Philosophy...

[Brian Peacock]

Teleological fallacy.

[Sean Hayden]

I was thinking about why the right’s inconstancies can feel so insane to people on the left, and I wonder if this is close to what’s actually happening.

It’s tempting to treat our opponents as mad or bad-faith actors, but they usually aren’t. Most people involved are at least as capable as those they oppose. The problem may be that their reasoning is used primarily to protect unexamined intuitions and identity, rather than to explore and test beliefs. There is too much motivated reasoning and not enough concern for what is true regardless of who one is.

In this light, a talking head may not be defending a killing because they believe it was the best possible response, but because accepting the alternative would require confronting the possibility that one’s identity and loyalties can produce horrific outcomes. This isn’t explicit--just reasoning in response to discomfort--and whatever alleviates that discomfort can feel “good enough.” In that state, it’s easy to miss inconsistencies with earlier positions. Over time, enough of these moves can leave a worldview full of holes.

[JimC]

To sum up, such political positions are a consequence of the downside of hominid tribalism (and the left is not always immune, given cancel culture and a rigid take on political correctness...). I must emphasise that I see this aspect of tribalism an emotional tendency (via natural selection of some parts of human psychology), not written in stone, but a tendency that is easily co-opted by political movements. Can be dispelled by critical thinking, but often is not...

[pErvinalia]

I don't think the left is immune to biased thinking. But we are better educated than the right, and in a better position to interrogate ours and others beliefs.

[Brian Peacock]

All political arguments are moral arguments, presented, as they are, in the form of propositions about how things should or should not be. But political philosophy only borrows the clothes of moral philosophy for convenience, chiefly distinguishing itself from purely ethical matters in the fact that its primary concern is with the acquisition, maintenance and/or exercising of power. The question therefore is not whether a political philosophy is morally, ethically or even factually correct, but who it grants power to; who it serves and benefits.

When looked at in that way political philosophies don't have to present arguments that are consistent from one day to the next, they only have to be consistent within the overall requirements of power - who gets it, holds it, uses it, and benefits from it.

The main difference between the political philosophies of the Right and the Left is that the Right takes a much narrower view on who should have access to and exercise power, and on whom it should ultimately serve and benefit, than the Left. In that sense the Right always tends to favour those who already have power, whereas the Left usually seeks to broaden or expand who has access to power along with who should, can or will benefit from it.

[JimC]

All political arguments are moral arguments, presented, as they are, in the form of propositions about how things should or should not be. But political philosophy only borrows the clothes of moral philosophy for convenience, chiefly distinguishing itself from purely ethical matters in the fact that its primary concern is with the acquisition, maintenance and/or exercising of power. The question therefore is not whether a political philosophy is morally, ethically or even factually correct, but who it grants power to; who it serves and benefits.

When looked at in that way political philosophies don't have to present arguments that are consistent from one day to the next, they only have to be consistent within the overall requirements of power - who gets it, holds it, uses it, and benefits from it.

The main difference between the political philosophies of the Right and the Left is that the Right takes a much narrower view on who should have access to and exercise power, and on whom it should ultimately serve and benefit, than the Left. In that sense the Right always tends to favour those who already have power, whereas the Left usually seeks to broaden or expand who has access to power along with who should, can or will benefit from it.

I agree to an extent, in that the "right" (a difficult grouping to specify) is usually more concerned with supporting existing power blocks and that the "left" (also heterogenous) is typically concerned with spreading power to previously suppressed groups (although the trajectory can shift to venerating the party line...). However, the point I was making, in response to Sean's post, was that political movements of any kind are always in danger of being subverted by aspects of our nature developed by millions of years of natural selection. In particular, our innate tendency to indulging in tribal group think leaves any political movement vulnerable to unthinking "us/them" dynamics. Again, I emphasise that these tendencies can be dealt with, but only (IMO) by recognising their insidious potential effects...

[pErvinalia]

Centrism is the solution to that!

[Brian Peacock]

All political arguments are moral arguments, presented, as they are, in the form of propositions about how things should or should not be. But political philosophy only borrows the clothes of moral philosophy for convenience, chiefly distinguishing itself from purely ethical matters in the fact that its primary concern is with the acquisition, maintenance and/or exercising of power. The question therefore is not whether a political philosophy is morally, ethically or even factually correct, but who it grants power to; who it serves and benefits.

When looked at in that way political philosophies don't have to present arguments that are consistent from one day to the next, they only have to be consistent within the overall requirements of power - who gets it, holds it, uses it, and benefits from it.

The main difference between the political philosophies of the Right and the Left is that the Right takes a much narrower view on who should have access to and exercise power, and on whom it should ultimately serve and benefit, than the Left. In that sense the Right always tends to favour those who already have power, whereas the Left usually seeks to broaden or expand who has access to power along with who should, can or will benefit from it.

I agree to an extent, in that the "right" (a difficult grouping to specify) is usually more concerned with supporting existing power blocks and that the "left" (also heterogenous) is typically concerned with spreading power to previously suppressed groups (although the trajectory can shift to venerating the party line...). However, the point I was making, in response to Sean's post, was that political movements of any kind are always in danger of being subverted by aspects of our nature developed by millions of years of natural selection. In particular, our innate tendency to indulging in tribal group think leaves any political movement vulnerable to unthinking "us/them" dynamics. Again, I emphasise that these tendencies can be dealt with, but only (IMO) by recognising their insidious potential effects...

This is a general reflection rather than a direct response Jim.

We are evolved and evolving beings. While I think evolutionary psychology arguments hint at tidy and comprehensible explanations, they are nonetheless arguments that tend towards a deterministic or fatalistic reinforcement of themselves - chiefly by their assumed ubiquity.

This is not to say that psychology does not play a part in political relations (for surely it plays a part in all human interactions with the world and the things in it), only that invoking it locates the discussion within the purview of the individual, paying little attention to the material facts of an individual's existence, the wider social-cultural, political and economic forces acting upon them, or the contingent historical legacy of such facts and forces. To me, that 'these tendencies can be dealt with ... by recognising their insidious potential effects' suggests that apparent "tendencies" towards particular kinds of extreme in/out group behaviour are not actually deep-rooted drives or evolved responses relentlessly pushing humanity into thinking about or acting within the world in specific, very tribal ways. Indeed, it seems to me that this idea just re-dresses the very arguments the Right regularly and reflexively rely on in justifying their ideas and actions: who we are (as the Right) and what we do is not simply how things should rightfully be, it is how things actually are - and therefore to stand against it is to stand against the reality of the Natural Order of things (and/or variously the will of God!) and to deny our fundamental human natures etc etc.

By my lights, that capacity for individuals (and thus societies) to 'recognise [the] insidious potential effects' of their responses, thoughts and actions actually speaks against deterministic explanations located in the evolved biological/neurological functions of individual human bodies, and instead speaks to more nebulous contingent concepts around the ideals and values individuals, and societies collectively, embody. How we functionally think and feel and do as humans may be the result of evolution, but what we think and feel and do is far more fluid, dynamic and consequential than can be encompassed by invoking evolution alone.

I'd admit that is quite a knotty distinction to make, and quite a lot to unpack, so perhaps rather than writing a book to qualify it all I'll just hang it out there and invite comments instead.

[pErvinalia]

Nature VS nurture. It's on!

[JimC]

Brian, I was at great pains to say that the aspects of our human nature that affect the way political groupings operate are not deterministic or inevitable. I deliberately used the word tendencies, which of course interact and mix with a plethora of other factors operating in any individual. To a large extent, I see the tendencies operating often as unconscious biases and emotional responses, which can be modified with ease once recognised. And of course the aspects of our evolved nature that come from our evolutionary past are not all potentially dangerous - cooperation within groups is one of the positive tendencies we all share.

