• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Are Liberals Coherentists or Foundationalists?

Mmm?

  • I'm a liberal, liberals are coherentists.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I'm a liberal, liberals are foundationalists.

    Votes: 1 100.0%
  • I'm not a liberal, liberals are coherentists.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I'm not a liberal, liberals are foundationalists.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    1

Daktoria

Banned
Joined
Oct 27, 2011
Messages
3,245
Reaction score
397
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Private
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.
 
Its not black and white, somethings can be argued to have absolute foundation, somethings cannot. I consider myself to be an anarchist in the sense that authority (be it from property or state or anything else), MUST be justified to the parties involved as necessary.

Now that is in a sence coherentism, but also the foundation of it is the idea that freedom is important and that humans are equal in rights.

In economics you find out what works best.

The rest of your post is just strawmen,
 
authority (be it from property or state or anything else), MUST be justified to the parties involved as necessary.

Can you explain how parties find authority justified in the first place?
 
Why do you never include a "I was unwilling to waste precious minutes of my life trying to wade through senseless babbling" option? This is why I can never vote in your polls.
 
Can you explain how parties find authority justified in the first place?

For example, one could argue that a parents authority over children can be justified in the sense that its necessary for the survival and growth of the kid, (I suppose in that case that is a different tyoe of authority where the consent isn't given, but it can be argued to be necesary), or say the authority of a doctor over a patient, its given.

My point is the question is a false dictomy.

My beef with conservatives is not that they are foundationalists, its that they present asserssions as axioms, i.e. they call things foundations which are not, and the call things foundations which cannot be justified as such.

Hell I would argue that conservatives are more coherentist, except they masquerade these "norms" that people should cohere to ass foundational elements, i.e. an assersion pretending to be an axiom, most of the so called "foundations" are simply the result of power accumulation, tradition and so on.
 
This is a weird and batty stew of straw men arguments and logical fallacies parading around in faux-intellectual verbiage. You make a sweeping and fallacious assertion about all liberals thus:
They seem to believe that something is justified only if it's surrounded by compatible circumstances

And then extrapolate that 'observation' to assume they all ascribe to a coherentist view of truth and justice. It's blather and nonsense that really merits no further discussion.
 
For example, one could argue that a parents authority over children can be justified in the sense that its necessary for the survival and growth of the kid, (I suppose in that case that is a different tyoe of authority where the consent isn't given, but it can be argued to be necesary), or say the authority of a doctor over a patient, its given.

OK, so you're saying concrete necessity?

What happens when multiple parties have conflicting concrete necessities, or we're talking about concrete luxuries instead?

My beef with conservatives is not that they are foundationalists, its that they present asserssions as axioms, i.e. they call things foundations which are not, and the call things foundations which cannot be justified as such.

Hell I would argue that conservatives are more coherentist, except they masquerade these "norms" that people should cohere to ass foundational elements, i.e. an assersion pretending to be an axiom, most of the so called "foundations" are simply the result of power accumulation, tradition and so on.

Oh, I agree. Many conservative depend on virtue ethics instead of categorical judgment for defining right and wrong.

You don't want to call those axioms though. They're maxims.
 
I wish one of the words that I made up would catch on... I'm thinking if any of them will, it will be Demoblican.
 
I wish one of the words that I made up would catch on... I'm thinking if any of them will, it will be Demoblican.

These are real words, it's just that the OP doesn't understand how to use them properly. This is unsurprising as he's only two weeks into his Logics and Ethics foundation course.

P.S. Demoblican sounds great. Any chance of a definition? And one for Demoblican't, while you're at it.
 
Last edited:
OK, so you're saying concrete necessity?

What happens when multiple parties have conflicting concrete necessities, or we're talking about concrete luxuries instead?

Your mixing 2 different ways of using the word "necessity," your talking about material necessities in the second sentance, I'm talking about systemic necessities in first ...

Oh, I agree. Many conservative depend on virtue ethics instead of categorical judgment for defining right and wrong.

You don't want to call those axioms though. They're maxims.

So do Leftists ... the difference is Leftists don't pretend that these are axioms (i.e. given and universal foundational truth), right wingers do.

Take all the so called "virtues" that go along with property, rightists simply take these as axiomatic, i.e. self justifying, Leftists generally look at these with a historical backdrop and make sure these are justified.
 
When one's heart and mind are full of hatred - in this case -"liberals" , then a man cannot think and reason with any good results.
Try the open mind philosophy. . . .
"Liberals as tyrants" This can happen to anyone - of course.
 
Your mixing 2 different ways of using the word "necessity," your talking about material necessities in the second sentance, I'm talking about systemic necessities in first...

Yes, there's a difference between material and systemic necessities...

...but systems require interpretation. No child interprets a system before being born, so no authority can be granted.

Therefore, only material necessity is left.

So do Leftists ... the difference is Leftists don't pretend that these are axioms (i.e. given and universal foundational truth), right wingers do.

Take all the so called "virtues" that go along with property, rightists simply take these as axiomatic, i.e. self justifying, Leftists generally look at these with a historical backdrop and make sure these are justified.

No, I very much disagree. Leftists believe equality is an axiom, ignoring how everyone isn't the same.

You even proved this just now in referring to "historical backdrop". There's nothing universal in nature that tells us how far back, or to what detail, we should evaluate events that happened, nor does nature doesn't tell us where to go in the future.
 
Andalublue said:
These are real words

I'll assume they are highly specialized words since they are not included in any typical dictionary that I've bothered to check. This isn't surprising, of course, virtually every field has multitudes of terms which do not get included in regional vernacular.

Andalublue said:
Demoblican sounds great. Any chance of a definition? And one for Demoblican't, while you're at it.

Haha... Demoblican't. I like it!

Demoblican [dem-uhb-li-kuhn] noun: a person who claims adherence to either the Democratic or Republican Party but who exhibits the ideological actions of both party lines.
 
Yes, there's a difference between material and systemic necessities...

...but systems require interpretation. No child interprets a system before being born, so no authority can be granted.

Therefore, only material necessity is left.

Errr, no, I'm saying if you want to get somethign done, you need a system, and if authority is to be part of that it needs to be justified ...

Your being incoherant here ...

No, I very much disagree. Leftists believe equality is an axiom, ignoring how everyone isn't the same.

No we don't ... equality in rights, yes, not ONE leftists believes in material equality.

You even proved this just now in referring to "historical backdrop". There's nothing universal in nature that tells us how far back, or to what detail, we should evaluate events that happened, nor does nature doesn't tell us where to go in the future.

What tells us what to evaluate is logic and reason ...

This is pertty simple stuff, for example you have a phenomenon, and you find all the historical things that are likely to have caused or be related to that phenomenon, and then you evaluate it ....

This isn't hard.

I get your trying to be a philosopher here, but you need to be coherant.
 
Errr, no, I'm saying if you want to get somethign done, you need a system, and if authority is to be part of that it needs to be justified ...

Your being incoherant here ...

...so how is a parent's authority over a child justified? Children are created before saying they want to be.

No we don't ... equality in rights, yes, not ONE leftists believes in material equality.

...so why do leftists advocate redistributive justice?

What tells us what to evaluate is logic and reason ...

This is pertty simple stuff, for example you have a phenomenon, and you find all the historical things that are likely to have caused or be related to that phenomenon, and then you evaluate it ....

This isn't hard.

I get your trying to be a philosopher here, but you need to be coherant.

OK, we're getting somewhere now.

I agree that logic and reason are important, but these are concepts based on foundations, not cohesion. When we ask if elements are members of a set, we ask if elements have characteristics, not if elements are similar to other elements.

Again, there is nothing in nature that tells us how similar things need to be to qualify as sufficient.

Are you saying people have to be confident in deciding how far to investigate likely causes?
 
...so how is a parent's authority over a child justified? Children are created before saying they want to be.

Its justified by the fact that children without parents would probably die and not be able to develop.

...so why do leftists advocate redistributive justice?

Because we don't believe that Capitalism rewards merit and that it increases economic inequality without justification and to remedy that and to have a functioning economy you have to fix that.

I don't advocate redistributive justice, I advocate changing the entire economic framework.

I agree that logic and reason are important, but these are concepts based on foundations, not cohesion. When we ask if elements are members of a set, we ask if elements have characteristics, not if elements are similar to other elements.

Sure ... As I said, its not black and white.

I would say that logic and reason are true axioms.

Again, there is nothing in nature that tells us how similar things need to be to qualify as sufficient.

Are you saying people have to be confident in deciding how far to investigate likely causes?

The "thing in nature" is reason ...

What your arguing is essencially saying that science is impossible ... I deny that, I say that there are perfectly rational ways to show how things are related.

Are these based on axiomatic foundations? Yeah ... Reason and logic ...

The fact is your entire OP was a false dictomy and a strawman.
 
Its justified by the fact that children without parents would probably die and not be able to develop.

That's like saying as a hostage taker, I'm entitled to take you hostage and make you do my bidding because if you don't, you'll starve.

You still haven't referred to the beginning of a child's life. You're only referring to the continuation of it.

Because we don't believe that Capitalism rewards merit and that it increases economic inequality without justification and to remedy that and to have a functioning economy you have to fix that.

I don't advocate redistributive justice, I advocate changing the entire economic framework.

You're talking about socialists here. This thread was about liberals. Let's try to stay on track by talking about the redistribution of wealth throughout the working class.

Even you would agree that members of the proletariat are compensated according to average socially necessary labor time, and that all workers are entitled to equal shares of the means of production?

That still requires material equality being an axiom.

