- Joined
- 21 Jul 06
- Moves
- 98469
Why should we be expected to prescribe to particular moulds of thought? Surely it is wrong that we are expected to fall into specific categories in our ideologies. Be it conservatism or liberalism, to each of their differing degrees, how can we allow our minds to be defined on such simplistic terms?
Are our minds so malleable that we lap up that which we're fed, merely for the sake of an identity?
That was certainly a trap that I feel into as an impressionable young teenager -- i.e. I believe A to be true. Oh look, this group of people believe it too. I should join them.
And as much as I wish that it could simply have been me being a young impressionable idiot that caused this, it's evident that it goes on in the 'real' (adult) world too.
This debates forum, for instance, holds a plethora of examples. Countless people seem to be arguing the same 'sides' every time. Even if they have little to say on a particular topic, there is clearly a tendency to side against the people that you have argued with before.
So where does this expectation that we will fall into particular moulds of thought come from? Role model politicians that simply parrot the party line? People are just stupid, naiive? 'Heart of gold' political systems that take away our ability to vote on issues seperately, i.e. Manifesto politics.
My heart says that proportional representation is needed, but my head disagrees. People are stupid/naiive. Take referendums, for example. Technically the most direct form of democracy, but it has been proven that people vote differently on the same issue depending on the wording of the question. It is often (though of course not always) the case that a select few, do know what's best for the majority.
Whoever is 'in charge', however, whether it be the great unwashed or a few thoroughly scrubbed politicians, surely it is time for an end to moulds of thought, and perhaps even party politics. Bring on issue politics, and [more] individual thought!
A.
Originally posted by HumeAI think that the reason for the divisions of political opinion into 'camps' such as these is a natural and essentially inevitable product of human behaviour - the desire to form into groups or tribes.
Why should we be expected to prescribe to particular moulds of thought? Surely it is wrong that we are expected to fall into specific categories in our ideologies. Be it conservatism or liberalism, to each of their differing degrees, how can we allow our minds to be defined on such simplistic terms?
Are our minds so malleable that we lap up that which we're ...[text shortened]... ps even party politics. Bring on issue politics, and [more] individual thought!
A.
We see this urge to categorise ourselves projected, also, into our perception of the natural world: grouping various animal species, for example; or categorising plants.
Originally posted by HumeAWhy are you assuming that people join groups and then take the group's values rather than people with like values banding together? I had this same argument with RN about clans. Or are you saying that you let the groups you choose to belong to define your values and so you're assuming that everyone else does as well? I agree that there are people who choose not to inform themselves on issues and take someone else's opinion as fact (I'm related to one, for instance, who never reads a newspaper or watches the news and thus believes some radio jerk's opinions) but I don't assume the whole world is like that because I'm not like that and I try not to spend a lot of time around people who are.
Why should we be expected to prescribe to particular moulds of thought? Surely it is wrong that we are expected to fall into specific categories in our ideologies. Be it conservatism or liberalism, to each of their differing degrees, how can we allow our minds to be defined on such simplistic terms?
Are our minds so malleable that we lap up that which we're ...[text shortened]... ps even party politics. Bring on issue politics, and [more] individual thought!
A.
Originally posted by HumeAGiven that people are stupid and naive, the question is what system of government still manages to produce the best overall conditions? Strangely enough, it seems to be the one that gives those stupid people some say in the matter. Maybe they are not all as stupid as they look.
Why should we be expected to prescribe to particular moulds of thought? Surely it is wrong that we are expected to fall into specific categories in our ideologies. Be it conservatism or liberalism, to each of their differing degrees, how can we allow our minds to be defined on such simplistic terms?
Are our minds so malleable that we lap up that which we're ...[text shortened]... ps even party politics. Bring on issue politics, and [more] individual thought!
A.