Also, conservative thought might well try to pose human nature (often "god given") as inevitable and not to be fought against, but my take is the opposite - we can and should fight the temptation to indulge in "us vs them" emotionally driven actions.

[Sean Hayden]

To sum up, such political positions are a consequence of the downside of hominid tribalism (and the left is not always immune, given cancel culture and a rigid take on political correctness...). I must emphasise that I see this aspect of tribalism an emotional tendency (via natural selection of some parts of human psychology), not written in stone, but a tendency that is easily co-opted by political movements. Can be dispelled by critical thinking, but often is not...

Yes, but, critical thinking is slow while our reactions are fast. For example the pressure to conform, to limit exposure to consequences from the in-group, is felt immediately. Even worse, it's not clear how critical thinking can even address that problem anyway. The most obvious answer is probably to talk about "safe environments" (ie using critical thinking to engineer safe spaces) but can you really do that? My intuition is that critical thinking can be used to develop better spaces, but on its own it isn't enough, and likely can't be used to address our actual tendencies much at all --there isn't enough separation there, critical thinking doesn't observe from outside, or importantly control your nature, it's mixed in with it.

[JimC]

Good point about the speed difference. My basic idea is that the more we are aware of these tribalistic emotional tendencies, both within ourselves and in general, the more possible it becomes to rein them in, at least to an extent...

[Brian Peacock]

Wikipedia cites a working definition of critical thinking thus: "The intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action."

The word 'critical' has been somewhat degraded by the Right of late, what with their objections to and warnings about things like 'critical theory' (Marxist!) or 'critical race theory' (anti-white and therefore racist as well as Marxist!). Nonetheless, those happily engaged in providing some sort of intellectual underpinning to Right-wing politics would undoubtedly claim to be doing so under something very similar to the definition above. Like ardent religious ideologues, they are fully aware that they need to provide compelling reasons and evidences to legitimise and validate their particular political vision. They are 'critical political theorists' whether they recognise it or like it, or not.

If one was being unkind then declaring that Right don't use critical thinking to guide belief and action, they use it to justify what they already believe and what they already do, would be a relatively easy cheap-shot. But then again, the same charge could be levelled at many on the Left just as easily. That aside, the assumed utility of 'critical thinking' is that it preferences logical deliberation over 'fast reactions' as Sean puts it; which is to say it deliberately places the rational over the emotional response, over instinct and intuition, over sentiment and sensibility. After all, "the facts don't care about your feelings," do they?

This strikes me as somewhat problematic, because elevating our logical and rational capacities seems to come at the cost of downgrading, or even completely excising emotional capacity and experience from our considerations, deliberations, and decision-making. The assumption seems to be that the logical path will always lead to the correct, best outcome, and therefore the emotional path must be avoided as it will always lead to the wrong place. Isn't this what we mean by the term 'dispassionate' - both figuratively, as well as quite literally: without passion?

And yet we are, without a doubt, thinking beings who feel and feeling beings who think. We have evolved this way, and we exist and operate in the world at the intersection of thinking and feeling. Isn't to seek to degrade, subvert, or even to excise completely, one (or other) of these aspects of our being to diminish our own humanity in a calamitous act of self-mutilation?

[JimC]

Our emotional responses (for me, significantly influenced by our evolutionary past) are capable of both positive and negative effects on ourselves and the wider community. The positives, such as empathy and compassion, are very real and very valuable - no one would be suggesting that they be relegated in favour of cold reason. But the negative aspects of our emotional responses (often fast, as Sean said) such as aggression (often towards those perceived as "other") can be brought under a degree of control by rational self-awareness.

[Brian Peacock]

Doesn't "But the negative aspects of our emotional responses [...] can be brought under a degree of control by rational self-awarenes," elevate the rational over and/or downgrade the emotional, such that the rational does indeed supersede, subvert, subjugate (etc) the emotional?