"Emotivism" - the claim that ethical sentences do not express propositions but emotional attitudes - is hardly defensible. The fact/value distinction is a bulwark of capitalism.
On 3/10/11 1:22 PM, c b wrote:
> From: The New Humanism
> By DAVID BROOKS
>
> "Finally, we are not individuals who form relationships. We are social
> animals, deeply interpenetrated with one another, who emerge out of
> relationships."
>
> ^^^^^
>
> CB: This is a profound truth and criticism of a central way of
> thinking in America and Europe. The "opposite from that enunciated by
> Brooks i.e., Individualist epistemology and social ontology ,is rife
> in bourgeois thought: existentialism, libertarianism, positivism,
> social "darwinism", phenomenology, self-reliance, economic rational
> man, legal rational man, Christianity , of course, et al.
>
> Here's another amazingly progressive philosophical statement from
> this conservative ideologist:
>
> Brooks: "This body of research suggests the French enlightenment view of human
> nature, which emphasized individualism and reason, was wrong. The
> British enlightenment, which emphasized social sentiments, was more
> accurate about who we are. It suggests we are not divided creatures.
> We don’t only progress as reason dominates the passions. We also
> thrive as we educate our emotions."
>
> ^^^^
> CB: And this next statement below is basically a criticism of the right-wing
> educational _de_form theory:
>
> "When we raise our kids, we focus on the traits measured by grades and
> SAT scores. But when it comes to the most important things like
> character and how to build relationships, we often have nothing to
> say. Many of our public policies are proposed by experts who are
> comfortable only with correlations that can be measured, appropriated
> and quantified, and ignore everything else. "
>
>
> Op-Ed Columnist
> The New Humanism
> By DAVID BROOKS
> Published: March 7, 2011
>
>
> Over the course of my career, I’ve covered a number of policy
> failures. When the Soviet Union fell, we sent in teams of economists,
> oblivious to the lack of social trust that marred that society. While
> invading Iraq, the nation’s leaders were unprepared for the cultural
> complexities of the place and the psychological aftershocks of
> Saddam’s terror.
>
>
> We had a financial regime based on the notion that bankers are
> rational creatures who wouldn’t do anything stupid en masse. For the
> past 30 years we’ve tried many different ways to restructure our
> educational system — trying big schools and little schools, charters
> and vouchers — that, for years, skirted the core issue: the
> relationship between a teacher and a student.
>
> I’ve come to believe that these failures spring from a single failure:
> reliance on an overly simplistic view of human nature. We have a
> prevailing view in our society — not only in the policy world, but in
> many spheres — that we are divided creatures. Reason, which is
> trustworthy, is separate from the emotions, which are suspect. Society
> progresses to the extent that reason can suppress the passions.
>
> This has created a distortion in our culture. We emphasize things that
> are rational and conscious and are inarticulate about the processes
> down below. We are really good at talking about material things but
> bad at talking about emotion.
>
> When we raise our kids, we focus on the traits measured by grades and
> SAT scores. But when it comes to the most important things like
> character and how to build relationships, we often have nothing to
> say. Many of our public policies are proposed by experts who are
> comfortable only with correlations that can be measured, appropriated
> and quantified, and ignore everything else.
>
> Yet while we are trapped within this amputated view of human nature, a
> richer and deeper view is coming back into view. It is being brought
> to us by researchers across an array of diverse fields: neuroscience,
> psychology, sociology, behavioral economics and so on.
>
> This growing, dispersed body of research reminds us of a few key
> insights. First, the unconscious parts of the mind are most of the
> mind, where many of the most impressive feats of thinking take place.
> Second, emotion is not opposed to reason; our emotions assign value to
> things and are the basis of reason. Finally, we are not individuals
> who form relationships. We are social animals, deeply interpenetrated
> with one another, who emerge out of relationships.
>
> This body of research suggests the French enlightenment view of human
> nature, which emphasized individualism and reason, was wrong. The
> British enlightenment, which emphasized social sentiments, was more
> accurate about who we are. It suggests we are not divided creatures.
> We don’t only progress as reason dominates the passions. We also
> thrive as we educate our emotions.
>
> When you synthesize this research, you get different perspectives on
> everything from business to family to politics. You pay less attention
> to how people analyze the world but more to how they perceive and
> organize it in their minds. You pay a bit less attention to individual
> traits and more to the quality of relationships between people.
>
> You get a different view of, say, human capital. Over the past few
> decades, we have tended to define human capital in the narrow way,
> emphasizing I.Q., degrees, and professional skills. Those are all
> important, obviously, but this research illuminates a range of deeper
> talents, which span reason and emotion and make a hash of both
> categories:
>
> Attunement: the ability to enter other minds and learn what they have to offer.
>
> Equipoise: the ability to serenely monitor the movements of one’s own
> mind and correct for biases and shortcomings.
>
> Metis: the ability to see patterns in the world and derive a gist from
> complex situations.
>
> Sympathy: the ability to fall into a rhythm with those around you and
> thrive in groups.
>
> Limerence: This isn’t a talent as much as a motivation. The conscious
> mind hungers for money and success, but the unconscious mind hungers
> for those moments of transcendence when the skull line falls away and
> we are lost in love for another, the challenge of a task or the love
> of God. Some people seem to experience this drive more powerfully than
> others.
>
> When Sigmund Freud came up with his view of the unconscious, it had a
> huge effect on society and literature. Now hundreds of thousands of
> researchers are coming up with a more accurate view of who we are.
> Their work is scientific, but it directs our attention toward a new
> humanism. It’s beginning to show how the emotional and the rational
> are intertwined.
>
> I suspect their work will have a giant effect on the culture. It’ll
> change how we see ourselves. Who knows, it may even someday transform
> the way our policy makers see the world.
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk