posted
I'm curious. Is this actually such a big issue? The only time I came in contact with political ideology in a college classroom was when an idiot student tried to use it in place of learning the material. Was this just a function of my college and/or majors? Did/do other people run into this on a regular basis?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Huge issue. Freshman Comp (which I placed out of, so this is reliable second hand from many people) had serious issues with TAs grading down based on political views.
Some of it included comments (you can't make a civil rights case for restricting abortion), some were more subtle, but it was real.
I saw it in poly sci often, although maybe it's more reasonable to see there. I saw it in all 3 english lit classes I took, to a large, constant degree. My impression was that outspoken liberalism was the accepted norm in the department.
posted
I'm actually with Squicky. The student body here is very liberal, but I haven't encountered any professors who were liberal, except in passing. The furthest extent of which was my Tolkien-scholar professor wore a pin saying, "Send Bush back to Mordor" which I got a kick out of.
Posts: 903 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I guess it is because you aren't actually *listening* to what people are saying anymore Tress. You have been telling them what they think even when they say they don't think that, repeatedly and often in the last month. Who are you to say what they think, or to judge? And your logic has been getting worse and worse and the errors have been more and more egregious. Why?
On a matter of posting style, I tend to like to interrelate different issues I'm talking about. I generally think all the different things we talk about here (or anywhere) are connected with common ideas, and more often than not the most critical things being discussed are not the issues being discussed directly in front of us, but the ideas lying behind them that stretch across topics. Truthfully, I don't think us learning something about the definition of conservative (or anything like that) is going to change lives all that much. However, other matters that may be underlying the debate over those issues, like the meaning of troll (and, in conjunction with that, what it means to be a bad person) are much more relevant to real lives and our discussions here. That is just an explanation of how I like to post here.
If you are unhappy with what I've been saying recently, I'd speculate that it might be certain underlying ideas that I've been repeatedly bringing up recently that you disagree with. One of these is the issue of self-understanding: whether or not you understand yourself and your beliefs. The other is (and this is one I like to talk about all the time) the right way to go about discussing contentious and important issues like politics and religion, etc.
One point I have been making in a few threads is one that I think is important: That people do not necessarily completely understand what it is they believe, what motivates their own beliefs, and what their beliefs imply. For instance, when I used to like moral relativism and heavy tolerance a lot, I didn't realize many of the implications I was making. I didn't see that my belief also entailed the uselessness of moral debate, which my belief did in fact directly entail (and was framing my way of thinking, unwittingly), but I did not realize until later. I've done the same thing many many times, and I think everyone does.
More contraversially, I think it is important that we are willing to discuss that possibility in discussions like this - which entails potentially telling people they don't understand their own beliefs completely. It would be much nicer and more polite to not do this, to assume everyone knows exactly what they believe, but I think that not only becomes dishonest and disrespectful (because people are probably still thinking it even if not saying it), but it also seriously blocks the discussion. In the case of an earlier abortion thread, I argued that some people did not understand what they meant by pro-life, for instance. In that case, I thought my point was right and they thought theirs was right, and I concluded that (in my view) their own understanding about their own beliefs differed from mine in a way that would block any ultimate agreement or understanding between us. In short, I concluded that we could not agree until one of us understood our own beliefs in a different fashion. And the only way to try to go about doing that (continuing the discussion) is by both of us trying to point out what the mistake was in what the other person thought about their own belief system.
This has come up in a few threads, and on each occassion I have thought the heart of the disagreement was not over the facts, but over the way our own understandings of what we believe created two different conflicting views. The only way I know of to bridge that gap (without resorting to rhetorical tricks) is by directly confronting it and stating that I think what the other person has misunderstood their own beliefs and concepts. Otherwise there is a brick wall that will not fall no matter how badly we bang our heads against it. If you think by pro-life you mean one thing, and I think you mean something else, we won't be able to agree about pro-life questions.
