Week 1: DIA Introduction through Vol 1 Part 1 Ch. 3

[Borum]

Michele wrote: "Borum wrote: "At first I thought Toqueville was oversimplifying the geography of America by dividing it into the North/South dichotomy but I see in the later chapter that he's sort of excluding the..."

Ah, thank you for clearing that up for me. It would have been helpful to have a map of the US at T's time.

[David]

I posted a quick map for reference in the background discussion here: https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

They are also easy to find in google searches with keywords: Tocqueville map

[Lily]

@30 Lily wrote: @26"Adelle wrote: "..." There is no man less free than one who is slave to his passions." ..."

Not sure how relevant to this discussion, Adelle, but stream of consciousness reminds me of another aphorism: "There is no man less free than one who is slave to his possessions."..."

Somehow, I want to come back to the topic of "passions" and their significance. I don't know how to discuss, but it seems to be increasingly hitting me alongside the head, in DIA, in current political discussions. I think the aspect that is troubling me is "passion" that is expressed in having a particular world-view and then filtering "everything" else as supporting that view or as being anathema to it. I don't know if such either/or assessments are exacerbated by democracy or are simply an aspect of human nature with which democracy, or any other form of political structure, must contend. But the passion of enlightened self-interest does strike me as getting in the way of compromise.

[Michele]

Lily wrote: "But the passion of enlightened self-interest does strike me as getting in the way of compromise. "

I would think that enlightened self-interest (the key word being "enlightened") would actually encourage compromise. It's better to get half of what you want than nothing. A win-win situation is better for everyone, and increases the possibility of future compromise. Compromise is not capitulation, its finding an acceptable (not ideal, but acceptable) path forward, which is always better than gridlock.

[David]

Michele wrote: "Lily wrote: "But the passion of enlightened self-interest does strike me as getting in the way of compromise. "

I would think that enlightened self-interest (the key word being "enlightened") woul..."

Yes, discriminating between self-interest and enlightened self-interest is key here. The former indulges only its own liberty and shuts off avenues of compromise while the the later, being enlightened, recognizes rightful liberty, the unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others which is more likely to lead to compromise.

Beyond good old-fashioned right-fighting, passions are enflamed when issues are assigned moral dimensions causing a righteous digging in with blinders on with a greater resistance to change that discourages compromise and encourages overreaching beyond rightful liberty.

Of course that used to be the exclusive realm of the religious right wanting to outlaw birth control and "cover up" the genitalia on the Statue of David. Today it seems the authoritarian left has taken its share of that spotlight, making sins of "cultural appropriation" and Bugs Bunny in blackface. I found it interesting Obama recently warning that some party members are shooting the Democratic party in the foot over "purity" agendas. For those who have read Jonathan Haidt, "purity" issues coming from the left seems to be a change-up in his model.

It is safe to reveal that Tocqueville will have much more to say regarding religion's role in America in Vol1: Part 2: Chapter 9 and I think in Vol 2. I wonder what he would have to say about the authoritarian left?

[Lily]

Michele wrote: "Lily wrote: "But the passion of enlightened self-interest does strike me as getting in the way of compromise. "

I would think that enlightened self-interest (the key word being "enlightened") woul..."

Michelle (and David, Chris, Adelle, and ...) -- I'll put out here an outrageous request. Go to your nearest library, grab a copy of Fukuyama's Identity and read the first three chapters (36 pp). I assure you, it can take less than half an hour. Those three chapters are a mashup of Socrates, Marx, Hegel, Hobbes, Locke, Luther, Rousseau, Augustine, Nietzsche, and several (later) thinkers. But I finally feel as if I may have touched upon one theoretical, generalizing platform that can help (me) deal with Tocqueville's DIA -- his prescient sense of the multiple factors -- including "passion" (dignity, sense of personal honor?) and economics -- that go into democratic perceptions of equality and freedom.

[Lily]

Postscript: Lily wrote: "I'll put out here an outrageous request...."

Regardless of where this discussion does or doesn't go here, I thank each of you for helping keep it alive for me. These issues don't go away, even in (casual) interactions with friends.

[Michele]

Lily wrote: ...a mashup of Socrates, Marx, Hegel, Hobbes, Locke, Luther, Rousseau, Augustine, Nietzsche, and several (later) thinkers..."

Well that's certainly not something you see every day!!!