As for thought patterns, the common convervative/liberal split to me mirrors the split in the traditional family between the disciplinarian Father and caretaker Mother. People favor a conservative (father-like) or liberal (mother-like) government to the extent that they are attracted to one role or the other. But to ask which is right is kind of silly. One needs both, but neither to excess or to the exclusion of the other. Post-WWII, for example, saw a highly socialist "hyper-female" reaction to the the fascist "hyper-male".
The whole point of wise leadership, it seems to me, is to make sure those stupid, silly people are not mistreated, since they would at best remain stupid and at worst turn vicious. Instead, the best leaders treat those same stupid, silly people fairly, honestly, and humanely -- maybe just out of moral conviction. But also because it is an effective way to grow a large group of "good" individuals. And that pool of grass-roots goodness is what keeps the society stable -- not the leaders themselves, in the end.
Originally posted by HumeAIndividual thought? I like it, the answer of course is freedom:
Why should we be expected to prescribe to particular moulds of thought? Surely it is wrong that we are expected to fall into specific categories in our ideologies. Be it conservatism or liberalism, to each of their differing degrees, how can we allow our minds to be defined on such simplistic terms?
Are our minds so malleable that we lap up that which we're ps even party politics. Bring on issue politics, and [more] individual thought!
A.
http://www.jonathangullible.com/mmedia/PhilosophyOfLiberty-english_music.swf
A binding constitution, similar to the one in the states that is being constantly attacked. People are free to join what ever groups they like. I belong to a group that has a strict dress code and code of conduct, should everyone live under that regime? Of course not. I don't do drugs but does that mean no-one can do drugs? Of course not. There are those causes that I contribute to but does that mean everyone must contribute to the same? Of course not.
Freedom. The freedom to live as a human being, as an individual with individual thought, and the freedom to join what ever group or collective you like but with out the power to force that on others.
Relinquish your busybodyness, butt out of others lives, keep your hand out of their pocket.
Why should we be expected to prescribe to particular moulds of thought? Surely it is wrong that we are expected to fall into specific categories in our ideologies. Be it conservatism or liberalism, to each of their differing degrees, how can we allow our minds to be defined on such simplistic terms?
Individualism is pretty much a romantic myth. Can you name more than a handful of people who are willing to face the wrath of their peers... or worse, the shunning by their family and friends in order to enforce any notion of "individuality"? For that matter, you should give us an example of what is revolutionary about denouncing ALL forms of government. Have you not noticed that the latest "group" behaviour involves the very chic and avant garde notion of "anarchism"? It is all the rage these days in the catalogue of stylish campus flubbery.
Are our minds so malleable that we lap up that which we're fed, merely for the sake of an identity?
Yea. We are pack animals. Why not live in a pack? It works well in evolutionary scenarios. Obviously. Look at homo sapiens. We are the biggest, baddest club swinging mob on the planet. That's just biology. Utopians are the only ones "brave or stupid" enough to try and change our human nature.
That was certainly a trap that I feel into as an impressionable young teenager -- i.e. I believe A to be true. Oh look, this group of people believe it too. I should join them.
Yes you should. If they are right and they are the tribe of chimps with whom you have the highest CHANCE of becoming the breeder, then of course you should join. Ahem. See human nature.
And as much as I wish that it could simply have been me being a young impressionable idiot that caused this, it's evident that it goes on in the 'real' (adult) world too.
ahem, sigh, sniffle, (cough) errrr.... I don't know how to break this to you. There is... um. That is... there is not... Oh crap. You need to know. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN ADULT. We oldsters are all just playing parts in a vast silliness, trying to get away with convincing the young guns that we are wise... so that we don't get chucked to the wolves.
This debates forum, for instance, holds a plethora of examples. Countless people seem to be arguing the same 'sides' every time. Even if they have little to say on a particular topic, there is clearly a tendency to side against the people that you have argued with before.
So where does this expectation that we will fall into particular moulds of thought come from? Role model politicians that simply parrot the party line? People are just stupid, naiive? 'Heart of gold' political systems that take away our ability to vote on issues seperately, i.e. Manifesto politics.