So, is it more important to be very polite or more important to get to the heart of the matter? I know many people (perhaps you) will say the former. However, I have to say that I'm a bit harsh in that I think that we have to be willing to be direct to get somewhere in these discussion (at least here, and in other situations where truthfulness is a shared goal.) To me, that is what respectfulness is all about - not about hiding certain things I think you are wrong about in order to avoid offending you. I don't like to do it more attackingly than necessary, and I like to make sure I give the reason why I feel the way I do (because if I can't figure out my reason, I'm probably wrong), but I think I'm disrespecting you and the discussion if I just end it without probing further. Many people do consider this insulting, as if by questioning their understanding of their own ideas, I am calling them stupider than myself. My point is that this is not how it should be interpretted - that it is JUST as possible that my understanding is way off. If you say Christianity doesn't understand it's own beliefs, I should NOT be offended as a Christian, because if you believe that it is probably helpful for both of us if we discuss it. And it doesn't mean that you'd be considering me a moron or a fool or inferior. My beliefs about my beliefs are a valid thing for you to try to refute, and so are your beliefs about your beliefs.
We should both be keeping in mind that those refutations are simply opinions themselves, and in fact it is YOU who are the ultimate judge of what is correct for you, and I am the ultimate judge of what is correct about me, despite what you or I may try to propose about one another.
This is a weird and complicated point, I guess, but it's one I've been attempting to illustrate in a couple of threads. This is not one of them, however - I'm not really telling anyone anything about what I think they believe here, or anything like that. That someone suggested that is probably just because of points I've made elsewhere, because it's not my intention.
I'm actually curious as to why people dislike my distinction so much, at least as far as the conservatives go. I thought it really was just a pretty standard way of talking about how conservatives and liberals go about arguing things differently. In fact, I think it probably says the same sort of things in my high school government textbook.
Believe me, though, I am listening, and just because I suggest you don't understand something doesn't mean I don't think it might be myself who is confused.
quote:If you think by pro-life you mean one thing, and I think you mean something else, we won't be able to agree about pro-life questions.
Hubris. Pure and simple. It's one thing to mean something different by "pro-life" than someone else; it's another to insist, in the face of repeated denials and explanations, that the other person doesn't mean what they say they mean. A profitable discussion of the issues that surround the term "pro-life" are easily possible without your blind insistence that people don't mean what they say they mean.
Your failure to respect the existence of the opinions of others is apalling.
posted
Okay, I sense I may have just caused a tangent but...
quote:Your failure to respect the existence of the opinions of others is apalling.
This is exactly what (in my lengthy and I suspect confusing post above) I was trying to refute: The idea that you disrespect an opinion by disagreeing with it. I think the only way to really respect an opinion is by airing your disagreements with it, and giving it the chance to answer them, rather than giving up on it without giving it the chance to respond to what you think is wrong.
I will never be offended if you call me wrong. However, I would feel disrespected if you gave up on the possibility that I could understand what you see wrong in my beliefs, and left rather than explain.
posted
The meaning of the opinion, not the existence of the opinion. The meaning of it is part of the substance - often the part that is most central to a disagreement.
I actually took a whole course in college (Episdemology) that was pretty much completely about a bunch of folks who were disagreeing on what we all meant when we talked about "knowledge" - each saying the others didn't mean what they thought they meant by it. It was an interesting course, and actually the topic is pretty important for a number of other issues.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Being conservative, by definition, means setting a default metaphysical understanding equal to carrying traditions with you without examination. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, it doesn't
Looking back to the past for answers concerning the future, as opposed to looking at the matter and thinking, "What sense does this make."
For the record, I disagree with too a lot of what tres says and I'm sure that the Rabbit disagrees with a lot of what I say.
_________________
quote:The meaning of the opinion is the opinion.
That's true. It also explains why opinions are nearly worthless. Meaning is from the german root mein, which most people know has the sense of my.
Opinions are, usually, just someone mying everything, imposing on the thing that which doesn't belong. This imposition often precludes paying attention to the thing as it reveals itself. I imagine this is why so many blogs are crap.
posted
What is the rubric by which you judge what makes sense?
I don't get the disdain for experience here. That's the entire point of the scientific method - to actually test the theories and go with the one that can't be disproven.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmmm, thank you for clarifying Tres. I need to muse a bit more on what you said. The one point I do want to currently address is this:
quote: This is a weird and complicated point, I guess, but it's one I've been attempting to illustrate in a couple of threads. This is not one of them, however - I'm not really telling anyone anything about what I think they believe here, or anything like that. That someone suggested that is probably just because of points I've made elsewhere, because it's not my intention.
I would say you most definitely *have* told people what you think they believe in this thread and if it *isn't* your intention, you truly need to rethink your delivery because it is turning the thinking people of hatrack off, because that is what they think you are saying in plain English.
For example:
quote:Religious groups, traditional and established industries, the military, even the boy scouts... all areas in which tradition and experienced are valued most highly, and all lean conservative. Then you have academia, the media, artistic institutions, "new" industries (dotcoms, for instance)... institutions that highly value ideas and reason.
The particular part that got me, was that you actually think the media values ideas and reason in anything. However in addition you were specifically telling dkw and kat, among other people, that they are conservative when they may or may not be. You have been having a pattern of making sweeping generalizations that I can't figure out why you make, when they are so sweeping as to be useless, and also are indelicate at the least and outright offensive at the most to others on this board.
That is different than "discussion" I've had knock down drag out discussions with many people, and even in the intensity of the discussion I haven't offended them. It is possible to questions ideas and assumptions, without offending. What hurts is that you don't apparently care to take the extra time it might take to do it, even if it is part of what causes the culture of Hatrack to function smoothly. You have in the past been far more polite while still firmly defending ideas, which is why this current trend is disturbing to me.
quote:Looking back to the past for answers concerning the future, as opposed to looking at the matter and thinking, "What sense does this make."
The contention that conservatives don't look at a matter and think "What sense does this make", to whatever extent is implied by "as opposed to," is at the heart of my objection to your generalizations.
The use of traditions of the past as one factor to inform the sense does not mean the questioning does not happen.
I believe God is good. I used to think by this I meant that God determines what is good, by definition. But then I realized, that if this were true, then what I'd really be saying is something kind of trivial like "God is God". So, now I don't think I really meant that God determines what is good, although I still believe God is good. I was just confused. In that case, I was wrong about what I thought my believe meant.
quote:The particular part that got me, was that you actually think the media values ideas and reason in anything. However in addition you were specifically telling dkw and kat, among other people, that they are conservative when they may or may not be. You have been having a pattern of making sweeping generalizations that I can't figure out why you make, when they are so sweeping as to be useless, and also are indelicate at the least and outright offensive at the most to others on this board.
That's why I used words like "some" or "lean" or "often". These are suggestions about how I usually tend to see a group act, although it may not hold true for any given member. I don't think this is unfair.
I also didn't think those leaning were all that contraversial. In fact, I remember on one of my college government exams I had a question that read something to the extent of "Does the media lean liberal or conservative?" (multiple choice)
quote:What is the rubric by which you judge what makes sense?
What the thing is that you are dealing with. The scientific method is good for science, but it is essentially concerned with effects of the thing, not with the thing in itself.
You don't figure out what a marriage is by testing it-- though maybe the high divorce rate tells us that we may have forgotten that-- you figure it out by thinking on it.
I know it's a cheap, but Jon Stewart on Crossfire was a perfect example. He went on the show and asked them, "What are you doing here? Are you sure it is what you think it is? And how is this appropriate to the task?" and it was great.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jon Stewart didn't go far enough in creating. He questioned the current system, but he didn't create a new one. He had the idea for a better system, but he didn't make one.
Having ideas and never acting on them doesn't create a better world. Like the conflict between Adams and LeVerrier - who discovered Neptune? Both figured that Uranus' orbit could be explained by another planet, but LeVerrier actually had someone go and look through a telescope to where the planet should be. Until they saw it, it was a theory. Half of being a discoverer was the theory - figuring out it must be there. But if that theory languishes in notes that no one reads, it may as well not have happened. LeVerrier discovered Neptune because he got off the chair and put an eye to the telescope. He acted.
