Political Philosophy and Ethics discussion
Both Pol. and Ethical Philosophy
>
Reason, Informal Logic, Evidence, and Critical Thinking
Mod
The foregoing is the title of the following September 20, 2023 Politico article, which is the first of a 5-part series on the rise of the anti-vaccine movement: https://www.politico.com/news/2023/09....
I am cross-filing the present post in the “Reason, Informal Logic, Evidence, and Critical Thinking” and “Pandemics: Governmental and Other Responses” topics of this Goodreads group.
Mod
In rereading Plato’s Republic, I have, today, encountered once again the following famous passage relevant to the present topic (Socrates is speaking to Glaucon): “I imagine it hasn’t escaped your notice that adolescents, when they get their first taste of arguments, exploit them as play, always using them to contradict; imitating those who engage in cross-examining people, they themselves cross-examine others, taking delight like puppies in dragging and tearing apart with the argument the people nearby on each occasion” (Plato, Republic 539b, in Plato, Republic. trans. Joe Sachs [Newberry, MA: Focus Publishing, 2007], 237).
I grew up in a small, traditional, rural town, far from any large city. Until I became a debater in high school, I was not exposed to critical thinking, as discussed in this topic. Debate opened up a new world of rational thought for me. Perhaps as a result of my unique circumstances and personality, I did not become a “puppy” as described above by Plato. However, I have noticed, then and now, people who fit that description. I later learned that one of the reasons Socrates was prosecuted and executed was that certain youthful followers of his engaged in such behavior. (See Plato’s Apology of Socrates.) This may be the reason Plato put those words in the mouth of his fictional Socrates in the Republic.
Properly done (I had an excellent debate coach), debate, even at the high school level, can be a great introduction to critical thinking. One learns how to support one’s own arguments with reason and evidence. One learns that it is important to understand thoroughly the reasoning and evidence of the other side. In some debate tournaments, we were required to argue one side of an issue in one round and the other side in another round. But, of course, debate has its limitations. After having been introduced in this manner to reason and critical thinking, I did not pursue debate when I went to college. At that point, I was more interested in studying relevant subjects in a less adversarial manner. Although my intention at that time was to become a professor, that plan did not work out for a number of reasons. Instead, after a stint as a textbook writer and editor (history and government), I became a litigation lawyer. Once again, I was in an adversarial system (which lasted about thirty years before my retirement in 2012). What I had learned in debate helped me in my legal career. Contrary to the reputation of litigation lawyers (which is sometimes accurate), I never had to lie or otherwise commit violations of legal ethics. In 2012, I was able to retire from remunerative employment and focus exclusively on independent research and writing in the fields of philosophy, history, political science, and law. I established the present website, “Political Philosophy and Ethics,” in 2014.
Alan E., this last musing of yours piques my interest on several points. A legal/ethical question occurs to me, first.In your career you must have seen many civil cases where the injured party sought damages for suffering --above and beyond any award for repairing those damages. A plaintiff often tries to wound (the defendant) in their pocketbook --for the hurt they suffered. Echoing the Old Testament, 'eye for eye, tooth for tooth' or the 'let the punishment fit the crime' rubric.
I assume that in your book on Human Reason, you would mark all these impulses down as blind emotion, which goes against our moral requirement to behave reasonably. Yes?
But therefore, our courts sometimes condone emotion in the awarding of damages?
Mod
For most of my legal career, I represented defendants sued in civil cases. The successive firms that employed me were often retained by insurance companies to defend their insureds in cases involving allegations of constitutional, statutory, or local ordinance violations. I represented political subdivisions, public officials, and sometimes police officers in such cases, mostly in the areas of employment, land use, and occasionally police liability. I also represented nonpublic defendants sued in Title VII and related employment cases. In later years, I represented some insureds in professional liability cases, e.g., attorney malpractice, engineer malpractice, and accountant malpractice. I also handled some insurance coverage and other contract litigation. I represented a few defendants in private personal injury tort cases, though that was not a primary area of my practice. For about three years, I worked at a firm that was national coordinating counsel for a large company being sued all over the United States in mass tort asbestos litigation; these were usually class actions in which a relatively small number of the hundreds or thousands of plaintiffs had substantial claims. Mesothelioma (cancer) plaintiffs or their surviving spouses would receive large settlements, whereas plaintiffs with less serious or nonexistent claims would receive lesser amounts.
My experience in representing defendants in civil litigation was that the plaintiffs’ lawyers would often begin with extravagant damages claims. When their cases were weak from a legal or evidentiary perspective, I could often defeat some or all of their claims on a motion to dismiss or a motion for summary judgment. When their cases were strong enough, in whole or in part, to withstand dismissal or summary judgment, the insurance companies usually instructed us to seek settlement if at all possible, since they did not like the uncertainty of going to trial. It was at settlement negotiations that the plaintiffs had to put up or shut up. Usually, they reduced their monetary damages claims to a point that the insurance companies would be willing to settle with them. When, however, they wouldn’t budge on an extravagant settlement demand that the insurance company was not willing to pay, the case then went to trial. In all of the above scenarios, including trials, the cases in which I was involved never resulted in judgment or settlement payments that, in my judgment, were manifestly unfair. When legal liability was fairly clear and when people died or were seriously injured, the insurance companies would pay large judgment or settlement amounts, but that was to be expected. In the end, most of the time justice (or some rough approximation thereto) was done.
Litigation is almost always very emotional from the point of view of the parties involved. The proper role of defense counsel is to interject law, reason, and admissible evidence into the case. Lawyers often have to take great pains to talk reason even (and sometimes especially) to their own clients (the plaintiffs or the named defendants). Sometimes, of course, that doesn’t work. I have many war stories from my decades of litigation experience, though my memory of them is now fading after eleven years of retirement from law practice.
I hope the foregoing helps you and others understand how litigation works and the role of reason in same. However, my experience is not exactly typical, since I did not have many personal injury private tort cases.
Alan
Great stuff! Much obliged for anatomizing this down for me. I'm glad you didn't lose the post due to a browser mishap!
Mod
I've learned my lesson. I now draft any lengthy post in Word (where I can repeatedly save it) before posting on Goodreads.
Mod
Both Confucius and Socrates emphasized the importance of understanding that one does not know what one does not know. In a November 20, 2023 article titled “The Virtues of Not Knowing” (https://nautil.us/the-virtues-of-not-...), journalist Maggie Johnson explores this concept. This essay is an excerpt from her book, released November 7, 2023, titled Uncertain: The Wisdom and Wonder Of Being Unsure (https://www.amazon.com/Uncertain-Wisd...).
Mod
The following excerpt from pages 240–41 of the Kindle edition of Kevin J. Mitchell’s Free Agents How Evolution Gave Us Free Will (Princeton University Press, 2023) is on point:
In addition to pro- or antisocial aspects, the other main theme among character traits is one of self-control, as exemplified by patience, prudence, temperance, foresight, and perseverance. These traits represent the triumph of rationality over more basic drives (a capacity that may underpin more overtly prosocial behaviors). Rationality has been recognized from the time of Plato and Aristotle as a defining capacity of humans, elevating us above the beasts. . . .I am cross-filing the present post in the “Reason, Informal Logic, Evidence, and Critical Thinking” and “Human Ethics: Basis, Principles, Applications” folders of this Goodreads group.
This capacity needs to be actively developed. Indeed, a defining aspect of all character traits is that they do not solely reflect innate endowments. Individual differences in personality may certainly have an influence on them, but they represent mature habits and skills and practices more than just predispositions. The (perhaps apocryphal) ancient Taoist figure Lao Tzu is quoted as saying, “Watch your actions; they become habit. Watch your habits; they become character. Watch your character; it becomes your destiny.”
Mod
Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus, who has a B.A. from Yale and a J.D. from Harvard, authored a December 12, 2023 opinion column titled “Yes, Magill’s comments were offensive. But calls for her removal were wrong,” which can be accessed at https://wapo.st/46SgrUE. (As a result of my Washington Post subscription, the foregoing link can be accessed without charge for fourteen days, notwithstanding the usual Washington Post paywall.)
The first paragraph of Marcus’s column states: “Liz Magill’s congressional testimony about antisemitism and genocide was appallingly bad; in fact, like that of her two fellow university presidents, it was offensive and hurtful. Still, no one should celebrate her ouster as president of the University of Pennsylvania or hope that the others — “One down. Two to go,” chortled Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) — will follow in her wake.”
This matter involves the public interrogation by Stefanik and others, in a U.S. House of Representatives committee, of the presidents of the University of Pennsylvania, Harvard, and MIT, which are all private universities. As Marcus observes, these nongovernmental universities are not constrained by the First Amendment, which applies only to governmental bodies and officials. Accordingly, one might wonder why these presidents were summoned to Congress in the first place. What jurisdiction does Congress have over the policies of private universities, unless such universities are accused or suspected of violating a federal statute or administrative regulation (in which case, the matter might more appropriately be addressed in judicial or administrative proceedings)? Although I did not watch the congressional committee event or read a transcript of it, I have not, so far, seen anything that would trigger congressional jurisdiction over this matter.
Accordingly, when Marcus opines that calls for the removal of these presidents are wrong, she is entitled to her opinion, but it is not a legal opinion, notwithstanding her degree from Harvard Law School. Marcus strenuously objects to the pressure from private donors of these elite private universities to terminate or discipline these university presidents. Given, however, the private status of these educational institutions, it seems to me that these donors have a legal right to take that position and back it with their money. I suppose that Marcus is suggesting that they have no moral right to same, a view upon which I express no opinion.
I agree with Marcus’s following statements:
[C]alls for intifada and chants of “from the river to the sea” are, in my view, horrifyingly wrong and dangerous, inherently entailing violence against Israeli citizens. But they do not automatically rise to the level of endorsing genocide. Not to be naive about the significant overlap between anti-Zionism and antisemitism, these are distinct phenomena. It is possible to believe that Israel should not have been created and should not be maintained as a Jewish state and not be understood as advocating the elimination of Jews along the lines of Hitler’s final solution.I have not studied this matter in depth, but I am not aware that any of the statements attributed to students who oppose Israel actually advocate genocide, which Merriam-Webster defines as “the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group” (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dicti...).
Instead, Magill, Gay and Kornbluth fell into Stefanik’s trap, too easily acceding to her expansive definition. “You understand that the use of the term intifada in the context of the Israeli-Arab conflict is indeed a call for violent armed resistance against the state of Israel, including violence against civilians and the genocide of Jews,” Stefanik asked Gay. The conversation proceeded down this path of conflation, with the presidents mystifyingly, repeatedly and infuriatingly resisting the invitation to state plainly that advocating genocide violated their campus codes.
Marcus also is correct, in my view, in stating the following:
Both sides in the long-running campus speech debate are guilty of hypocrisy and applying double standards. Conservatives who decried “cancel culture” and lampooned “snowflakes” melting over perceived slurs have a different, less robust vision of free speech protections when it comes to chants about intifada. Progressives who complained of being triggered by comments that offended their sensibilities now pose as defenders of free speech. This situation requires rules that are enforced in an evenhanded way.What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Such self-contradictions by both Left and Right constitute a failure of the reasoning and critical thinking that should be a hallmark of higher education.
I am cross-filing the present post in the “Freedom of Speech” and “Reason, Informal Logic, Evidence, and Critical Thinking” topics of this Goodreads group.
Mod
This February 6, 2024 Washington Post opinion essay is titled “The Trouble with Schools is Too Much Math”: https://wapo.st/3Symc4A. (In accordance with my Washington Post subscription, the foregoing link provides access to this article for fourteen days without charge, notwithstanding the usual Washington Post paywall.)
Here are some excerpts:
Only 22 percent of the nation’s workers use any math more advanced than fractions, and they typically occupy technical or skilled positions. That means more than three-fourths of the population spends painful years in school futzing with numbers when they could be learning something more useful.My thoughts exactly. “Applied logic” is also called “informal logic"—not casual logic but logic that is concerned about application in life rather than mathematical form. For a further discussion of informal logic and critical thinking, see Chapter 2 (“Human Reason”) of my book Reason and Human Ethics (a PDF replica of which is online at https://www.academia.edu/107899091/Re...).
I’m talking about applied logic. This branch of philosophy grows from the same mental tree as algebra and geometry but lacks the distracting foliage of numbers and formulas. Call it the art of thinking clearly. We need this urgently in this era of disinformation, in which politicians and media personalities play on our emotions and fears.
Logic teaches us how to trace a claim back to its underlying premises and to test each link in a chain of thought for unsupported assumptions or fallacies. People trained in logic are better able to spot the deceptions and misdirection that politicians so often employ. They also have a better appreciation for different points of view because they understand the thought processes that produce multiple legitimate conclusions concerning the same set of facts. They are comfortable with spirited dialogue about what’s best for our society. . . .
The need to solve problems is eternal, but many of life’s weightiest problems don’t boil down to numbers. Prioritizing higher-level numeracy over other forms of logical reasoning is not turning us into a nation of engineers and physicists. It’s letting us become a nation that can’t think straight.
America’s Founders knew it would take educated citizens for this democratic republic to succeed. But nowhere did they mention the quadratic formula.
I am cross-filing the present comment in the “Education” and the “Reason, Informal Logic, Evidence, and Critical Thinking” topics of this Goodreads group.
re: Alan's msg #560, this thread (Reason, Informal Logic, Evidence, & Critical Thinking), Dec 12th @ 07:21am)https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
Alan wrote: "The conversation proceeded down this path of conflation..."
Conflated premises are an insidious and deadly trap in discourse, in my professional experience. They occur rampantly in govt technology; much to the embarrassment of all parties concerned. I've seen it happen time and time again. Only those with extremely keen eyes, can detect it during large/vociferous meetings. It's a hydra.
Aside: I'm dismayed to see my own alma mater drawn into such an imbroglio. Why did I shell out for an expensive Ivy league degree when my prez can be called-on-the-carpet in such Kefauver fashion? Where's my old boy network?
Very glad I exited the entire university system before this mad era. [Constant battle over correct language] --what a kennel of barking doggerel.
[edited]
Mod
Conflated premises are an insidious and deadly trap in discourse, in my professional experience. They occur rampantly in go..."
Well said, Feliks. Please review posts 45–46 (July 23, 2022) of the Rules and Housekeeping topic. It’s all right not to cross-reference an immediately preceding post, but a post before that one needs to have identifying information other than the quote. In this case, you were quoting my quotation from Ruth Marcus’s column in post 560 (December 12, 2023) of this topic. Since it was not in the immediately preceding post, I had to do a Word search to find it.
Mod
See https://wapo.st/4cbzyg4. (In accordance with my Washington Post subscription, the foregoing link provides access to this article for fourteen days without charge, notwithstanding the usual Washington Post paywall.)
It turns out that the events described by Britt occurred in Mexico during the George W. Bush administration. Biden had nothing to do with it.
Criminey. When will these lurid theatrics cease? Why is Robert Louis Stevenson-style kidnap-fiction allowed to take center stage as a topic in national politics? It's Lyndon Johnson-style mudslinging. No better than Roman priests or Soviet prosecutors.
When all else fails, just accuse your opponent of 'medical experiments in POW camps'. Or "covering up for 57 known Communists" in the Defense Department.
Mod
On April 5, 2024, Majorie Taylor Greene, a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, tweeted (https://twitter.com/mtgreenee/status/...) the following:
God is sending America strong signs to tell us to repent.This was, of course, the day a minor earthquake struck a portion of New Jersey and was felt in surrounding areas such as New York City.
Earthquakes and eclipses and many more things to come.
I pray that our country listens.
It has long been known that earthquakes and eclipses are not the result of the wrath of the gods but rather scientifically explainable phenomena that, in the case of eclipses, are predictable and have, in fact, been more or less accurately predicted for millennia. For a discussion of the history of human scientific predictions of eclipses, see the following April 6, 2024 New York Times article titled “The Eclipse That Ended a War and Shook the Gods Forever”: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/06/sc.... (As a result of my New York Times subscription, the foregoing link can be accessed without charge for thirty days, notwithstanding the usual New York Times paywall.)
Mimi and I and my adult son will be witnessing the total eclipse of the sun in Cleveland, Ohio USA on April 8, 2024, at 3:15 p.m. U.S. Eastern Daylight Time.
Alan wrote: "It has long been known that earthquakes and eclipses are not the result of the wrath of the gods ..."Haha. Dry wit there.
And just to clarify: this "Majorie Taylore Greene" is the same rep who got elected on the strength of her alignment with conspiracy theorists. I was wondering what happened to her.
Anyway. This wasn't even the first such quake experienced by New Yorkers in recent memory. We felt a minor one around ten years ago. At the time, I was surprised by how many pedestrians in the streets around me, spouted scripture. Bus drivers, and the like. I assume its having the same effect again. I've no idea where all this hellfire-and-brimstone comes from.
Mod
See this April 9, 2024 Fact Check: https://wapo.st/43UrnB0. (In accordance with my Washington Post subscription, the foregoing link provides access to this article for fourteen days without charge, notwithstanding the usual Washington Post paywall.)
Mod
Yesterday, independent philosopher Robert Hanna, a member of this Goodreads group, referenced in his “Philosophy Without Borders” blog an April 28, 2024 essay by Joseph Wayne Smith titled “The Limits of Statistical Methodology: Why A ‘Statistically Significant’ Number of Published Scientific Research Findings are False,” which is published online at https://againstprofphil.org/2024/04/2....
Smith, who (unlike me) is clearly adept at all the intricacies of statistical analysis, undertakes in this article an extensive and intensive study of the misuse of statistics in scientific publications. He also refers to the misuse of statistics in psychology and law. I am not competent to speak to the use of statistics in scientific and mathematical matters. However, I have long been aware of the attempts, since at least the 1950s, to make the social sciences (especially psychology, “political science,” and law) more “scientific” by relying heavily on quantitative methods, including the use of statistics and other mathematical procedures.
As Smith explains in his article, any attempt to reduce law to quantitative analysis is impossible and illogical. Here I can speak from personal experience as a result of a thirty-year career as a litigation lawyer (retired in 2012). The same could be said for the social sciences in general. The methods employed in such cases are based on logical fallacies and failures of critical thinking. They involve reductionism at its most absurd level and, by the way, explain why robots will never replace lawyers, though legal research as such has been greatly facilitated since the 1970s by computer-generated assistance.
For a less technical examination of critical thinking associated with statistics, see pages 58–59 of my book Reason and Human Ethics (a PDF replica of which is online at https://www.academia.edu/107899091/Re... and the Kindle edition of which can be downloaded for free today and tomorrow at https://www.amazon.com/Reason-Human-E...). Chapter 2 (“Human Reason”) of this book also discusses the main types of logical fallacies and critical thinking in general and the differences between reasoning about such abstract disciplines as mathematics and physics and reasoning about human decisions and actions.
Mod
See this May 19, 2024 Washington Post article titled “Ancient Chesapeake site challenges timeline of humans in the Americas”: https://wapo.st/3V7f69F. (As a result of my Washington Post subscription, the foregoing link can be accessed without charge for fourteen days, notwithstanding the usual Washington Post paywall.)
Excerpt:
To complicate matters, [archeologist Darrin] Lowery — who has been affiliated with the Smithsonian but does much of his work independently — presented the results of his study of Parsons Island in a 260-page manuscript posted online [https://www.researchgate.net/publicat...] rather than in a traditional peer-reviewed journal.
The peer-review process is designed to help validate scientific claims, but Lowery argues that in archaeology it often leads to a circle-the-wagons mentality, allowing scientists to wave away evidence that doesn’t support the dominant paradigm. He says he isn’t seeking formal publishing routes because “life’s too short,” comparing this aspect of academic science to “the dumbest game I’ve ever played.”
Mod
I have posted my paper “Proposals for Education in Rational and Ethical Thinking” at https://www.academia.edu/122128491/PR....
Abstract: In this era of widespread irrationality and violence, it is clear that traditional methods of moral indoctrination are failing. This paper proposes a new approach to ethical instruction based on proper reasoning about both ends and means.
I am cross-filing the present post in some other topics of this Goodreads group.
Mod
See:
1. https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/07/... (New York Times, free access)
2. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politi... (Philadelphia Inquirer)
3. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politi... (ABC News)
4. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politi... (CNN)
5. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/p... (USA Today)
6. https://www.politifact.com/article/20... (PolitiFact)
7. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/dona... (NBC News)
8. https://www.factcheck.org/2024/07/fin... (FactCheck.org)
9. https://apnews.com/article/fact-check... (AP News)
10. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/2024-rnc... (CBS News).
There are many other fact checks, which can be accessed by doing online searches for same.
I am cross-filing this post in the “United States Constitution and Government” and “Reason, Informal Logic, Evidence, and Critical Thinking” topics of this Goodreads group.
Mod
See this July 24, 2024 Washington Post article: https://wapo.st/4cgoKwh. (In accordance with my Washington Post subscription, the foregoing link provides access to this article for fourteen days without charge, notwithstanding the usual Washington Post paywall.)
Mod
See my post 26 (August 4, 2024) in the “Freedom of Speech” topic of this Goodreads group.
This is one of many reasons why survey and polling results should be taken with a grain of salt. That said, they may be considered, with rational reservations, as data points. Perhaps most helpful are polls by the same company asking the same question(s) at different times and getting different responses, thereby showing a possible trend.
Another problem, often recognized by the polling/survey companies themselves, is that most people no longer answer their phones or hang up in response to polling/survey inquiries. Caller ID may have deep-sixed the polling industry and partially explained why polls about forthcoming elections have so often been wrong during the last decade or so.
Mod
I have reviewed Thinknetic’s Critical Thinking for Complex Issues: How To Tell Fact From Fiction, Discover The Truth, And Build Wise Arguments (2024) at https://www.goodreads.com/review/show....
Mod
In an August 15, 2024 column titled “You’re Only as Smart as Your Emotions” (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/15/op...), David Brooks follows a lot of contemporary academic and modern and postmodern philosophical literature (e.g., Hume) in arguing for the primacy of emotion over reason. Although I usually don’t post comments on articles I read, I did so in this case. I responded:
Then, I suppose the Jan. 6 insurrectionists were right to abandon reason and evidence and proceed solely on their emotions, including religious fanaticism (QAnon etc.)? Cf. Alan E. Johnson, Reason and Human Ethics (Pittsburgh: Philosophia, 2022). Emotions are part of being human, but they should not replace reason in important political and even personal matters. The replacement of reason by emotion has been the cause of wars and other violence from time immemorial. That said, a certain degree of positive emotion might be appropriate if (and only if) reason is ultimately in control. Plato was right on this ethical issue, as was Lincoln (see his Jan. 27, 1838 speech "The Perpetuation of Our Political Institutions").In accordance with my New York Times subscription, the above link provides access to this article for 30 days without charge, notwithstanding the usual New York Times paywall.
Brooks follows the typically modern approach of narrowing the concept of reason to abstract, mathematical, or quasi-mathematical matters, thereby committing the straw person fallacy. Properly understood, reason is (as Plato and Aristotle understood) directed to both ends and means. I discuss all this in depth in Reason and Human Ethics, especially in chapters 1 and 2. Although this book is available in Kindle and paperback editions on Amazon, it is also freely available and downloadable in PDF format at https://www.academia.edu/107899091/Re....
Mod
The following passage from John Locke’s Essay Concerning Human Understanding has long been a favorite of mine:
But God has not been so sparing to Men to make them barely two-legged Creatures, and left it to Aristotle to make them Rational, i.e. those few of them that he could get so to examine the Grounds of Syllogisms, as to see, that in above threescore ways, that three Propositions may be laid together, there are but about fourteen wherein one may be sure that the Conclusion is right, and upon what ground it is, that in these few the Conclusion is certain, and in the other not. God has been more bountiful to Mankind than so. He has given them a Mind that can reason without being instructed in Methods of Syllogizing: the Understanding is not taught to reason by these Rules; it has a native Faculty to perceive the Coherence, or Incoherence of its Ideas, and can range them right, without any such perplexing Repetitions. I say not this any way to lessen Aristotle, whom I look on as one of the greatest Men amongst the Antients; whose large Views, acuteness and penetration of Thought, and strength of Judgment, few have equalled: And who in this very invention of Forms of Argumentation, wherein the Conclusion may be shown to be rightly inferred, did great service against those, who were not ashamed to deny any thing. And I readily own, that all right reasoning may be reduced to his Forms of Syllogism. But yet I think without any diminution to him I may truly say, that they are not the only, nor the best way of reasoning, for the leading of those into Truth who are willing to find it, and desire to make the best use they may of their Reason, for the attainment of Knowledge. And he himself it is plain, found out some Forms to be conclusive, and others not, not by the Forms themselves but by the original way of Knowledge, i.e. by the visible agreement of Ideas. (John Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, edited by Peter H. Nidditch (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1975), bk. IV, chap. xvii, § 4, pp.671–72)
Mod
The foregoing is the title of the following October 4, 2024 opinion essay by Dana Milbank in the Washington Post: https://wapo.st/47VSE8b. (As a result of my Washington Post subscription, the foregoing link can be accessed without charge for fourteen days, notwithstanding the usual Washington Post paywall.)
Excerpts:
As if the good people of North Carolina haven’t suffered enough lately, they also have to worry about this: a network of child traffickers and pedophiles that tortures and kills children to harvest their blood for an anti-aging elixir known as adrenochrome.
Or so believes the Republican candidate to be the state’s superintendent of public instruction, Michele Morrow.
“The evil, demon-possessed people who worship Satan have been using this to try to keep their youth,” Morrow said in a video she posted on Facebook in 2020. “They’ve been using it as a drug that is more powerful than street drugs. … It is gotten through children who are being tortured and know that they are about to die. Guys, this is deep, it is evil, and it is real. It is truly happening, and we have got to stop it.” . . .
She has asserted that the World Health Organization has been using vaccines to sterilize people and kill children, which is “their intention, because that is who Satan is.” And she argued that Satan is “in cahoots” with Democrats, globalists, the “one world order,” the United Nations, China and Russia “to take down the United States of America.”
But here’s the truly crazy thing: Morrow has an even chance to become the state’s top educator. A poll by Raleigh-based WRAL last month found that she is in a statistical tie with her Democratic opponent.
Mod
See this October 5, 2024 AP article: https://apnews.com/article/hurricane-....
None dare call it climate change.
Mod
Being able to distinguish between truth and lies is an important part of reason and critical thinking. In this connection, see the following October 4, 2024 opinion essay by Jennifer Rubin, titled “Trump Is Left with Lies, Both Terrible and Cruel”: https://wapo.st/3zR5iJe (gift article).
Mod
The foregoing is the title of this November 14, 2024 AP article: https://apnews.com/article/trump-groc....
The many fallacies committed by many voters who voted for Trump on the basis of the inflation issue include the correlation fallacy (https://logiccheck.ai/logical-fallacy...). There are three necessary elements in a causal relationship: temporal precedence, covariation of the cause and effect (correlation), and no plausible alternative explanations (William M. K. Trochim, “Establishing a Cause-Effect Relationship,” accessed November 14, 2024, https://conjointly.com/kb/establishin...). Trump never, to my knowledge, identified how he claimed inflation was caused by the policies of Biden and Harris. Alternative explanations include Trump’s huge deficit caused by massive tax cuts for the wealthy during his first term; Trump’s repeated claim in his first term that Covid was a hoax, resulting in many people refusing to get vaccinations and thus prolonging the pandemic; interrupted supply chains caused by the international pandemic and by misguided corporate emphasis on outsourcing to maximize profits (see Peter S. Goodman’s How the World Ran Out of Everything: Inside the Global Supply Chain (https://www.amazon.com/How-World-Ran-... and price gouging caused by corporate oligopolies and greed. As explained in the November 14, 2024 article linked in the first paragraph of this post, Trump’s policies regarding tariffs and deportation of millions of migrants will actually cause much higher prices.
I hesitate to make predictions, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the second Trump administration along with Republican control of both the House of Representatives and the Senate will result in new inflation as well as other negative consequences and that many who voted for Trump will have buyer’s remorse. The result will be seen in the 2026 midterm elections and in the 2028 presidential and congressional elections. But history has a way of defying predictions, and my prognostication may turn out to be incorrect.
Alan wrote: "“Food prices worried most voters, but Trump’s plans likely won’t lower their grocery bills”The foregoing is the title of this November 14, 2024 AP article: https://apnews.com/article/trump-grocer..."
The phenomenon we now observe, associated with the growth of far-right groups, is a consequence of the emergence of small far-left groups that began in the 1960s and continued to grow throughout the 1970s and 1980s. Leftist parties took advantage of these groups to advocate for and elevate minority causes, aiming to attract supporters and votes. In this process, over time, laws and mechanisms were created to protect and overvalue these minorities, allowing the rise of radical, disruptive, violent, or even terrorist groups. True democratic values, social cohesion, and balance were gradually compromised.
In the name of defending rights, freedoms, and guarantees, criminals were forgiven or given multiple opportunities for rehabilitation. Fanaticism, crime, and violence became supported by media coverage, becoming the "new normal," while justice and law enforcement became overly lenient towards these groups. The majority of the population, tired and adversely affected by this situation and losing faith in the effectiveness and fairness of democratic institutions, began to turn towards far-right groups, hoping for change or a solution to society's problems. As a result, nations have become increasingly polarized and divided, with deep social rifts, while moderate groups feel powerless or unable to maintain some degree of harmony and social cohesion.
Mod
The article I referenced and discussed was actually about mainstream voters who voted for Trump because of dissatisfaction with high prices. These people are more concerned with bread-and-butter issues than with ideology as such. Unfortunately, they blame Biden for inflation just because he was president at the time. But, as my post discussed, this view is intellectually indefensible. The underlying problem is that they succumbed to Trump's mendacious demagoguery. They lacked critical thinking, which is sorely absent from much of the US electorate.
Your points about the far Left and the far Right: Insofar as US history is concerned, the far Left never launched an attack on the US Capitol in order to stop a constitutionally mandated proceeding nor have they shown any interest in theocracy or other forms of right-wing authoritarianism. I think that the authoritarian Right in the present country is not so much a response to left-wing movements as it is an independent movement rooted in longtime American racism, religious fanaticism, and fascist ideology. The far Left and the far Right, in my view, have separate provenances, and neither grew out of the other. This is my understanding of how these movements have developed in the US. It may be different in other countries, about which I have little knowledge.
Mod
By the way, I never liked the left-wing violence and ideology of the 1960s and 1970s. See my 1967 essay “Hippies and Pioneers” (https://www.academia.edu/23082421/Hip...) and my 1971 master’s essay “The Teaching of Plato’s Seventh Letter” (https://www.academia.edu/22999496/The...). The right-wing reaction to these left-wing movements was more expressed in the election of Richard Nixon as president in 1968 (took office January 20, 1969) than in the January 6, 2021 insurrection. Nixon attempted to subvert the Constitution, but nobody thought he was anointed by God as many MAGA people currently think Trump is. Marxism and neo-Marxism are rooted in atheism, not religion, unless one thinks, as I do, that Marxism-Leninism is just another form of religion.
If I recall correctly, EJ. Hobsbawm was pleased with the attention to social and economic factors in medieval heresies in Norman Cohn’s “Pursuit of the Millenium,” but upset that Cohn pointed out that the obvious religious trappings of Leninism put it in continuity with such movements when it came to popular appeal.
Alan wrote: "Ricardo wrote: "The phenomenon we now observe, associated with the growth of far-right groups, is a consequence of the emergence of small far-left groups that began in the 1960s and continued to gr..."The political and social situation observed in Portugal, Europe, Russia, and the US over recent decades reflects complex and unique patterns of development in far-left and far-right movements, with some parallels but also many differences. A consistent theme has been the rise of extremist movements in response to power dynamics, economic crises, and the impact of new communication technologies.
Europe and Portugal
In Europe, beginning in the 1960s, several left-wing movements took hold, promoting social and economic reforms with a strong focus on civil rights and minority protections. In Portugal, the end of the authoritarian regime in 1974 paved the way for a democratic, pluralistic society. Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, various left-leaning parties gained popularity, primarily due to their promises of social justice and wealth redistribution. Minority rights advocacy and progressive policy advancements were central themes, yet over time, certain far-left groups emerged, often acting outside the boundaries of democratic law to challenge the status quo.
In recent years, however, far-right groups have also gained traction, strongly opposing immigration and the cosmopolitan values of the European Union. This growth is largely linked to a backlash against progressive liberalism and perceived threats to national identity and economic control. Unlike in the US, where extreme rhetoric is often more direct and radical, far-right groups in Portugal have adopted a more cautious, though effective, discourse to rally popular support against the “system.”
Russia
In Russia, the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 created an ideological vacuum. The far-left lost its dominance, and authoritarian figures emerged, leveraging nationalism as a core of their support. Under Vladimir Putin, Russian politics have combined elements of nationalism, state control, and religious orthodoxy. Putin’s model of a “strong state” has promoted a discourse of distrust and antagonism toward the West, which many Russians perceive as a direct threat to their identity and sovereignty.
Putin’s stance is neither clearly left nor right but rather a form of “populist autocracy.” It exhibits traits of traditional authoritarianism which, for many, represents a Russian answer to “Western decadence” and neoliberalism, mobilizing people under a concept of Russian superiority and the need to maintain a powerful stance.
United States
In the United States, ideological extremism is deeply rooted in popular culture and the bipartisan system. During the 1960s and 1970s, left-wing movements gained momentum through the civil rights movement and opposition to the Vietnam War. However, beginning in the 1980s, with Ronald Reagan’s rise and the resurgence of conservatism, a “new right” emerged, founded on religious values, nationalism, and a certain disdain for government intervention.
The Trump presidency is perhaps the clearest example of this explosion of far-right populism, using demagoguery and polarizing rhetoric. Much of his support stems from disillusionment with the establishment and a perception that traditional American values are under threat. In contrast to Europe, where right-wing nationalism often centers on cultural identity issues, in the US, the focus is on liberal ideology and the federal government as a “threat.” The storming of the Capitol in 2021 was a culmination of this American far-right movement, distinct from any left-wing movement seen in recent decades.
Final Considerations
In various parts of the world, we see extremism growing as a response to legitimacy and representational crises within democratic institutions. In Portugal and Europe, polarization is less aggressive in actions, though still concerning. The lack of effective solutions for complex problems—economic, social, migratory, and environmental—fuels public frustration, while social media amplifies polarizing rhetoric.
In sum, Europe and the US reveal opposing trends in their extremisms: while European far-right groups focus on cultural identity and nationalism, in the US, far-right discourse is more polarizing against the political system itself and liberal elites. In Russia, extremism takes the form of an autocratic, traditionalist state, yet one that is heavily populist and nationalist, whereas in Portugal, political moderation still prevails, although the growth of extremes has started to show. Each region’s history has shaped these dynamics, and looking ahead, a restructuring of how democracies operate may be essential to mitigate extremism and stabilize the global political landscape.
In today’s world, Western societies and other regions are facing challenging issues in terms of political philosophy, ethics, and citizenship. These challenges are deeply influenced by power dynamics, identity issues, and the application (or lack thereof) of universal human rights. When analyzing this situation, we can identify some common points that are reflected in various political and social contexts.1. The Rise of Extremist Movements
The rise of far-right movements in some countries, like the U.S. and parts of Europe, along with strong authoritarian governments in others, such as Russia, reflects a latent dissatisfaction with traditional democratic institutions. In many cases, this arises as a response to feelings of exclusion or frustration with what is perceived as ineffective governance. However, these movements often exploit fear and insecurity to achieve and consolidate power, using polarizing rhetoric that emphasizes social, ethnic, and economic divides.
