View Poll Results: Mmm?

Voters
2. You may not vote on this poll
  • I'm a liberal, liberals are coherentists.

    0 0%
  • I'm a liberal, liberals are foundationalists.

    1 50.00%
  • I'm not a liberal, liberals are coherentists.

    0 0%
  • I'm not a liberal, liberals are foundationalists.

    1 50.00%
Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 71

Thread: Are Liberals Coherentists or Foundationalists?

  1. #31
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    09-18-12 @ 08:07 AM
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    3,245

    Re: Are Liberals Coherentists or Foundationalists?

    Quote Originally Posted by OhIsee.Then View Post
    Several methods? That's a bit confusing since the method is rather basic. Is there something consistant about a foundationalist method? How complex is it?
    Foundationalists can be divided between absolutists and universalists.

    Absolutists take a particular thing they like, and say everything in society has to revolve around that. For example, maybe someone likes apple pie, so they build society around preserving apple pie.

    Universalists take the "taking" faculty itself, and say that has to revolve around society. For example, different people like different pies. Society is built to let people choose which flavor pie they want.

  2. #32
    Sage
    RGacky3's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Last Seen
    08-25-15 @ 05:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    9,570

    Re: Are Liberals Coherentists or Foundationalists?

    The reason they're hungry is because they're kidnapped.
    Well that doesn't justify the kidnapping ...

    Children don't have sex to create themselves.
    AND WHAT???

    If the proletariat owns the means of production as a class, how else would workers get compensated?
    According to Old Marx "from each according to his ability to each according to his need."

    But the whole socially necessary labor time was later Marx, i.e. Capital, where Marx wasn't proposing normative economics he was only doing purely descriptive economics.

    Yes, calibration has to be consistent.

    If you and I use the same instruments, but calibrate them differently, then fitting our results together won't make sense.
    GIve me a concrete example where calibration is arbitrary.


    Ok ... Let me clear up my views on this coherentism and foundationalism with conservatives vrs liberals.

    In history, when we had monarchies conservatives came up with divine providence, or right to rule as a defence of the monarchy, but viewed it as foundational.
    During slavery conservatives came up with racism and racial supremacy to defend slavery and imperialism, that was viewed as foundational
    During feuadalism conservatives came up with gallantry and knightly virtue to defend feudalism, that was viewed as foundational
    In Ancient mesopotamia priestly authority was defended with concepts of national Gods and, i.e. we as a people belong to one god, that was viewed as foundational.
    In Modern times Capitalist power is defended with concepts of private property and ayn Rand style "libertarianism," it too is viewed as foundational.
    In Mordern times State power is defended with concepts of patriotism, national identity and so on, they are also viewed as foundational.

    THe point is all of these "foundational" elements are really only defences of power, they are not based in any deeper root of universal "freedom," "equality" or whatever, they are mearly arbitrary institutions masquerading as foundational values which serve the one purpose of defending those in power, THAT is the conservative foundationalism.

    Now all the opposing revolutionary concepts, democracy, classical liberalism, emancipation, socialism, anti-nationalism and so on are all based on foundations, but they are OPPOSING powers that be, they are also based on much more fundemental "foundational" elements, such as freedom, equality and so on.

    What the conservative does is find power and create a foundational framework to defend it.
    What the liberal (I prefer revolutionary) does is find power and challenge it based on a much more fundemental foundational frame work.

    The reason it SEAMS like a coherantist, is that many liberals don't treat asserssions as axioms, then NEED to defend it, they must rationally explain things. Conservatives on the other hand just create a foundational frame work to fit whatever power structure they are defending.

  3. #33
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    09-18-12 @ 08:07 AM
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    3,245

    Re: Are Liberals Coherentists or Foundationalists?

    Quote Originally Posted by RGacky3 View Post
    Well that doesn't justify the kidnapping ...
    I agree...

    AND WHAT???
    ...which is why I'm confused.

    According to Old Marx "from each according to his ability to each according to his need."

    But the whole socially necessary labor time was later Marx, i.e. Capital, where Marx wasn't proposing normative economics he was only doing purely descriptive economics.
    OK, but how do you define "needs"? That depends on the lifestyle.