It's like the theory of being a hero. To be a hero, you actually have to do something. It's not enough to understand what it means to be a hero, just like it's not enough to understand what a good marriage should be. You have to actually do it.
quote:I believe God is good. I used to think by this I meant that God determines what is good, by definition. But then I realized, that if this were true, then what I'd really be saying is something kind of trivial like "God is God". So, now I don't think I really meant that God determines what is good, although I still believe God is good. I was just confused. In that case, I was wrong about what I thought my believe meant.
What changed here is interesting. It was your definintion of God not your definition of good.
But, that's really a tangent. I guess what I'm saying after reading your lengthy explanation is that I understand what you are trying to do. And I don't object to you doing it. But as of now, you aren't very good at it, and your delivery probably needs some work cause rather than causing people to question themselves, they are questioning how much of an idiot you are and whether personal problems in your own life have possibly caused you to become vitrolic.
I also think you are addressing the wrong audience. Most people don't stay at hatrack unless they *do* have the ability to question their own ideas. Yeah we all get stuck in ruts from time to time. But I think you are finding ruts where none exist.
posted
Well, I think it's been well established on Hatrack that I'm not too often successful in convincing people.
Although, I've never been able to figure out if this is because (a)I'm wrong, (b)I'm not good at it, or (c)I shouldn't expect to be able to, even if I were right and good at it.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Jon Stewart didn't go far enough in creating. He questioned the current system, but he didn't create a new one. He had the idea for a better system, but he didn't make one.
He turned people to the question, and that's the work. There are 300 channels, do you think the answer is to make a new one?
quote:To be a hero, you actually have to do something. It's not enough to understand what it means to be a hero, just like it's not enough to understand what a good marriage should be. You have to actually do it.
For the fourth time, I want to caution you from writing, "What it is to be a hero," and change it to "what it is to be," I'm making big claims and I don't need your help to push me over the edge. You don't need to understand what it is to be a hero, but you do have to understand your connectedness to the morally relevant issue. Enough on that. See, I'm one of those guys who thinks that if you have this understanding, doing it when the issue presents itself is like breathing. The only people who freak out are the ones without this understanding. The guy who is perplexed by the question of whether he should whore around on his wife is the one who doesn't understand.
posted
*hugs* Xap. I'm sorry I probably sounded harsh, but I don't think I was the only one becoming increasingly frustrated on where you were coming from.
I've a read a lot of WWII authors. And I like ritual, that's why I like christmas and halloween, but only because they allow for an open space for people to come together to think.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think thinking is what people are supposed to do when the pastor says, "Let us pray."
I don't know how much of praying should be spent asking for stuff and thanking God for the stuff that He has given. This is fine, but shouldn't there be a difference between God and Santa Claus.
quote:I think thinking is what people are supposed to do when the pastor says, "Let us pray."
I don't know how much of praying should be spent asking for stuff and thanking God for the stuff that He has given. This is fine, but shouldn't there be a difference between God and Santa Claus.
Hmm. You are a singularly cheerless person today, aren't you?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I e-mailed an acquaintance of mine and asked what he thought of this issue. He's LDS, been teaching history at universities for ten years, and is in the field of African history. Politically, he says he's moderate, but everyone says that, right? I don't know him well enough to say otherwise. Anyway, I thought the response was interesting.
quote:You raised a question that I am not sure I can do justice to right now. I can say that university professors often think in the abstract because they are living a leisurely existence not experienced by most adult Americans. They don't always grasp the reality of ordinary people's lives, or feel estranged from every day folk with whom they share little in common. So I see it as partly a cultural rift. Some professors are highly informed and can be depended upon for solid analysis, but too often my colleagues cannot even follow basic rules of logic in their analyses of contemporary events. They have their own knee jerk responses and their own set of prejudices along with the 'red state people,' whom they regard as bumpkins.
I guess I'd call myself a moderate who is irritated by the group-thinking of my guild, and their learned distrust of the instincts of middle America. Most of what passes for discussion in the halls is just simple mockery and derision, and little else. I don't come from Texas or even identify at all with neo-conservative arrogance, but what I am seeing is a steady decline of civility in our political culture. Nietzsche lives!!
For most of the 20th century left-leaning intellectuals have had history on their side--most of the progressive agenda was gradually adopted, at least through the 1970s. I don't see a lot of new ideas these days coming from the left, except on the cultural front.
posted
You called him an acquaintance not a friend, so I feel comfortable saying that there is something strangely poser about that message.
And with respect to civility in our political culture, in the last generation, unpopular political figures were assassinated.
I don't know what he wants. I think we are a little entitled. I'm not talking about welfare or prisons, it's easy to talk tough to poor people and felons, this administration just has a soft spot for the upper class that I don't understand. I don't know if Bush is scared of us, but it's good to be wealthy with this admin, it seems as if the government works for us. Bush can talk tough to everyone in the world, but he gives us a credit card without a limit. I don't quite get it.
As to the new left, there isn't new. Good schools, fewer guns on the street, fewer people in jails, fewer people on dope. Free speech. Equal pay for equal work. I don't know how much of politics is inventing yourself. I'd rather stay with the hits.
posted
Concerning political civility, I agree that it is not getting either worse or better.
quote:You called him an acquaintance not a friend, so I feel comfortable saying that there is something strangely poser about that message.
I'm puzzled by what you mean by poser. What do you think he is posing as that he is not in actuality?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is something of an aloof posturing in his talk about, strangely enough, what he says is the sincere befuddlement of his fellow faculty. There is a distance between himself and the issues that doesn't seem to be authentic. I can't put my finger on it.
To be honest, I'd rather someone be sincerely befuddled than detached in his manner. The sincerely confused are at least wrestling the matter, his way seems more dismissive.
quote:I guess I'd call myself a moderate who is irritated by the group-thinking of my guild, and their learned distrust of the instincts of middle America. Most of what passes for discussion in the halls is just simple mockery and derision, and little else. I don't come from Texas or even identify at all with neo-conservative arrogance, but what I am seeing is a steady decline of civility in our political culture. Nietzsche lives!!
For most of the 20th century left-leaning intellectuals have had history on their side--most of the progressive agenda was gradually adopted, at least through the 1970s. I don't see a lot of new ideas these days coming from the left, except on the cultural front.
First of all, anyone who is looking for new ideas for the sake of new ideas instead of new ideas for the sake of truth is a charlatan. Then there is something wierd about dropping the Nietzsche reference. Maybe it's because I've read a healthy amount of Nietzsche, but there is a high-handed derision that goes along with that statement. I don't know if we are supposed to take the author seriously, or laugh at a joke. I take Nietzsche seriously as a philosopher, not that I see the truth in everything he says, but I respect him as a thinker.
In the end, I didn't know to what extent your acquaintance took himself seriously. I guess that's what I meant by poser. It's one thing to not take yourself seriosly, it's another to not take yourself seriously when you are deriding the serious confusion of others.
quote: I can say that university professors often think in the abstract because they are living a leisurely existence not experienced by most adult Americans. They don't always grasp the reality of ordinary people's lives, or feel estranged from every day folk with whom they share little in common.
I find this statement very offensive. The university professors I know work extremely hard -- usually 60+ hours a week. The studies I've seen of the issue suggest that the average University Professor works between 55 - 70 hours a week (depending on the study). While I enjoy my work, I would hardly call that a "leisurely existence".
College professors in the humanities often have lower starting salaries than high school teachers. Most college professors have spent 10 years or more of their adult lives as students, with little or know income. We suffer illnesses, have family problems, loose our jobs, have children, go to church and so on. What is it about "ordinary people's lives" we don't grasp?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's pretty much how the statement "It is entirely rational for conservatives to flock to jobs that reward competition, aggression and victory at the expense of others" made me feel.
Or "People go into academia out of a love for knowledge and teaching -- traits which are more common among bleeding heart liberals than right wing reactionaries."
posted
There is work and then there is work. Yes, I know many professors who spent gazillions of hours in a lab or poring over books and doing literature research.
