It’s an interesting piece. It just feels enormously disappointing to accept that argument and reason, those ideals that allowed progressives to found modern democracies in the first place, ought...
Exemplary
It’s an interesting piece. It just feels enormously disappointing to accept that argument and reason, those ideals that allowed progressives to found modern democracies in the first place, ought to be abandoned. That seems like a significant regression, and I’m not sure how one can justify democracy in comparison to fascism (or anything else) if the “justificatory practice” is just to trust your feelings.
So an emphasis on the truth as a universal authority will only further bifurcate society because such attitudes carry with them anti-humanist sentiments that are incompatible with genuinely egalitarian social relations. For example, if I claim that democracy requires abolishing the US police system because it is true that the police system is a corrupt institution, this presupposes a standard for what counts as evidence in favour of systematic corruption, on what makes that claim true. Any statement that is true is, by its own lights, true from any perspective, or universal. This means it would be irrational for you to deny that the US police system should be abolished, given what is true about it. But such truths are not ‘read off’ the world, and their evidential standards are not universally shared. As such, this claim will solicit agreement from those who already acknowledge it as correct, and denigration from those who do not. In fact, people who do not share in the same justificatory practice will find such a claim to be something more like a personal attack or political agenda than a description of reality. This might be why some people think that the very notion of evidence has been nefariously politicised, that we have replaced objective reality with subjective feelings. There is simply no ‘perspective’ we all share and from which all parties can neutrally weigh and exchange reasons. It is as if we are using the same words but speaking different languages.
As a self-proclaimed rational humanist, I strongly disagree. It should not just solicit acknowledgement and denigration! It should solicit political debate via rational argumentation. If you treat people as essentially filled vessels, only capable of nodding yes or no to every predicative statement, then there isn’t any reason to open anything up for discussion at all. While I agree, you shouldn’t expect to argue someone out of a position they didn’t arrive at through reason, I am not so pessimistic to believe that all beliefs are derived from dogma. I believe there is room for reason at the table to sway people’s positions.
I don’t want to believe that we have entered a new dark age. Admitting that reason and logic are still efficacious doesn’t seem like it should require that much optimism. I want to believe that some people can be convinced to change their minds by rational arguments on at least some issues some of the time (myself included).
For Fichte, a self cannot transmit knowledge to another self, because all self-conscious beings must develop knowledge from their feelings.
I don’t want anyone else to merely feel aligned with a political cause I support. I want others who align with me to actually develop justifiable belief that we share a righteous position. I won’t reject your feelings, but I want more than just feelings on my side. In this way I reject Fichte’s philosophy. I don’t want my feelings be the basis for my beliefs, I want my beliefs to be the basis for my feelings.
When reason doesn’t work, I’m open to other paradigms, but I think it’s a dangerous game. I also consider myself at least somewhat pragmatic, but how can you maintain principles in a postmodern, post-truth world? Epistemologically, how do you answer the question, “Are we the baddies?”? Nobody feels good thinking of themself as on the wrong side of an issue. It seems like the only way to win support for your cause at that point is to indoctrinate enough young people who haven’t yet fossilized their positions. That is a very pessimistic outlook, I think, and one I’m not yet willing to entertain is the reality I live in.
I felt like this was a little hard to read because of how much academic language was used. Technically correct, but a lot of times whatever point they were making got lost when I had to stop and...
I felt like this was a little hard to read because of how much academic language was used. Technically correct, but a lot of times whatever point they were making got lost when I had to stop and try to remember what the hell that 8 syllable word they used means.
That said, I think I agree with this essay.
It’s time to give up the idea that ‘truth’ is the almighty stop-gap for justification and the hope that reasons will win out if we just find the right ones. Politically transformative work should aim to cause feelings and experiences in one’s adversaries that invite further investigation and reflection. Science, the environment, racial justice – all of these things matter because we care about them. As Nietzsche once mused, the head is merely the intestine of the heart
The best way to learn things is through experience. What better way is there to understand why we should make a better world than experiencing parts of that world for yourself?
I just wish their suggestions for action were better.
Our political criticisms should emulate the form of a gentle tease from someone who loves us.
C'mon, dream bigger! Why not extend this concept to more parts of society than just political disagreements? What would happen if we approached, say, the prison system in the same way? Imagine if, when you messed up and broke some social contract or law, you were treated with love and gentle teasing instead of being thrown into a prison cell and stripped of your rights and humanity.
Or if you wanted to extend this in a strange direction, you could say we should all start taking psychedelic / entheogenic substances together more often. Tripping with people is a great way to share a common understood experience of the world!
I found this article very abstract and lacking in concrete examples. What would a sentimentalist democracy look like and how would it differ from other democracies?
I found this article very abstract and lacking in concrete examples. What would a sentimentalist democracy look like and how would it differ from other democracies?
Good essay about the point and virtues of democracy, in contrast to the rationalist vision of it. This is probably especially pertinent to liberal reformists.
Good essay about the point and virtues of democracy, in contrast to the rationalist vision of it. This is probably especially pertinent to liberal reformists.
Democracy should be Cincinnatis. George Washington stepping down was pretty amazing. Something Napoleon admired but didn't have the courage to do. As is the trait amongst most revolutionaries.
Democracy should be Cincinnatis.
George Washington stepping down was pretty amazing. Something Napoleon admired but didn't have the courage to do.
It’s an interesting piece. It just feels enormously disappointing to accept that argument and reason, those ideals that allowed progressives to found modern democracies in the first place, ought to be abandoned. That seems like a significant regression, and I’m not sure how one can justify democracy in comparison to fascism (or anything else) if the “justificatory practice” is just to trust your feelings.
As a self-proclaimed rational humanist, I strongly disagree. It should not just solicit acknowledgement and denigration! It should solicit political debate via rational argumentation. If you treat people as essentially filled vessels, only capable of nodding yes or no to every predicative statement, then there isn’t any reason to open anything up for discussion at all. While I agree, you shouldn’t expect to argue someone out of a position they didn’t arrive at through reason, I am not so pessimistic to believe that all beliefs are derived from dogma. I believe there is room for reason at the table to sway people’s positions.
I don’t want to believe that we have entered a new dark age. Admitting that reason and logic are still efficacious doesn’t seem like it should require that much optimism. I want to believe that some people can be convinced to change their minds by rational arguments on at least some issues some of the time (myself included).
I don’t want anyone else to merely feel aligned with a political cause I support. I want others who align with me to actually develop justifiable belief that we share a righteous position. I won’t reject your feelings, but I want more than just feelings on my side. In this way I reject Fichte’s philosophy. I don’t want my feelings be the basis for my beliefs, I want my beliefs to be the basis for my feelings.
When reason doesn’t work, I’m open to other paradigms, but I think it’s a dangerous game. I also consider myself at least somewhat pragmatic, but how can you maintain principles in a postmodern, post-truth world? Epistemologically, how do you answer the question, “Are we the baddies?”? Nobody feels good thinking of themself as on the wrong side of an issue. It seems like the only way to win support for your cause at that point is to indoctrinate enough young people who haven’t yet fossilized their positions. That is a very pessimistic outlook, I think, and one I’m not yet willing to entertain is the reality I live in.
I felt like this was a little hard to read because of how much academic language was used. Technically correct, but a lot of times whatever point they were making got lost when I had to stop and try to remember what the hell that 8 syllable word they used means.
That said, I think I agree with this essay.
The best way to learn things is through experience. What better way is there to understand why we should make a better world than experiencing parts of that world for yourself?
I just wish their suggestions for action were better.
C'mon, dream bigger! Why not extend this concept to more parts of society than just political disagreements? What would happen if we approached, say, the prison system in the same way? Imagine if, when you messed up and broke some social contract or law, you were treated with love and gentle teasing instead of being thrown into a prison cell and stripped of your rights and humanity.
Or if you wanted to extend this in a strange direction, you could say we should all start taking psychedelic / entheogenic substances together more often. Tripping with people is a great way to share a common understood experience of the world!
I found this article very abstract and lacking in concrete examples. What would a sentimentalist democracy look like and how would it differ from other democracies?
Good essay about the point and virtues of democracy, in contrast to the rationalist vision of it. This is probably especially pertinent to liberal reformists.
Democracy should be Cincinnatis.
George Washington stepping down was pretty amazing. Something Napoleon admired but didn't have the courage to do.
As is the trait amongst most revolutionaries.