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 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 71

Thread: Are Liberals Coherentists or Foundationalists?

  1. #51
    Doesn't go below juicy
    tacomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Cleveland
    Last Seen
    05-20-16 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    31,781

    Re: Are Liberals Coherentists or Foundationalists?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    I knew it was some sort of math game. Were you around when chuzlife was here? That was a piece of work.
    wasn't as bad as ********* Zinc Route, do you remember that nutjob?

  2. #52
    Sage
    jet57's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    not here
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:03 AM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    24,673

    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.
    Coherentism demands that something; and idea or policy, be bound together in balance by reason. At the same time, foundationalism demands coherent structure of the same policy or idea. Both of these are in keeping within the coherent foundation that our founding documents lay out as model for us to follow in perpetuity. While I am not liberal, I too base my political decisions and ideas on that framework.

    Chernetism is the antithesis of circularism in framing and examination. The “puzzle pieces” as you put them must have a balance in order to create a picture that benefits all involved. They we learn what fits is found in the motivations of said policies and or ideas, and in order to fit, those things must have a balanced motivation; according to our founding documents. Anything less, defies the purpose. For instance, the elastic clause of The Constitution, is a built in spontaneity solver and state constitutions act in the same way. And therefore, anything that erupts, save war, is duty bound to include such balances in their framework or they defeat the purpose.

    Your analysis of the liberal mind or group lacks credibility and source material to verify anything you’re trying to say. Your math as well is just fluff and means nothing.
    “The people do no want virtue; but they are the dupes of pretended patriots” : Elbridge Gerry of Mass; Constitutional Convention 1787

  3. #53
    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?

    Why would coherentists care about weak members of society? These are people who literally can't even speak up about their utility preferences.

    The same goes for the strange. Leftists don't care about strange utility preferences. They care about equal utility preferences. Those who are difficult to work with get forgotten as unproductive or expensive.
    A cohenrentist would care abecause things are not black and white and there is no such thing as a 100% coherentist, and then you have basic human empathy, kantian ethicns and so on.

    Also, enough with what leftists care about, leftists care about personal autonomy and having a workable system ... Your second sentance is nonsense.

    People that are difficult to work with have a hard time in ANY system, but thats not a systemic problem, thats just a inter personal problem.

    Can you show what foundations leftists base on?
    There are many different ones, I'm a Christian for example, otehr base it on a kind of kantian ethics, others have it on some other type of ethics, the difference between right wingers and leftists is not foundationalism vrs coherantism, its their attitude to power and the status quo.

    I never said anything about power. In fact, I referred directly to Habermas' discourse ethics.
    I know you didn't but almost all right wing policies and right wing politics, when you come down it it, are about defending those in power.

    What did I get wrong?
    The fact that Marxism is positive economics not nominal economics ....

    Liberty isn't real. It's ideal.

    I'm not sure how you can discern power from liberty if you don't understand that.

    I'm really not sure how you interpreted Foucault as being about liberty either. He even talked about conflict being the height of life (biopower) and the driving force of social progress.
    Thats a difference, liberty as an ideal means nothing to me, what matters to be is real liberty, if I have liberty in theory but all mechanisms to practice it are taken away from me thats not liberty, I mean, technically the USSR was a democracy, but in reality it wasn't, I care about the reality.

    Foucault, talked about conflict and power dynamics controlling social progress, but what he considered progress was more liberty, meaning thats what he was going for,

    Democratization enslaves supply to demand. Literally, you have to take the means of production away from those who produce more to those who consume more.
    Economics ensalves supply to demand .... Nature does that.

    Infact its the total opposite of what your saying, you take the control of the means of production from those that produce nothing, and give it to those that produce.

    How that's liberty, I don't know.
    Its liberty because it gives people a say over things that effect them and things they produce.

    As for parenting, I never said that parents can't say anything to their kids. If anything, they have to because children aren't born with social customs or values in their heads. Parents have to familiarize their children.

    The problem arises when parents tell their kids to produce because children don't consent to exist. Hunger, exhaustion, and coldness are pressed upon them, not asked for.
    Ok ... Since when did I say parents should tell their kids to produce???

    Since when did I say anyone should tell anyone to produce????

    Dude stop twisting my arguments and making up strawmen, are we gonna have a rational discussion???

  4. #54
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by pbrauer View Post
    How about this jpg?

    Last edited by OnWisconsin; 07-10-12 at 07:08 AM.
    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

  5. #55
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Oslo, Norway
    Last Seen
    07-07-16 @ 08:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    2,854

    Re: Are Liberals Coherentists or Foundationalists?

    Daktoria: Seriously? I am a conservative as well, and I am facepalming as well.

    Ok, understand this.
    1. Do not use big words. Do not even do it in real life. No one are impressed by it, and you end up looking arrogant.
    2. If you have to use them, at least give us a definition.

    Like many others, I have no idea what you are trying to say, and I am not really interested in finding out.

  6. #56
    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
    A cohenrentist would care abecause things are not black and white and there is no such thing as a 100% coherentist, and then you have basic human empathy, kantian ethicns and so on.
    I'm not familiar with Kantian Ethics being primarily coherentist. In fact, the opening of the CPR explains that personhood is derived from a priori foundations: perspective, imagination, and judgment of categorizing space, time, and math.

    Also, enough with what leftists care about, leftists care about personal autonomy and having a workable system ... Your second sentance is nonsense.
    This thread is about liberals. I don't enjoy taking things off topic. You should be appreciative we've talked about socialism instead so far.

    People that are difficult to work with have a hard time in ANY system, but thats not a systemic problem, thats just a inter personal problem.
    Yes, but liberals deliberately condemn them as hopeless, relegating them to inferior social status rather than letting them exercise autonomous judgment. Hard people are expected to conform to the system of public goods, and simply deal with the violation of freedom of assembly through institutionalized professionalization of reform.

    Liberals don't appreciate organic, social, or family values which are important since nobody asks to be brought into the world. Therefore, people are entitled to complete explanations of right and wrong before choosing life strategies.

    It's like they want to force people to walk across a frozen lake who don't know where there's thin ice. They promise to try to rescue anyone who crashes through, but don't promise that everyone will be rescued. Aside from how people are being forced to participate and assume the risk of accident, they're also being forced to assume the risk of fatality.

    There are many different ones, I'm a Christian for example, otehr base it on a kind of kantian ethics, others have it on some other type of ethics, the difference between right wingers and leftists is not foundationalism vrs coherantism, its their attitude to power and the status quo.
    Christianity is among the examples of power based virtue ethics as you described previously. It's based on sublime appeals to ceremony, scripture, and edifice, not goodwill in itself.

    The good book says... (+ subjective historical track record)

    I know you didn't but almost all right wing policies and right wing politics, when you come down it it, are about defending those in power.
    ...so you want me to acknowledge all leftists aren't the same, but then you want the right to stereotype non-leftists?

    The fact that Marxism is positive economics not nominal economics ....
    The dictatorship of the proletariat is an explicit proscription.

    Thats a difference, liberty as an ideal means nothing to me, what matters to be is real liberty, if I have liberty in theory but all mechanisms to practice it are taken away from me thats not liberty, I mean, technically the USSR was a democracy, but in reality it wasn't, I care about the reality.

    Foucault, talked about conflict and power dynamics controlling social progress, but what he considered progress was more liberty, meaning thats what he was going for,
    If you're focusing primarily on concrete reality, then you seem centered on power.

    Liberty is imagined abstraction. It comes from choosing which possibilities you want to pursue in your life, and the guarantee that the necessities you achieve will remain secured in your control rather than perpetually vulnerable to others' confiscation.

    For example, say you're digging a trench for irrigation. If you own a shovel, you're entitled to that shovel remaining available for your task at your pace. Other people aren't entitled to judge it as idle, and take it from you at a whim.

    Economics ensalves supply to demand .... Nature does that.

    Infact its the total opposite of what your saying, you take the control of the means of production from those that produce nothing, and give it to those that produce.
    That's a subjective value judgment. Look at my irrigation example above.

    Its liberty because it gives people a say over things that effect them and things they produce.

    Ok ... Since when did I say parents should tell their kids to produce???

    Since when did I say anyone should tell anyone to produce????

    Dude stop twisting my arguments and making up strawmen, are we gonna have a rational discussion???
    According to you, if a child is unproductive, a parent could take things away and give to others, especially since the child's lack of productivity affects a drain on society.

  7. #57
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Oslo, Norway
    Last Seen
    07-07-16 @ 08:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    2,854

    Re: Are Liberals Coherentists or Foundationalists?

    Why Do People Choose to Use Long Words? | Confident Writing

    There’s no shortage of writing advice out there telling you to keep your writing simple, to use plain language, and to avoid jargon like the plague. So why do so many people continue to ignore that good advice?

    A conversation around the theme of simplicity got me thinking about this question. What was it about complex, hard to read words that people were so stubbornly attached to?


    A research study* looked into the way word choice changes the assessments we make about someone’s intelligence. Students were asked to rate the intelligence of writers based on essays that they’d written, and make recommendations about their suitability for admission for graduate study.

    The original versions were made more complex by substituting orginal words with their longest applicable thesaurus entries.

    The results? The simpler the essay, the more likely it was the author would be rated as intelligent, and recommended for admission to the graduate school.

  8. #58
    Global Moderator
    Bodhidarma approves bigly
    Andalublue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Granada, España
    Last Seen
    11-29-17 @ 01:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    26,111

    Re: Are Liberals Coherentists or Foundationalists?

    Quote Originally Posted by jet57 View Post
    Coherentism demands that something; and idea or policy, be bound together in balance by reason. At the same time, foundationalism demands coherent structure of the same policy or idea. Both of these are in keeping within the coherent foundation that our founding documents lay out as model for us to follow in perpetuity. While I am not liberal, I too base my political decisions and ideas on that framework.

    Chernetism is the antithesis of circularism in framing and examination. The “puzzle pieces” as you put them must have a balance in order to create a picture that benefits all involved. They we learn what fits is found in the motivations of said policies and or ideas, and in order to fit, those things must have a balanced motivation; according to our founding documents. Anything less, defies the purpose. For instance, the elastic clause of The Constitution, is a built in spontaneity solver and state constitutions act in the same way. And therefore, anything that erupts, save war, is duty bound to include such balances in their framework or they defeat the purpose.

    Your analysis of the liberal mind or group lacks credibility and source material to verify anything you’re trying to say. Your math as well is just fluff and means nothing.
    What he's trying to say in 500,000 words is something he could say in 50, i.e... that liberalism has no fundamental basis in ethics or morality, that it's based on what fits, what appears to work, on what's convenient. He's associating liberalism per se and thereby all self-avowed liberals with this 'coherentist' philosophical approach which he dislikes. The End.

    There, that was 41 words.

    Those who have a poor command of the English language often resort to throwing out verbiage to give the appearance that they know what they're talking about.
    "The crisis will end when fear changes sides" - Pablo Iglesias Turrión

    "Austerity is used as a cover to reconfigure society and increase inequality and injustice." - Jeremy Corbyn

  9. #59
    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 Andalublue View Post
    What he's trying to say in 500,000 words is something he could say in 50, i.e... that liberalism has no fundamental basis in ethics or morality, that it's based on what fits, what appears to work, on what's convenient. He's associating liberalism per se and thereby all self-avowed liberals with this 'coherentist' philosophical approach which he dislikes. The End.

    There, that was 41 words.

    Those who have a poor command of the English language often resort to throwing out verbiage to give the appearance that they know what they're talking about.
    If I wrote that, it would be criticized as an oversimplification.

    Besides, this isn't about ethics. It's about perspective, not judgment.

  10. #60
    Global Moderator
    Bodhidarma approves bigly
    Andalublue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Granada, España
    Last Seen
    11-29-17 @ 01:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    26,111

    Re: Are Liberals Coherentists or Foundationalists?

    Quote Originally Posted by Daktoria View Post
    If I wrote that, it would be criticized as an oversimplification.
    Your analysis IS over-simplified, whether or not you couch it in unnecessarily verbose langauge.

    Besides, this isn't about ethics. It's about perspective, not judgment.
    No, this is all about your attempt to place your over-simplified judgement on liberals and liberalism.
    "The crisis will end when fear changes sides" - Pablo Iglesias Turrión

    "Austerity is used as a cover to reconfigure society and increase inequality and injustice." - Jeremy Corbyn

Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678 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
  •