    Furthermore, since when are people motivated to do anything just to satisfy needs? We work to live, we don't live to work.

    It all goes back to childraising really. You seem rather bent on giving birth to people just to make them slaves.

    GIve me a concrete example where calibration is arbitrary.
    Arbitrary? If anything, I said calibration is vital. The point is you need to keep it consistent.

    It's like how you have to keep things balanced when you're doing algebra. The particular balance doesn't matter, but you have to balance things.

    Ok ... Let me clear up my views on this coherentism and foundationalism with conservatives vrs liberals.

    In history, when we had monarchies conservatives came up with divine providence, or right to rule as a defence of the monarchy, but viewed it as foundational.
    During slavery conservatives came up with racism and racial supremacy to defend slavery and imperialism, that was viewed as foundational
    During feuadalism conservatives came up with gallantry and knightly virtue to defend feudalism, that was viewed as foundational
    In Ancient mesopotamia priestly authority was defended with concepts of national Gods and, i.e. we as a people belong to one god, that was viewed as foundational.
    Yes, these are all virtue based maxims.

    In Modern times Capitalist power is defended with concepts of private property and ayn Rand style "libertarianism," it too is viewed as foundational.
    I'm not a libertarian (as you can tell from my defense of children), but free markets are justified from the autonomy of personhood.

    In Mordern times State power is defended with concepts of patriotism, national identity and so on, they are also viewed as foundational.
    Patriotism is a tricky concept. On the basis of Statist-ethno-jingoism, I agree, but on the basis of culture, you're talking about abstract narrative which defines who we are, so that's different.

    THe point is all of these "foundational" elements are really only defences of power, they are not based in any deeper root of universal "freedom," "equality" or whatever, they are mearly arbitrary institutions masquerading as foundational values which serve the one purpose of defending those in power, THAT is the conservative foundationalism.
    Actually, I was going to say the exact opposite.

    Cohesion depends on what the most powerful elements of a set are in defining how things cohere. If you're weak, sensitive, thin-skinned, ugly, or odd, then society is entitled to overwhelm and/or ignore you.

    There are many realpolitik conservatives out there who believe in rugged individualism, but they're really national socialists. Conservatism first and foremost is about preserving due process and the rule of law. Property comes from properness, not the other way around.

    Now all the opposing revolutionary concepts, democracy, classical liberalism, emancipation, socialism, anti-nationalism and so on are all based on foundations, but they are OPPOSING powers that be, they are also based on much more fundemental "foundational" elements, such as freedom, equality and so on.

    What the conservative does is find power and create a foundational framework to defend it.
    What the liberal (I prefer revolutionary) does is find power and challenge it based on a much more fundemental foundational frame work.

    The reason it SEAMS like a coherantist, is that many liberals don't treat asserssions as axioms, then NEED to defend it, they must rationally explain things. Conservatives on the other hand just create a foundational frame work to fit whatever power structure they are defending.
    No offense, but I don't think you've talked with many leftists. In fact, Marxism itself is about owning the means of production via dictatorship of the proletariat since the base defines the superstructure.

    The overwhelming majority of leftists I've talked with recognize power analytics (Foucault) before discourse ethics (Habermas). If outcomes are not equal, they seek to correct the system. They don't care about liberty because they don't embrace that people are different. They just want to level the playing ground and intimidate others into worshiping them as the bureaucratic center of attention.

    I see what you're saying about conservatives because some do embrace rugged individualism nonstop, but your treatment of children convinces me you're no different. You expect children to surrender authority despite how they don't consent to be created. On top of that, a socialist society would expect them to work merely to have their needs satisfied rather than actually learning social values and imaginatively cultivating culture.
    Last edited by Daktoria; 07-09-12 at 02:35 PM.

  4. #34
    Sage

    Donc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    out yonder
    Last Seen
    12-06-17 @ 09:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    9,426

    Re: Are Liberals Coherentists or Foundationalists?

    Quote Originally Posted by Daktoria View Post
    One of the problems I have a lot when debating with liberals is their very sense of justice seems to be backwards. They seem to believe that something is justified only if it's surrounded by compatible circumstances, ignoring the value of something itself.