You are taking it all too seriously. There is no big plot nor plan. This forum, and most of life is just a bunch of us trying to convince ourselves that we matter. That is honorable. Silly perhaps, but honorable none the less.
My heart says that proportional representation is needed, but my head disagrees. People are stupid/naiive. Take referendums, for example. Technically the most direct form of democracy, but it has been proven that people vote differently on the same issue depending on the wording of the question. It is often (though of course not always) the case that a select few, do know what's best for the majority.
Try not to become a cynic. A cynic is rather lazy. On the other hand, it is perfectly reasonable to be a pessimist. A cynic will say "why should I care about a bunch of lazy sudanese who are too stupid to leave when their family is getting slaughtered?" A pessimist will say "why should I think that I can help. The world is full of terrible people. A realist will say... "I wonder if there is any way to give aid to those people that bypasses governments and goes directly to the people."
Whoever is 'in charge', however, whether it be the great unwashed or a few thoroughly scrubbed politicians, surely it is time for an end to moulds of thought, and perhaps even party politics. Bring on issue politics, and [more] individual thought!
Pretty close to the anarchist bible. Don't take yourself so seriously. Just do good each day and let "the others" take care of doing their part. It will all work out well. Have faith in your fellows. We are not the boobs that run things. We are just like you and will do our best.
Originally posted by HumeAlet's all think like HumeA and stop wasting our time ...
Why should we be expected to prescribe to particular moulds of thought? Surely it is wrong that we are expected to fall into specific categories in our ideologies. Be it conservatism or liberalism, to each of their differing degrees, how can we allow our minds to be defined on such simplistic terms?
Are our minds so malleable that we lap up that which we're ...[text shortened]... ps even party politics. Bring on issue politics, and [more] individual thought!
A.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageDo you ever get out of the house and engage in any fun filled physical activity? It's been raining alot here. Tomorrow i'm going Steep Creeking with some friends. You get yourself a whitewater solo canoe. You sit on a saddle, much like riding a horse, and you strap yourself in. Don't forget the flotation bags. You find a small, steep creek flowing down off a mountain into a river or lake and let her fly. Make sure you have the proper winter wet suit on. This will surely break your depression, or your neck, Either way you will be better off.
'The Mould of Yancy' -- PKD.
It's a lousy time to be human and conscious. Or rather, there's never been a better time to be in touch with pain.
GRANNY
Originally posted by HumeAI think its simply a survival mechanism that if you don't make waves you can get through this life without too many dramas.
So where does this expectation that we will fall into particular moulds of thought come from? Role model politicians that simply parrot the party line? People are just stupid, naiive? 'Heart of gold' political systems that take away our ability to vote on issues seperately, i.e. Manifesto politics.
I don't think that people are that naive or stupid. I think that many don't mind if others come to that conclusion.
Whether its a combination of cynicism,fatalism, realism or some other view that says the games rigged you may as well look after your self ~ no-one else will, means that the vast majority are quite content to quietly go about their business and are willing to subscribe to any philosophy as long as it keeps them invisible and off the radar of bureaucratic officialdom.
The sad inconvenient truth is that most people do not really care about anything except whats going on in front of them. In some ways democracy only works when there is a core of altruistic people who have the need to leave a legacy behind them and therefore are able to be entrusted with the onerous task of making decisions that are not necessarily in their own self interest. If the man on the street actually had the power to vote on everything you would have the absurdity of poll driven opinions that currently inform us on a nightly basis as to what the majority feels about a particular subject.
The power with that is still the construction of the question. What do you think of GWB's handling of the peanut butter scandal? Do you think Laura Bush needs a nose job?
Its not that we might have more or less representation, its also the quality of the issue that we may be allowed to take a side on that inmoho is equally as important.
Originally posted by HumeAWell, let's just say "peer pressure" exists beyond high school and college.
Why should we be expected to prescribe to particular moulds of thought? Surely it is wrong that we are expected to fall into specific categories in our ideologies. Be it conservatism or liberalism, to each of their differing degrees, how can we allow our minds to be defined on such simplistic terms?