Survivor!

Christopher Susi chris at susi.net
Mon Oct 23 20:16:53 PDT 2000



> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> [mailto:owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com]On Behalf Of kelley
> Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2000 9:57 AM
> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> Subject: Survivor!
>
>
>
> >christopher susi wrote:
> >
> > or maybe challenge
> >others to think in a way they hadn't considered before.
>
> you are aware, of course, that the way *you* think on this topic in this
> discussion is the predominant way of thinking about these issues? it's
> called utilitarian individualism, the ethical philosophy at the center of
> philosophical liberalism (Locke, et al). every single USer in this
> discussion and on this list, i'll bet, has actually grown up
> thinking much
> like this and sometimes *still* finds it hard to drop this way of
> thinking.
>

Then for myself it was the opposite. I was raised to believe one had to help their fellow man at (nearly) all costs. Now I question that. Perhaps what I have been brainwashed into believing is "wrong" is actually close to the order of the world, and our interference with it has more far-reaching affects than we anticipated.


>
> there is no equivalence here, as you presume. there are plenty of
> assumptions about the world that lefties and marxists make and should be
> challenged on. members of this list who post seem to do a pretty
> good job
> of holding one another's feet to the fire.
>
> your assumption that people need to be shown the error of their
> ways--that they've not considered these arguments before--is not arrogant
> really. as a description, arrogant would be too kind, i believe.
>

Technically, being a utilitarian individualist as you said, I would only be concerned with the benefit I get out of such discourse (and indeed, I only threw on the "and challenge others" as kind of a token when I wrote it). Be that as it may, if they have indeed considered all this before, then perhaps I'd have found more interesting replies rather than personal attacks. They don't know me well enough to make a personal attack. All it does is alienate, which just seems ironic.


>
> so, i don't know exactly what to call it, but it is rather odd for you to
> think that a group of people (lefties and marxists) holding marginalized
> political positions--political positions that some of us have lost jobs
> over, that some of us have been scolded for by deans and colleagues, that
> some of us have been denied funding over, that some of us have been
> arrested and jailed for--have somehow never encountered the
> claims you make.

Ok, but I was specifically looking for them to offer reasons why I was wrong. My original statement stated something to the effect of "I go back and forth on this issue" and somebody called me on it. So I started to argue it. If I feel I am shown that I'm wrong, I will freely admit it. I think you've seen me do that a few times on dc-stuff. I was basicaly giving an open invitation to anyone to show me why they believe they are right and to convert me to their way of thinking.

Also, to the list members they may have seen this all before, to me it's new. Maybe I should find a "Leftists Business Observers Newbiews" list.


>
> the claims you make are, as doug pointed out about libertarian views, the
> views of *most* USers. they are not marginalized, they are not special,
> they are not even revolutionary. they are the predominant
> views. therefore, it is hardly likely that anyone in this convo needs to
> be exposed to them. WE ARE EVERY SINGLE DAY! we grew up, just like you,
> learning them, believing them, and, occasionally morally agonizing over
> them--just like you!
>
> hopefully the folks who know darwin and evolutionary theory far
> better than
> i will step in an explain just how wrong you are about this stuff or, at
> least, show you that what you say is by no means uncontested.
>
> miles' point is that evolutionary theorists have contested the
> claims about
> human nature and evolutionary progress that you're making.
>
> people who are starving in other countries are not another species. they
> are not starving because they are unfit.

Not Unfit, and I would agree with that. They just happened to be in a location that isn't resourcefull. My point was, when they arn't part of a structure where they are a symbiont (and this may be for a group down to an individual) why are they worth saving?


> kelley
>
>



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list