RHK challenged me yesterday. He gave me an ultimatum: my complaints have to turn into action or I have to stop complaining. I did not pay attention. I kept complaining without action.
ML challenged me today. She called me a subjective positivist. She also called me a liar and many other things that might or might not be true, but I am not a positivist. She pissed me off, but I really did nothing about it because I am a slow-witted fat bald man.
I then read this quote in the TIA Daily: "Nothing in the world can take place of persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent."--Calvin Coolidge
I was taught to hate Coolidge in my Neo-Marxist US history classes. He might have been the most lassiez-faire President in American history. I was always taught that Hoover's and Coolidge's inaction caused the Great Depression. My grandfather still hates Hoover; he would spit on Hoover's grave. Today, I reevaluate my opinions about Coolidge and Hoover. I understand the Great Depression was caused by many things and government intervention was part of the problem not the solution.
Coolidge's point is that your work is the only thing that matters. Rand says this too.
I have not been doing good work. This is going to change tonight. It is 'time to kick ass now and take names later.'
My first action is to discuss my philosophical foundations. This is a difficult process. When one examines philosophical foundations, he finds unacceptable contradictions and definitional problems. He must reconcile these before he can continue. Hopefully, I will generate discussion with my one and a half reader.
I will start by defining subjective positivism. A positivist cares about 'what is.' It does not matter what should be. Government is corrupt and the discussion ends. They state facts. Virginia's code requires bathroom fans. There were no weapons of mass destruction.
Of course, positivists draw conclusions but they are based on what is. For example, there were no weapons of mass destruction, therefore, withdrawal from Iraq. All conclusions are based on positive statements like a court case where evidence is presented and a verdict rendered. The vast majority of academia are positivists.
A more mundane version of positivism can be seen by high school students. Peer pressure is positivism. Everyone else is smoking, therefore I smoke. Everyone else is drinking and fucking, therefore, I drink and fuck. Everyone is wearing Jordans, therefore, I wear Jordans. Students see what is and draw conclusions (and emulate their peers). Another example is "I dated a teaching assistant, therefore, dating teaching assistants is acceptable."
Normativists ask 'what should be.' To them, it is not enough to say 'it is.' They take 'what is' a step further and compare it to the ideal. Government should not be corrupt. Virginia should require bathroom fans.
They draw conclusions based on what should be. Wars should not be fought under any circumstances, therefore, withdraw from Iraq. Feeling good today should be more important than my long-term health, therefore, I smoke. Fucking should be a common stress reliever and a meaningless activity, therefore, I fuck.
Sometimes normativists mix in positive statements, but should always comes first. Sex should be a beautiful thing between two people deeply in love, we are in love, therefore, we have sex. Normativists admit an ideal. Positivists only see and care about what is.
Subjective means that Truth is mutable. It is atheism. A subjective person cannot believe in God. Subjective thinkers say government is corrupt today but uncorrupt tomorrow. Subjective thinkers can sit in churches, then go home and break commandments. They do not think there are eternal and universal Truths. What is right today has no bearing on what is right tomorrow.
The opposite of subjective is objective. Objective thinkers see a fixed Truth. Objective thinkers do change their minds. But these changes are internal; they do not change the Truth. This is a subtle difference. Objective thinkers are concerned with getting the one and only correct answer. A subjective thinker sees a different world everyday. Truth is secondary. An objective thinker desires to see the same world everyday. Truth is primary.
Subjective positivists rule the day as can be seen by political correctness. A small minority is offended by the use of a word, therefore we stop using that word. The subjectivity comes from the word being acceptable yesterday (or even in certain situations today). The positivism comes from the small minority being offended. A positive statment leads to the conclusion.
An objective normativist would evaluate the situation by asking, 'should the word be used? They would search for the Truth encompassing the word. Their conclusion could be offensive words should not be used, therefore, we stop using them. It does not matter to them that a small minority is offended. Everything is a clear issue of right versus wrong.
I am not happy with this post. It has already taken me two and half hours. I have other work to do. But, it is a start. Tomorrow, I hope to talk about "Only the Good Die Young" and "In the long run we are all dead."
*Van Morrison
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment