece 189]

On 1/13/2023 at 7:42 PM, Phil1111 said:

The ideals of defining political debate. End up in the dustbin when tribalism, ignorance, bad faith and a lack of reason, infect the discussion.

I'll give tribalism/lack of reason to the right and bad faith/ignorance to the left.  

[jakee 1,254]

3 hours ago, Coreece said:

I'll give tribalism/lack of reason to the right and bad faith/ignorance to the left.  

If you want ignorance look at the election deniers and if you want bad faith look at Supreme Court confirmations.