And then there are the people I work with. Some of whom are paid quite well because of the skillful work they do, but they work with their hands and have manufactured the same part for the past 20 years without any intellecutal stimulation other than their own thoughts as they do what they do. And then they get carpal tunnel and trigger finger. University professors as a whole are not generally plagued by such afflictions, for obvious reasons... Do you really think that 70 hours of research and teaching a week can in any way compare with 40-50 hours a week of hard manual labor?
posted
To clarify, the two are adding apples and oranges, and yes I think one is likely completely out of touch with the other, though neither is wrong and both are honorable.
quote:Do you really think that 70 hours of research and teaching a week can in any way compare with 40-50 hours a week of hard manual labor?
I'm not sure, but even the two are fundamentally different, don't you think the research and teaching would put you more "in touch" on matters of ethics and politics than the hard labor? They may in fact be out of touch with one another, to a certain degree, but that alone is no reason to reject academic viewpoints.
Just looking historically, which is more indicative of good political decision-making - research or hard labor? I'd argue the research, given that hard manual labor is something most of our greatest leaders did not have a lot of experience with - they were mostly rich and/or educated guys... particularly the Founding Fathers.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not judging one side or the other. I'm saying that there generally *is* a fundamental disconnect though, and I could see how 70 hours of research could be viewed as less "work" than 40 hours of manual labor. And I think that judgements of one "side" of the other are suspect in both directions, though the perceptions of the realities of each are interesting footnotes.
I don't think that one or the other has a particular "handle" on being "in touch" with politics or ethics, because the day to day lives of each are so different that the theoretical academic ethics and politics are so far removed from the practicical every day ethics and politics of manual labor, as to be generally completely irrelevant.
quote:I don't think that one or the other has a particular "handle" on being "in touch" with politics or ethics, because the day to day lives of each are so different that the theoretical academic ethics and politics are so far removed from the practicical every day ethics and politics of manual labor, as to be generally completely irrelevant.
The ethics don't change, I find that it's the bad people who tell you ethics do. There is a funny thing about that. Three years ago, I didn't know anything about unions, and I was working at a grocery store in town. I didn't have health care and the pay wasn't great, but I needed a job. It's huge store with 230 employees, about a third are recent immigrants from China and Mexico. A few of us got together over the course of a year and researched and organized a Union. None of us had ever done it before, but there is the internet, one guy had written for his college newspaper, and I had studied philosophy and had done a little campaigning. Through studying philosophy, I knew the difference between right and wrong, and I had confidence in my convictions. We hammered away from that little bit of academic knowledge. Because of that impoverished know-how, everyone at the store now has health care, and the people I worked with are making eight or nine dollars an hour more. During the union drive, the management of the store did a good job of scaring the bejeezus out of the workers, but there was a core of about six organizers, two were fired over the course of the campaign.
The only reason we could do it was because five of us had been to college and the sixth was an older gentlemen with a sense of dignity that would not cower, even though they fired him and he had five kids and a sick wife. We got the union, the guys who were fired settled their cases with a healthy payoff, and now the workers at the store have great healthcare and fair wages.
It's not a coincidence that five out of the six of us studied humanities in college. It's not a coincidence that so many revolutionaries go to school, then go back to their home town and right all the systemic wrongs that are entrenched in their society.
There isn't a difference between business ethics and ethics. It has been my experience that the bosses try to tell people that there is, in an effort to keep the workers down. But there isn't a difference.
posted
Irami, you can say many things about his attitude, but "poser" is the oddest moniker I could imagine.
He's been in academia all his life and a professor of history for ten years. Teaches, publishes, and spends every summer in Zanzibar as a student of the revolution there. He's writing the memoirs of the Che Guevera of Zanzibar. What, exactly, is he faking?
What you're commenting on is perhaps the estrangement he feels from his colleagues because of ideological differences, but surely you're not saying that because he's not part of the group-think in his field, he doesn't actually belong in it. That would be a perfect example of the very problem under discussion here.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
