or am i completely misunderstanding what's going on, here?
j
On 6/7/05, Carrol Cox <cbcox at ilstu.edu> wrote:
> The post immedieately responded to is "Relative autonomy..." and as a
> whole bears on the Social Democracy thread, but I wish to use one
> passage in it to take up the recent thread on rationality and
> irrationality (which was under the subject line "Vavavoom" from which
> the quote from Jim D further down is taken.
>
> Marvin Gandall wrote:
> >
> > the right usually won and the left lost
> > because most people are naturally cautious and trusting of their leaders
>
> The adverb "naturally" is usually well-intended but almost always an
> evasion in practice. I would substitute "sensibly." Trusting one's
> leaders is almost always sensible, and has been that way extending back
> to pre-sapiens homo. Caution is also the most sensible _standard_
> response to most conditions. (Is anyone here adventurous in responding
> to spam?) Whatever were the sources of the core votes for either Kerry
> or Bush last fall, it is nearly certain that the _swing_ voters were
> those who accepted the assurances of both candidates that we were in a
> war we had to win -- i.e., they trusted their leaders on the fundamental
> question of the day. They _then_ trusted the expererienced leader, the
> incumbent, to lead them through that necessary war. That too was
> sensible -- i.e. rational, not _irrational_.
>
<snip>
> >
> > I agree with Carrol: to presume that the populace isn't "rational" (in
> > the sense that you are or I am) is to put oneself above them, like
> > some sort of demigod. It's elitism. (BTW, "rationality" isn't always
> > Hegelian.)
> > JD
> >
> > On 6/5/05, Carrol Cox wrote: One cannot understand a population
> > except on the premise that (with demographically insignificant
> > exceptions) that popoulace makes its decisions on rational grounds.
> > The appearance of irrationality is a measure of the observer's
> > ignorance of the conditions under which the decisions are made.<
>
> I'm quoting this post because after reading the various responses to Jim
> & me, I see no reason to change these initial arguments. The points Jim
> & I make seem to me to be almost axiomatic for anyone seriously
> interested in organizing for change.
>
-- http://www.brainmortgage.com/
Among medieval and modern philosophers, anxious to establish the religious significance of God, an unfortunate habit has prevailed of paying to Him metaphysical compliments.
- Alfred North Whitehead