Sure ... As I said, its not black and white.

I would say that logic and reason are true axioms.

OK. :)

The "thing in nature" is reason ...

What your arguing is essencially saying that science is impossible ... I deny that, I say that there are perfectly rational ways to show how things are related.

Are these based on axiomatic foundations? Yeah ... Reason and logic ...

The fact is your entire OP was a false dictomy and a strawman.

Well yes, scientific instruments used for observations have to be calibrated. There's nothing in nature that tells us what the calibrated state is. It's only when we define equilibrium that it becomes apparent.

(Coincidentally, this is why it's important to keep science in the private sector - calibration is subjective.)
 
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.

Maybe if you made your posts more coherent we could actually understand what the hell you're saying.
 
That's like saying as a hostage taker, I'm entitled to take you hostage and make you do my bidding because if you don't, you'll starve.

You still haven't referred to the beginning of a child's life. You're only referring to the continuation of it.

Your example is a rediculous one that can never happen in nature.

As far as the begining of a childs life, I don't see how its relevant ...

You're talking about socialists here. This thread was about liberals. Let's try to stay on track by talking about the redistribution of wealth throughout the working class.

I can't say why they support capitalism but still want redistribution, I suppose the only difference is they don't think there is a viable alternative. In economics for example Keynes took a lot from Marx, the difference is that Keynes gave solutions inside capitalism.

Even you would agree that members of the proletariat are compensated according to average socially necessary labor time, and that all workers are entitled to equal shares of the means of production?

That still requires material equality being an axiom.

errr, no not at all, your showing an ignorance of Marxism, its positive economics, no where does he say the workers are compensated according to socailly necessary labor time, nor does he say they should be.

Well yes, scientific instruments used for observations have to be calibrated. There's nothing in nature that tells us what the calibrated state is. It's only when we define equilibrium that it becomes apparent.

(Coincidentally, this is why it's important to keep science in the private sector - calibration is subjective.)

Its not subjective, not at all, infact a rational callibration would be one that gives accurate results consistantly.

As far as your parenthasis statement, I don't see why that would be the case at all, nor is it historically true.
 
Your example is a rediculous one that can never happen in nature.

People get kidnapped all the time.

As far as the begining of a childs life, I don't see how its relevant ...

What? How can children even exist without a beginning?

I can't say why they support capitalism but still want redistribution, I suppose the only difference is they don't think there is a viable alternative. In economics for example Keynes took a lot from Marx, the difference is that Keynes gave solutions inside capitalism.

errr, no not at all, your showing an ignorance of Marxism, its positive economics, no where does he say the workers are compensated according to socailly necessary labor time, nor does he say they should be.

I don't like liars. Everyone who's studied Marxism know "socially necessary labor time" is central to his ideas.

Economic Manuscripts: Capital Vol. I - Chapter One

Some people might think that if the value of a commodity is determined by the quantity of labour spent on it, the more idle and unskilful the labourer, the more valuable would his commodity be, because more time would be required in its production. The labour, however, that forms the substance of value, is homogeneous human labour, expenditure of one uniform labour power. The total labour power of society, which is embodied in the sum total of the values of all commodities produced by that society, counts here as one homogeneous mass of human labour power, composed though it be of innumerable individual units. Each of these units is the same as any other, so far as it has the character of the average labour power of society, and takes effect as such; that is, so far as it requires for producing a commodity, no more time than is needed on an average, no more than is socially necessary. The labour time socially necessary is that required to produce an article under the normal conditions of production, and with the average degree of skill and intensity prevalent at the time. The introduction of power-looms into England probably reduced by one-half the labour required to weave a given quantity of yarn into cloth. The hand-loom weavers, as a matter of fact, continued to require the same time as before; but for all that, the product of one hour of their labour represented after the change only half an hour’s social labour, and consequently fell to one-half its former value.

We see then that that which determines the magnitude of the value of any article is the amount of labour socially necessary, or the labour time socially necessary for its production.[9] Each individual commodity, in this connexion, is to be considered as an average sample of its class.[10] Commodities, therefore, in which equal quantities of labour are embodied, or which can be produced in the same time, have the same value. The value of one commodity is to the value of any other, as the labour time necessary for the production of the one is to that necessary for the production of the other. “As values, all commodities are only definite masses of congealed labour time.”[11]

Its not subjective, not at all, infact a rational callibration would be one that gives accurate results consistantly.

As far as your parenthasis statement, I don't see why that would be the case at all, nor is it historically true.

Any calibrated position will yield consistent results. You just have to use the same one over and over.

Different people have different regiments for defining this however.
 
...so why do leftists advocate redistributive justice?

The fact that you call it "redistributive justice" plays on the fact that you believe that it itself is just. Perhaps i am just word picking though.
One could argue that it was the republicans who first "redistributed"
 
Back
Top Bottom