This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Not even close to original with them. Plato famously said the same with the Allegory of the Cave, and there's Kant's noumena.
I know, but it's one of the few things in their worldview that I agree with.
More options
Context Copy link
A quick aside about Kant, since so many people blame Kant for things that he really had little or nothing to do with (I recall a program on a Catholic TV channel where they accused Kant of being a "moral relativist", which is... distressing and concerning, that they think that...).
Kant saw himself as trying to mediate between the rationalists and the empiricists. The empiricists thought we could only know things through direct sensory experience, which seems pretty reasonable, until you realize that a statement like "empiricism is true" can't be known directly through your five senses, nor were they able to explain a lot of other things, like how we can have true knowledge of the laws of nature or of causal relations in general (Hume's problem: just because pushing the vase off the table made it fall over a million times doesn't mean it'll happen again the millionth and first time). The rationalists thought that we could know things just by thinking about them, which would be cool if true, except they weren't able to explain how this was actually possible (even in the 1700s, the idea of a "faculty of rational intuition" hiding somewhere in the brain was met with significant skepticism).
Kant's solution was that we can know certain things about the world of experience using only our minds, because the world of experience that we actually perceive is shaped by and generated by our minds in some fundamental sense. The reality we experience must conform to the structure of our minds. So to condense about 800 pages of arguments into one sentence, we can know contra Hume that the world of experience actually is governed by law-like causal relations, because in order to have conscious experience of anything at all, and in order to be able to perceive oneself as a stable subject who is capable of reflecting on this experience, that experience itself must necessarily be governed by logical and law-like regularities. So we can actually know all sorts of things in a very direct way about the things we perceive. When you see an apple you know that it is in fact an apple, you know that if you push it off the table it will fall over, etc. The only downside is that we can't know the true metaphysical nature of things in themselves, independent of how they would appear to any perceiving subject. But that's fine, because in Kant's view he has secured the philosophical possibility of using empirical science to discover the true nature of the reality that we do perceive, and we can leave all the noumena stuff in the reality that we don't perceive up to God.
So he really was trying to "prove the common man right in a language that the common man could not understand", to use Nietzsche's phrase. It must be admitted though that Kant can be interpreted as saying that the laws of mathematics and physics issue forth directly from the structure of the human mind. I believe he would almost certainly add though that this structure is immutable and is not subject to conscious modification. You could argue that some later thinkers got inspired by this view, dropped the "immutable" part, and thus became relativists who granted undue creative power to human subjectivity. But a) the postmodernists are generally not as "relativist" as many people presuppose anyway, and b) I basically can't recall any passage from any book at all where someone said "I believe XYZ relativist type claim because Kant said so", so if Kant did exert some influence in this direction, it was probably only in a very indirect fashion.
Related pet peeve of mine - ask a roomful of medical ethicists (who should bloody well know better, and to be fair some of them do) about Kant and "autonomy". It's darkly hilarious. Just because Kant made extensive use of a word that is often translated as "autonomy", a lot of people seem to think he held something like a modern medical ethicist's typical views about the importance of self-determination, informed consent, and so on. This is almost the exact opposite of the truth. Kantian "autonomy" means you have to arrive at the moral law by your own reasoning, and not out of (say) social pressure, for it to really "count" - but there's only one moral law, and it's the same for everyone, with zero space for individualized variation.
(And you aren't really acting morally unless you follow it out of duty, not because it feels good or gets good results. Just arriving at the same object-level conclusions about how to act isn't enough.)
Yes exactly! “Autonomy” for Kant just means… the ability to autonomously come to the exact same ethical conclusions that Kant did. Which is pretty hilarious.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link