    The first belief is called coherentism. The second belief is called foundationalism.

    Obviously, coherentism is circular because it begs to know why something coheres in the first place. You can't have a puzzle without puzzle pieces.

    A liberal response typically goes that it doesn't matter what the particular puzzle pieces are. It just matters that they fit together.

    The problem, of course, is that raises the question, "How do we know what fits in the first place?"

    Liberals typically claim that "what fits" spontaneously emerges among dynamic interactions between people.

    Unfortunately, liberals don't seem to care that spontaneous emergence doesn't necessarily yield compatible solutions. It's at this point that we see that liberals are tyrants. They don't care if slim minorities fall through the cracks of society. They just care about the big picture as long as the minority is too insignificant to be bothered. This is why liberals love free speech and democracy - they love how people can be intimidated from appeals to absurdity, and they love to employ mob justice in forsakening independents who don't conform. To boot, they can claim that they tried by giving people a shot to fit in, so they don't have anymore due diligence to be responsible for.

    Ironically, this appeal to democratic popular sovereignty is how liberals become elitists. For example, lets say liberals claim that 1% of society is a tolerable insignificant minority that can be allowed to fall through the cracks for any particular issue. Given a society which has multiple issues...

    99% * 99% = 98%
    98% * 99% = 97%
    97% * 99% = 96%

    If society multiplies 69 issues, this leads to only 50% of society being compatible across the board.

    If society multiplies 229 issues, this leads to only 10% of society being compatible across the board.

    If society multiplies 458 issues, this leads to 1% of society being compatible across the board.

    Issues don't have to be big matters here. We don't have to be talking about abortion, gay marriage, gun rights, income equality, environmental protection, or labor reform.

    They can be simple things. Things like, "When should people be allowed to play music into the night?" or "Where should a road be built?" or "Should we teach school curriculum this way or that way?"

    The point is liberal coherentism doesn't actually include all people. It just includes most people, and when "most people" gets repeated over and over, this leads to a very small minority actually being compatible with what society stands for.

    It also leads to social tyranny because those who are more compatible over more issues are treated as superior to those who are less compatible.
    Troll threads belong somewhere else.
    The haggardness of poverty is everywhere seen contrasted with the sleekness of wealth, the exhorted labor of some compensating for the idleness of others, wretched hovels by the side of stately colonnades, the rags of indigence blended with the ensigns of opulence; in a word, the most useless profusion in the midst of the most urgent wants.Jean-Baptiste Say

  5. #35
    Professor

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    MI and AZ
    Last Seen
    03-15-15 @ 01:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    1,581

    Re: Are Liberals Coherentists or Foundationalists?

    Quote Originally Posted by Daktoria View Post
    Foundationalists can be divided between absolutists and universalists.

    Absolutists take a particular thing they like, and say everything in society has to revolve around that. For example, maybe someone likes apple pie, so they build society around preserving apple pie.

    Universalists take the "taking" faculty itself, and say that has to revolve around society. For example, different people like different pies. Society is built to let people choose which flavor pie they want.
    This doesn't help me much with the process for developing the foundation for foundationalists. But I have to note that a coherentist could agree with the absolutist in the case of a pie and they might not know that they agree only on the result of a entirely different process and reason. Is it also possible that the coherentist can decide that liking apple pie is of no particular siginficance, but the foundationalist may think it is critical to like apple pie the best?

  6. #36
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    09-18-12 @ 08:07 AM
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    3,245

    Re: Are Liberals Coherentists or Foundationalists?

    Quote Originally Posted by OhIsee.Then View Post
    This doesn't help me much with the process for developing the foundation for foundationalists. But I have to note that a coherentist could agree with the absolutist in the case of a pie and they might not know that they agree only on the result of a entirely different process and reason. Is it also possible that the coherentist can decide that liking apple pie is of no particular siginficance, but the foundationalist may think it is critical to like apple pie the best?
    Exactly.

    Coherentists come in two varieties as well:

    Relativists argue that society is built to accommodate all possible pie flavors.

    Nihilists argue that no particular flavor is important, but society will spontaneously choose one for everyone to accept.

