It is weird in the context of "modern thought," which is ironic perhaps, but it's not unusual... historically speaking.
Once you have generations of commentary, commentary on commentary, past crisis-resolution precedents, etc.... At this point you have a body of "jurisprudence." This is a lot like jewish torah, or most major schools of islamic jurisprudence. A rich one will contain enough examples, rationalisations and counter rationalisations that a very wide range of arguments can be made within the framework.
We like to think of ourselves as rational and rationalistic. rational principles with rational conclusions. The generation of America's founding fathers, and the French revolutionaries was particularly hubristic in this regard. Peak Enlightenment, rar!
But real life society doesn't work this way. We evolve. We make judgements instinctively, incorporating lots of conflicting anecdotes, principles and half principles. We create exception cases etc. A body of jurisprudence can act as a formal, social version of this. It's like a history of ideas.
Sort of the whole point of it is that not everyone comes to the same set of answers. So, dialog ensues as people try to shore up their viewpoints with one another and both are often transformed in the process. That's how a dialectic works.
Before the age of enlightenment, yours was not a commonly held viewpoint. After, it became to be acceptable and then accepted. That's philosophy at work.
I don't think of it as a foundation per se. It's more like a continuous process that carries out over time as individuals interact, the result of which only a small portion is obviously visible with the rest going mostly unnoticed.
That's the so-called Aristotlean viewpoint, which has been common in Western thought for thousands of years. Brought to a peak in British and American politics.
These apparent inconsistencies in philosophy can be rationalized by observing that USA has 300 million people and they don't all have a shared viewpoint.
Individuals' personal experiences being to the contrary does not mean that something is not a societal paradigm. From the cover of Forbes to the arguments used in discussions during lawmaking, the situation is as my comment described.
Indeed, on one hand you have a convoluted modern caste system which can irrationally change form at any given time - and on the other hand, you have philosophical ideas that have matured over hundreds or even thousands of years.
That's how the mainstream thinks all around the world; it's the rare position that believes principles rule society when consensus on any kind of vision for the human condition is so far out of reach.
or, how to regurgitate the inherent biases used to justify the establishment of of your own philosphy about another one without actually understanding it to be biased...
> Nobody is Equal The world is hierarchical.
Unlike now?
> People of different estates and statuses are widely seen to be "of a different substance."
> Peasants, seen by the nobility, are closer to hounds than the noble's peers.
1st world 2nd world, developing countries, etc.
> The person of the monarch was literally sacred - divine matter.
Not actually true. Rule by divine right was not universally accepted, and didn't imply immunity since this was a 'right' or 'title' under a christian society - the monarch was intended (yes I know) to embody the best virtues of the best families, and if this was not the case, he (or more rarely she) was deposed.
Indeed, having such a strong power structure meant abuses were rampant, and people took advantage.
but even the philosophical basis of the time did not believe this.
> Also, men and women were made of completely different substances.
Clearly much crazier than the present day, where men and women are made of the exact same substance even though they actually aren't but somehow embody distinct 'gender identities' which are devoid of biology and can be applied equally and arbitrarily in differing configurations.
> The idea of a law that applies equally or fairly to everyone was neither acceptable nor practical.
Pretty sure murder was punished with death, as one example. Whether one could get away with it is another thing.. Certainly our courts now are always fair and never manipulated..
> Justice is a modern conceit.
justice under rule of law is an enlightement concept.
justice under law of 'what is right' is more traditional.
I posit that false convictions or incorrect enforcement are both feasible under either model.
> Neither speech nor assembly nor the commonest transactions of life are free.
mass surveillance, etc.
> There are laws for everything, and if there are no laws there are customs, and if there are no customs people will be reactionary and suspicious anyway.
see also voting response to this post, I am sure.
> The medieval world could be shaken by a speech, forever changed by a book, split by theological controversies over a line of text or the intonation of a hymn or the date of a holiday.
And what are the Kardashians up to this week?
I hear so-and-so is planning to invade somewhere-or-the-other..
It's 9/11.
> Displays of magnificence were not only convenient, they were mandatory. Misers were spurned and mocked.
Indeed. This is why monasteries utterly failed in that time period, and dressing simply and repairing ones garments, items, etc. is a common practice in modern consumer society.
> The Church glittered. Cathedrals were pieces of heaven brought to rest upon the earth
John Calvin called, he want's his reformation back. But I guess you were away and on holiday in Vegas, so you missed the memo.
> Patrick says "the ruling class are living like Kardashians" and he's exactly right.
Neither position is inherently absurd, nor is their contradiction.
A more thoughtful response might have taken the time to contemplate the origins of government and the relationship between “absurdity,” your understanding of government and of virtuous government, and of the post-enlightenment ideologies assumed natural to our societies; in truth the vague syllogism between law and privilege you present is not some physical reality or logical QED but a gestural summation of ideas only very lately arrived to human affairs. Contemplative silence is one among many more interesting responses that were available to you.
In short: it’s obvious that ancient institutions and modern humanism are absurdly dissonant. Cleary OP meant to provoke a reconsideration, not a restatement, of the obvious.
Ironically it is obvious that one should not bother trying to rescue internet comments from their own pig-headedness - but sometimes I do sorely miss past iterations of HN.
No, that's fine, I understand it as a philosophy and have some sympathy with the motivations behind it. I also think it would be a horrible thing to put into practice for a variety of reasons.
I have clearly always somehow felt that it was like this, but I never really realized that there were these two distinct types of "judgement," or perhaps better (but uglier) types "being judged". It is certainly an important (however small) idea, and one without capitalism and freedom in general must really be hard to deal with. Put it into the "Zen of Business" teachings.
The social principles of classical liberalism can’t not age well. They’re essentially timeless. More specifically, for example, the morality surrounding 3WF and TERFs isn’t exactly a settled debate. I’m not now taking a position on it either — just observing that different people have wildly different perspectives, and it is foolish to believe that there is one true moral position on this or any other hot topic on Twitter. I believe that’s the point that the author is making.
> One that elevates critical thinking and reasoned argument, that honors shared experience and individual expression and brings together diverse and global communities to work together for the common good.
That sounds like how the Rationalists do things (stuff like TheMotte and "effective altruism").
I don't think it's really caught on with the wider population.
I think this thread is a manifestation of the broader trap that we are in as a culture, in that we cannot seem to break out of the dialectic-materialist mode of argument, even though its not the only way we can form a consensus..
It's not the view used to judge human rights cases or build international law upon. And if not the control of might, it would be interesting to - somewhere else - talk about the foundations you would rest society upon.
A lot of what I consider weirder political thought seems to come from treating some set of principles as inviolate. It's harder to make that mistake of thought with an ideal.
(and any system involving more than 1 human seems likely enough to require compromise somewhere)
Once you have generations of commentary, commentary on commentary, past crisis-resolution precedents, etc.... At this point you have a body of "jurisprudence." This is a lot like jewish torah, or most major schools of islamic jurisprudence. A rich one will contain enough examples, rationalisations and counter rationalisations that a very wide range of arguments can be made within the framework.
We like to think of ourselves as rational and rationalistic. rational principles with rational conclusions. The generation of America's founding fathers, and the French revolutionaries was particularly hubristic in this regard. Peak Enlightenment, rar!
But real life society doesn't work this way. We evolve. We make judgements instinctively, incorporating lots of conflicting anecdotes, principles and half principles. We create exception cases etc. A body of jurisprudence can act as a formal, social version of this. It's like a history of ideas.
reply