2. The Fragility of Democratic Institutions
In all these contexts, the fragility of democratic institutions is evident. Distrust in the system, whether due to corruption, inability to resolve social issues, or media manipulation, leads to widespread disillusionment with representative democracy. In both democratic and authoritarian nations, institutions often seem disconnected from the concerns of ordinary citizens. This environment fosters the emergence of leaders who promise to “save” the country from its crises, but who often impose authoritarian or unethical governance regimes.
3. Manipulation of Narratives and Control of Information
Another common point is the use of media – both traditional and social – for manipulating narratives. In the U.S., misinformation and fake news have undermined public trust in the media and public figures, while in Russia, state-controlled information reinforces centralized power. In both cases, citizens end up losing access to neutral and accurate information, which hampers the formation of well-informed opinions and authentic civic participation.
4. Conflict between National Identity and Globalization
In many nations, the sense of national identity is at odds with the effects of globalization. The promises of an interconnected global economy have created wealth but also increased inequalities and diluted local cultures, leading to the resurgence of nationalism and protectionism. These movements often accuse minorities or foreigners of being responsible for the loss of jobs and opportunities, fueling a rhetoric of “us versus them.”
5. Universality of Human Rights and Valuing Dignity
In a healthy democracy, human dignity and fundamental rights must be universal, applied to everyone in a balanced and fair manner. However, both the marginalization of minorities and the overprotection of certain groups can create divisions. The marginalization of minorities is traditionally a widely recognized and criticized issue, as it denies fundamental rights to a portion of the population, reinforcing exclusion and perpetuating inequalities.
On the other hand, the overprotection and excessive prioritization of certain groups can also create resentment among the majority. In some cases, this results in policies or rhetoric that disproportionately benefit minorities, promoting affirmative actions that end up creating a perception of injustice for the majority. When policies are perceived as favoring specific groups to the detriment of the whole, tensions arise that can fuel far-right movements or other groups advocating a “return” to a supposedly more balanced and fair order.
Therefore, balance is crucial. A society must uphold respect for the dignity of all citizens and ensure that minorities have the same rights and opportunities, without marginalizing the majority or providing protection that undermines social cohesion. True democratic ethics involve striving for policies that promote inclusion but are also seen as fair by the population as a whole, reinforcing unity and avoiding divisions that could foster extremism.
Mod
Alan wrote: "Thank you, Ricardo, for your thoughtful perspective on these matters."Thank Alan for your feedback.
This analysis of events currently happening in various parts of the world leads us to several conclusions:
The so-called right to strike and the right to protest have, in many cases, exceeded reasonable and socially acceptable limits.
Regarding strikes, unions and other opposition groups encourage workers to halt their activities frequently. The demands are generally the same: better working conditions and higher wages. When these strikes occur almost continuously and impact all public and state services, with even minimal services often not being upheld, several consequences arise: people are inconvenienced in their mobility, health, access to justice, work, income, and general well-being. Additionally, the country’s economy and governance are also compromised, reducing the state’s and government’s capacity to meet the population’s needs. It is legitimate and understandable for disadvantaged groups to seek better living conditions, but if there isn’t a balance and some restraint in these actions, the results often end up counterproductive to their intentions.
As for protest demonstrations for various ideologies, here, too, we encounter issues with lack of balance and moderation. Demonstrations are a democratic right; however, when they turn into violence and wanton vandalism against public and private property—setting fires, vandalizing, or even physically attacking people—they lose all legitimacy, coherence, or validity. When these individuals are detained but then released with only a light reprimand or a suspended sentence, the message conveyed is that crime pays, as the justice system does little to address their actions. This sense of impunity only helps the growth of extremist and radical groups, as well as individuals with serious psychological and emotional issues who end up joining these groups or even acting criminally on their own.
These occurrences highlight the need for a balance between the right to protest and responsibilities toward society, to preserve public order and democratic values. It is also essential that the law and penalties be significantly more severe for individuals who attack public property and order, ensuring that justice acts decisively against these offenses to prevent further societal harm.
In summary, the principles and guidelines of democracy urgently need to be redefined, restructured, and adapted to contemporary society. It is also crucial to create mechanisms that strongly reduce or eliminate partisan, personal, and economic interests to prevent them from overshadowing the interests of nations. Otherwise, the principles and virtues of democracy risk fading away.
Mod
TO ALL:
I began the immediate discussion in this topic (“Reason, Informal Logic, Evidence, and Critical Thinking”) in post # 581 (November 14, 2024, https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...). In that post, I discussed how people who blame the Biden-Harris administration for inflation are committing, among other errors of informal logic and critical thinking, the correlation fallacy, and I reiterated the requirements necessary to prove a causal relationship. Accordingly, my post # 581 was directly relevant to the present topic.
I also copied my aforesaid post # 581 in the present topic to post # 454 (November 14, 2024, https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...) in the “Government and the Economy; Property Rights” topic. It now occurs to me that several of the posts following my post # 581 in the present topic might more appropriately belong in the “Government and the Economy; Property Rights” or other topics in this Goodreads group. The reason I have created these separate topics is so that future readers of the comments in this group can find all comments relevant to a specific topic in that topic. Posters should feel free to post their comments in more than one topic (if appropriate and within reason), which is what I did with my original post 581 in the present topic. I realize that this can be time-consuming and difficult, but, again, the home page for this group (https://www.goodreads.com/group/show/...) lists all of the topics. If, for some reason, your device (perhaps a mobile phone) does not show the home page and the topics listed thereon, please let me know. I almost never use a mobile phone when I post comments in this group, and if you have a desktop or laptop computer, it would be easier for you to use the latter devices in posting comments.
Thank you.
Alan
Alan E. Johnson
Founding Moderator of the “Political Philosophy and Ethics” Goodreads group
Alan wrote: "Ricardo, your two preceding comments provide much food for thought. I, too, have pondered these specific issues, though I have not yet arrived at definite conclusions about them. I am hard at work ..."Alan, in my book, I aimed to use a simple and accessible narrative so that it could be understood by both young people and adults. I neither wrote nor ever intended to present complex political theories tailored for the enlightened or more educated elites. Nevertheless, many important messages are included in my work, which these elites might use to reflect on current issues and the future challenges of society.
Moreover, while I have a reasonable understanding of international regimes and governance, my observations and reflections focus mainly on my own country (Portugal), the European Union, and the Portuguese-speaking African countries (PALOPs). I believe the European Union began with great momentum and energy in its ambitions and intentions, but it now finds itself divided between the political interests of each member country, capitalism, and, more recently, the challenges posed by migration and the rise of extremist groups.
In the European Union, a myth was created that we would always be at peace, fostering diplomatic and commercial relations both within and outside the EU. Consequently, the budget and attention to defense were gradually neglected. This was a significant oversight, as we now see with Russia's invasion of Ukraine: the vast majority of EU countries lack adequate defense capabilities and are even less able to provide the necessary support to Ukraine. The phrase "Si vis pacem, para bellum" ("If you want peace, prepare for war") is an ancient Latin saying often attributed to the Roman writer Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus, who wrote about military strategies and tactics in his work De Re Militari (4th century).
Mod
I understand that it is virtually impossible to be an expert on the constitutional and political structure and history of every country. This is why I continually encourage those in other countries to consider whether, or to what extent, what I say about the USA applies to their constitutional and political systems as well. I am certainly not a relativist, but, like Socrates, I don't think I know what I don't know.
The attribution to Vegetius is correct: it is near the end of the preface to book three of De Re Militari (also Epitoma de re militari, and variants), usually quoted paraphrased: si vis pacem, para bellum. I have not found a Latin text on line to check the original wording, although I could probably find one if I searched long enough.
The Latin Library supplied the passage. What Vegetius said was less compact: "Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum". See https://www.thelatinlibrary.com/veget...
Ian wrote: "The Latin Library supplied the passage. What Vegetius said was less compact: "Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum". See https://www.thelatinlibrary.com/veget..."Thank you for the correction, Ian. It's likely that the sentence was indeed abbreviated.
The version you gave is the one generally quoted, so I wasn’t exactly correcting it. . Wikipedia notes that it is a paraphrase, but, maddeningly, does not give the original form. Vegetius’ own version presents itself not as a stand-alone dictum but as a conclusion to a line of argument (Igitur = Therefore).I say Vegetius, although the book is a digest of much older writings, now lost, and, although he was possibly working on it as late as Justinian, he may have been repeating something as old as the Middle Republic.
Ian wrote: "The version you gave is the one generally quoted, so I wasn’t exactly correcting it. . Wikipedia notes that it is a paraphrase, but, maddeningly, does not give the original form. Vegetius’ own vers..."Indeed, when we are dealing with very ancient texts, especially when many of them have been lost or their whereabouts are unknown, there are always interpretations, assumptions, and deductions that may not precisely match the facts. In any case, what I wanted to emphasize here was the thought or message associated with the quotation.
Mod
Excerpts from Michael Huemer, Knowledge, Reality, and Value: A Mostly Common Sense Guide to Philosophy (n.p., 2021), 36-39 (italics in the original), Kindle:
You might hear that the ideal of objectivity is a patriarchal, oppressive, Western value, or something like that. What does this mean? Sometimes, the concern seems to be that the ideal of objectivity fails to support the allegedly correct political conclusions . . . . The problem here is that, if objective thinking leads people to reject your ideology, then probably your ideology is false. If you think your ideology would not survive objective examination, then you yourself probably already suspect that your ideology is false, without wanting to admit this. In that case, you should just admit you’re wrong and move on . . . .
Attacking rationality or objectivity is a short-sighted stratagem. If you manage to convince anyone to give up the ideals of rationality and objectivity, that does not mean that they will automatically come over to your side and support whatever you want. Irrationality and bias can support any ideology, including your opponents’. Nazis, Marxists, flat-Earthers, and partisans of any other crazy or evil view can base their beliefs on irrational biases, and there is no way to reason them out of it if you’ve rejected rationality and objectivity. So don’t attack objectivity and rationality. Unless you’re an asshole and you just want intellectual chaos.
Alan wrote: "REASON AND OBJECTIVITYExcerpts from Michael Huemer, Knowledge, Reality, and Value: A Mostly Common Sense Guide to Philosophy (n.p., 2021), 36-39 (italics in the original), Kindle: You might hear ..."
I completely agree with the statements presented, as they touch upon the foundational principles of philosophy: rationality and objectivity. Without these pillars, discussions risk devolving into exchanges of ideologies, dominated by emotions or mere beliefs, rather than being grounded in reasoned debate.
Philosophy, at its core, seeks to illuminate truth through logical examination and critical thinking. When these principles are undermined, the door is left open for intellectual chaos, where no argument can be fairly evaluated or tested. The rejection of objectivity doesn't strengthen one's position; rather, it diminishes the possibility of constructive dialogue and mutual understanding.
By adhering to rationality and objectivity, we create a framework for examining ideas, ideologies, and beliefs in a manner that fosters progress and enlightenment, rather than confusion and division. As such, these principles should not only be defended but celebrated as essential tools for meaningful discourse and societal advancement.
Political Philosophy and Ethics
Books mentioned in this topic
The Philosophy of Symbolic Forms: Volume 4: The Metaphysics of Symbolic Forms (other topics)Mythical Thought (other topics)
The Philosophy of Symbolic Forms 3: The Phenomenology of Knowledge (other topics)
Ernst Cassirer: The Last Philosopher of Culture (other topics)
The Philosophy of Symbolic Forms, Volume 1: Language (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Arthur Koestler (other topics)Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn (other topics)
Edward R. Tufte (other topics)
Richard Saul Wurman (other topics)
See the following:
Joseph Wayne Smith and Saxon J. Smith, “Corruption, Falsity, and Fraud: The Epistemological Crisis of Professional Academic Research,” Against Professional Philosophy, September 17, 2023, https://againstprofphil.org/2023/09/1....
Alan E. Johnson, “From Philosopher Kings to Libertarian Elitists A Critical Appraisal of Jason Brennan, Against Democracy, with a New Preface by the Author (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2017),” https://www.academia.edu/106405232/Fr....
Daniel J. Levitin, A Field Guide to Lies: Critical Thinking with Statistics and the Scientific Method (New York: Dutton, 2016).