    The similarity between absolutism and (coherent) relativism you pointed out above is called moral particularism.
    Last edited by Daktoria; 07-09-12 at 03:52 PM.

  7. #37
    Educator OnWisconsin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Last Seen
    04-07-16 @ 02:59 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    710

    Re: Are Liberals Coherentists or Foundationalists?

    Can we get a "Facepalm" emoticon?
    Am I not destroying my enemies when I make friends of them?
    - Abraham Lincoln

    Before the war is ended, the war party assumes the divine right to denounce and silence all opposition to war as unpatriotic and cowardly.
    - Robert M. LaFollette, Wisconsin Governor and U.S. Senator

    God, how patient are Thy poor! These corporations and masters of manipulation in finance heaping up great fortunes by a system of legalized extortion,
    and then exacting from the contributors--to whom a little means so much--a double share to guard the treasure!
    - Robert M. LaFollette, Wisconsin Governor and U.S. Senator

  8. #38
    Sage
    pbrauer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    11-27-15 @ 03:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,394

    Re: Are Liberals Coherentists or Foundationalists?

    Quote Originally Posted by Daktoria View Post
    One of the problems I have a lot when debating with liberals is their very sense of justice seems to be backwards. They seem to believe that something is justified only if it's surrounded by compatible circumstances, ignoring the value of something itself.

    The first belief is called coherentism. The second belief is called foundationalism.

    Obviously, coherentism is circular because it begs to know why something coheres in the first place. You can't have a puzzle without puzzle pieces.

    A liberal response typically goes that it doesn't matter what the particular puzzle pieces are. It just matters that they fit together.

    The problem, of course, is that raises the question, "How do we know what fits in the first place?"

    Liberals typically claim that "what fits" spontaneously emerges among dynamic interactions between people.

    Unfortunately, liberals don't seem to care that spontaneous emergence doesn't necessarily yield compatible solutions. It's at this point that we see that liberals are tyrants. They don't care if slim minorities fall through the cracks of society. They just care about the big picture as long as the minority is too insignificant to be bothered. This is why liberals love free speech and democracy - they love how people can be intimidated from appeals to absurdity, and they love to employ mob justice in forsakening independents who don't conform. To boot, they can claim that they tried by giving people a shot to fit in, so they don't have anymore due diligence to be responsible for.

    Ironically, this appeal to democratic popular sovereignty is how liberals become elitists. For example, lets say liberals claim that 1% of society is a tolerable insignificant minority that can be allowed to fall through the cracks for any particular issue. Given a society which has multiple issues...

    99% * 99% = 98%
    98% * 99% = 97%
    97% * 99% = 96%

    If society multiplies 69 issues, this leads to only 50% of society being compatible across the board.

    If society multiplies 229 issues, this leads to only 10% of society being compatible across the board.

    If society multiplies 458 issues, this leads to 1% of society being compatible across the board.

    Issues don't have to be big matters here. We don't have to be talking about abortion, gay marriage, gun rights, income equality, environmental protection, or labor reform.

    They can be simple things. Things like, "When should people be allowed to play music into the night?" or "Where should a road be built?" or "Should we teach school curriculum this way or that way?"

    The point is liberal coherentism doesn't actually include all people. It just includes most people, and when "most people" gets repeated over and over, this leads to a very small minority actually being compatible with what society stands for.

    It also leads to social tyranny because those who are more compatible over more issues are treated as superior to those who are less compatible.
    Gee, a poll using $5 words.

    Where is the "I'm a liberal, and. think this poll is STUPID" option?


  9. #39
    Sage
    pbrauer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    11-27-15 @ 03:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,394

    Re: Are Liberals Coherentists or Foundationalists?

    Quote Originally Posted by OnWisconsin View Post
    Can we get a "Facepalm" emoticon?
    How about this jpg?



  10. #40
    Sage
    RGacky3's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Last Seen
    08-25-15 @ 05:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    9,570

    Re: Are Liberals Coherentists or Foundationalists?

    I agree...
    Good thats the end of that ...

    ...which is why I'm confused.
    You still havn't shown its relevant ...

    OK, but how do you define "needs"? That depends on the lifestyle.

    Furthermore, since when are people motivated to do anything just to satisfy needs? We work to live, we don't live to work.

    It all goes back to childraising really. You seem rather bent on giving birth to people just to make them slaves.
    A: I don't suscribe to early Marx so I find no need to defend that
    B: Its something that has to be worked out.
    C: People are motivated by many many many things, but the argument that people won't work without the threat of lack of livelyhood has been debunked over and over again, by anthopologists, economists, sociologists, and empirical evidence now.

    D: As far as your last sentance, I don't see where you get that at all, other than in your own head.

    Arbitrary? If anything, I said calibration is vital. The point is you need to keep it consistent.

    It's like how you have to keep things balanced when you're doing algebra. The particular balance doesn't matter, but you have to balance things.
    Arbitrary in the sense that you could calibrate it to anything and it would still work to give good evidence.

    I'm not a libertarian (as you can tell from my defense of children), but free markets are justified from the autonomy of personhood.
    No they arn't at all ...

    Actually, I was going to say the exact opposite.

    Cohesion depends on what the most powerful elements of a set are in defining how things cohere. If you're weak, sensitive, thin-skinned, ugly, or odd, then society is entitled to overwhelm and/or ignore you.

    There are many realpolitik conservatives out there who believe in rugged individualism, but they're really national socialists. Conservatism first and foremost is about preserving due process and the rule of law. Property comes from properness, not the other way around.
    There are NO arguments here ...

    The whole thing about the weak, sensitive and so on, is just an assersion, you don't get that at all, and as I said leftists DON'T buy into ONLY cohesion, NO ONE does, not one person, even nihilists , of coarse things have to be coherant, but that doesn't mean there are no foundations, so your juts making **** up.

    Your idea of what conservatism is says it all, due process and rule of law, but a very specific kind, only the ones that defend the systems of power.

    As far as property comming from properness, thats an assersion, property comes from power, and threat of violence, always has always will, the appeal to properness is an afterthought to defend it.

    No offense, but I don't think you've talked with many leftists. In fact, Marxism itself is about owning the means of production via dictatorship of the proletariat since the base defines the superstructure.
    i AM a leftist ... and I've STUDIED Marx, I've studied MANY interpretations of Marx ...

    So if I were you I would shut your mouth trying to tell me what Marxism is about.

    The overwhelming majority of leftists I've talked with recognize power analytics (Foucault) before discourse ethics (Habermas). If outcomes are not equal, they seek to correct the system. They don't care about liberty because they don't embrace that people are different. They just want to level the playing ground and intimidate others into worshiping them as the bureaucratic center of attention.
    A: Most leftists are not strict historical materialists, or moral nihilists, infact the vast majority are not.
    B: Foucault ultimately DID care about liberty, but he rightly pointed out that the concepts of liberty in society are shaped by the class structure.
    C: Lefitsts never claimed that people are not different ....
    D: Leftists were the ones that made liberty possible in the world
    E: No arguments here juts baseless assersions.

    Look, I'm gonna need some actual proper arguments, not just bull**** asserssions.

    Leftists care about liberty, REAL liberty, not liberty for those who can afford it.

    I see what you're saying about conservatives because some do embrace rugged individualism nonstop, but your treatment of children convinces me you're no different. You expect children to surrender authority despite how they don't consent to be created. On top of that, a socialist society would expect them to work merely to have their needs satisfied rather than actually learning social values and imaginatively cultivating culture.
    A: the whole rugged individualism is a strawman, I never said anything about that.

    B: My example of children is an example of what an argument justifying authority could be .... But if you think parents should not be able to say anything to their kids then fine, thats an argument to be had.

    C: What your saying about you supposed socialist society is a strawman, your just making **** up. A socialist society (I do NOT, nor do most leftists buy into early Marx's models, which were made specifically for a certain time and place) is nothing more than a democratization of the economy.

    People under capitalism work only to have their needs satisfied, what your describing is Capitalism, socail values come from different sources than the economy, and imaginatevely cultivating culture in Capitalism is only something you can do if you can afford it, socialism wants to extend that ability to everyone.

    Look man, I want to read REAL arguments, no more of this strawman, redherring, made up bull****.

Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •