Are Liberals Coherentists or Foundationalists?

Slartibartfast · Jul 9, 2012

Hatuey said:
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?

jet57 · Jul 9, 2012

Daktoria said:
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.

RGacky3 · Jul 10, 2012

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???

OnWisconsin · Jul 10, 2012

pbrauer said:
How about this jpg?

Camlon · Jul 10, 2012

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.

Daktoria · Jul 10, 2012

RGacky3 said:
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.

Camlon · Jul 10, 2012

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.

Andalublue · Jul 10, 2012

jet57 said:
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.

Daktoria · Jul 10, 2012

Andalublue said:
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.

Andalublue · Jul 10, 2012

Daktoria said:
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.

Daktoria · Jul 10, 2012

Andalublue said:
Your analysis IS over-simplified, whether or not you couch it in unnecessarily verbose langauge.

No, this is all about your attempt to place your over-simplified judgement on liberals and liberalism.

^ oversimplification.

If you don't love brutal assertions, then you shouldn't make them.

jet57 · Jul 10, 2012

Andalublue said:
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.

I know very welll what he's talking about. If you read my post carefully you'd see how I answered his assertion using his own argument against him and throwing in the Constitution as an example of how liberals try and frame ideas policies.

Andalublue · Jul 10, 2012

jet57 said:
I know very welll what he's talking about. If you read my post carefully you'd see how I answered his assertion using his own argument against him and throwing in the Constitution as an example of how liberals try and frame ideas policies.

You misunderstand my post. I was referring to him using verbiage to give appearance of comprehension, not you. I see perfectly well that you understand the matter; considerably better than our loquacious friend.

jet57 · Jul 10, 2012

Andalublue said:
You misunderstand my post. I was referring to him using verbiage to give appearance of comprehension, not you. I see perfectly well that you understand the matter; considerably better than our loquacious friend.

Yeah, okay: thanks. I didn't quite know who were you were referring to. I think that Daktoria is a philosophy student.

Daktoria · Jul 10, 2012

jet57 said:
Yeah, okay: thanks. I didn't quite know who were you were referring to. I think that Daktoria is a philosophy student.

I actually graduated with a degree in economics and finance, and work as a customs broker now.

Thanks.

Andalublue · Jul 10, 2012

jet57 said:
Yeah, okay: thanks. I didn't quite know who were you were referring to. I think that Daktoria is a philosophy student.

As you can see below, he isn't. He has clearly read an amount of philosophical literature but has assimilated very little of it. He also clearly skipped logic as his tendency to generalise, simplify and conflate concepts is what makes his posts fallacious. His problem in communicating clearly comes from a need to feel superior by obfuscating the issue with opaque language.

Daktoria said:
I actually graduated with a degree in economics and finance, and work as a customs broker now.

Figures. Theoretical economics is rife with opaque language too.

Gardener · Jul 10, 2012

jet57 said:
Yeah, okay: thanks. I didn't quite know who were you were referring to. I think that Daktoria is a philosophy student.

Do they even teach philosophy in middle school?

Daktoria · Jul 10, 2012

Gardener said:
Do they even teach philosophy in middle school?

I've never taken a philosophy course in my life.

The closest I've ever had is locus during 9th grade math.

jet57 · Jul 10, 2012

Andalublue said:
As you can see below, he isn't. He has clearly read an amount of philosophical literature but has assimilated very little of it. He also clearly skipped logic as his tendency to generalise, simplify and conflate concepts is what makes his posts fallacious. His problem in communicating clearly comes from a need to feel superior by obfuscating the issue with opaque language.

That's why I thought he was a student. His logic isn't sqaure.

Daktoria · Jul 10, 2012

jet57 said:
That's why I thought he was a student. His logic isn't sqaure.

Do you guys actually want to discuss the OP, or just continue with ad hominems?

jet57 · Jul 10, 2012

Daktoria said:
Do you guys actually want to discuss the OP, or just continue with ad hominems?

I did discuss the OP: I answered you directly and you still haven't reponded. And saying that you're using faulty logic is not ad-hominem, it's classic debate.

Are Liberals Coherentists or Foundationalists?

Mmm?

I'm a liberal, liberals are coherentists.

I'm a liberal, liberals are foundationalists.

I'm not a liberal, liberals are coherentists.

I'm not a liberal, liberals are foundationalists.

More options

Slartibartfast

Jesus loves you.

jet57

RGacky3

OnWisconsin

Well-known member

Camlon

Daktoria

Camlon

Andalublue

Hello again!

Daktoria

Andalublue

Hello again!

Daktoria

jet57

Andalublue

Hello again!

jet57

Daktoria

Andalublue

Hello again!

Gardener

free market communist

Daktoria

jet57

Daktoria

jet57