|
Post by Fingerplucked on Sept 24, 2013 9:22:57 GMT -5
I learned, by experience, many years ago that the world in general is neither fair nor caring. We may wish it otherwise but it isn't. So, instead of obsessing over it I just learned to deal with it and live with it. That's why a neo-con was defined as a liberal who had been mugged by reality. And the reason the world isn't a more fair and caring place is because there are too many people who do not place a high value on caring and fairness. There are too many people like you. You didn't create the problem, but you've willingly become a part of it, small as your part may be.
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Sept 24, 2013 9:37:33 GMT -5
I learned, by experience, many years ago that the world in general is neither fair nor caring. We may wish it otherwise but it isn't. So, instead of obsessing over it I just learned to deal with it and live with it. That's why a neo-con was defined as a liberal who had been mugged by reality. And the reason the world isn't a more fair and caring place is because there are too many people who do not place a high value on caring and fairness. There are too many people like you. You didn't create the problem, but you've willingly become a part of it, small as your part may be. The problem is created by biology not people. And while you can change biology it's a long process. We haven't had a use for an appendix in a few thousand years and it has gotten smaller but people are still born with them like wise the little toe. And just guessing but IMO it has to be harder to change brain hardwireing than to get ride of an organ used to remove dirt and gravel from food we pick up off the ground.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2013 9:59:11 GMT -5
For contrary/(complimentary?) opinion, I recommend Steven Pinker's "The Better Angels of Our Nature" "The Better Angels of Our Nature takes a thesis I would love to believe; indeed, have casually believed for most of my life. It is that humans have grown less horrible with time. The 20th century, the century of Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot, of Mao in China and Mobutu in the Congo, was appalling, but the number of deaths by violence as a proportion of the total population remained modest compared with the ferocious cruelties of the wars of religion in the 17th century. The modern nation state – the Leviathan of the philosopher Hobbes – has had a civilising effect almost everywhere. Education has helped, as has the empowerment of women, and the idea, too, of human rights."........ ......."What he has delivered is yet another absorbing slice from history's prodigious provender: he calls upon cognitive science, anthropology, behavioural science, criminology, sociology, statistics, game theory and any number of appropriate fields of scholarship to support his argument in the later chapters. But in its confidence and sweep, the vast timescale, its humane standpoint and its confident world-view, it is something more than a science book: it is an epic history by an optimist who can list his reasons to be cheerful and support them with persuasive instances." www.theguardian.com/science/2012/nov/19/better-angels-nature-steven-pinker-review(The small typeface is a bit of a struggle for me though. I really should get a tablet or e-reader)'
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2013 10:21:19 GMT -5
The number of deaths by violence is a poor measure of human nature. Kill the power for a few days, take away a few meals, and the animal will come back with a vengence. Humans are brutes, tamed by "society."
Sure, altruism is a common trait. It's not hard to be altruistic when you have more of what you give away at home. I would reckon altruism would come to a screeching halt if the loaf of bread you were giving away was your last one, and you had kids to feed.
Have a nice day. I'm going to go feed rainbows to the puppies and unicorns we keep in the back.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Sept 24, 2013 10:26:57 GMT -5
Cold-hearted bastard. No butterflies?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2013 10:29:10 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Sept 25, 2013 19:02:41 GMT -5
I can only assume that since he has the motivation of the right wrong, the left (upon reading him) probably feels the same way about his assignment of their motivations. I finished the book on my way home today. Now I'm curious to know what you're talking about and what part you found objectionable. I read part of James' first link (not from this page, the links on the first or second page). That liberal certainly thought Haidt was being unfair to liberals and got a lot wrong. I don't share his opinion though. Right near the end of the book it became clear that Haidt is a conservative, just as he hinted at earlier in the book. Not that there's anything wrong with that. I thought he was pretty even-handed throughout the book, no matter where he's coming from on the political spectrum. Or maybe I'm wrong. Maybe he faked me out. Maybe he was and always has been a liberal and he's only pretending to have some conservative leanings. But his views on healthcare were not only very conservative, he was also pretty persuasive and might have convinced me conservatives have the answer, had I not started reading Terry's book and learned more about the successes other countries are having in healthcare results. I'm going to try to keep the 6 moral foundations in mind, although I really need a cheat sheet. Or maybe a good tattoo. I think they'll help me understand conservatives better. I don't know why conservatives tend to rate the six foundations more or less equally, but I'm thinking that being able to identify which moral foundations are behind disagreements might make it easier to understand the different conclusions we reach on specific issues. And it can't hurt to keep in mind that the person I'm trying to understand is coming from a moral position. Having said all that, I saw Ted Cruz on the news. This book wasn't that good. I have a hard time trying to put Ted Cruz into any moral framework. Maybe Haidt will address the Ted Cruz's in his next book.
|
|