Here is the issue of political logic reduced to a lowest common denominator, complete with spelling and grammar mistakes. But it does tell us that, at one level, to reach people, it becomes necessary to have a simple message to communicate. Ideally, this simple message can be expanded at will, without losing sight of some simple set of "axioms." Indeed, to be successful politically it must be expandable. The realm of politics is extremely complicated by its nature. But most people simply don't spend the requisite time needed in order to gain serious knowledge of "how the system works." They crave something simple, easy to fathom, something that can be understood in 5 minutes or less so that they can get back to what most interests them, the Big Game, the new power saw in the workshop, a mother-in-law's visit, etc. OR they insist on reducing politics to what they do know and that interests them, viz, all politics = economics, all politics = communications, all politics = environmental issues, all politics = psychology, all politics = business and commerce. etc. Which is to say that an effective RC Logic, to catch on, cannot speak only to the intelligentsia. It has to function at a very elementary level also. Yet, if it is going to be important it has to have principles that are perceived as highly useful / advantageous to the politico-intellectual elite. Billy ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- from the site : NationStates _LOGIC/REASON VS EMOTIVISM_ (http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=50311#p2087112) (http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=2087112#p2087112) by _Abury_ (http://forum.nationstates.net/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=83994) ยป Tue May 11, 2010 7:56 am When debate politics Do you use more your "head" or your "heart" ??
I claim that right-wing ideologies have root in LOGIC,FACTS etc while left-wing ideologies have root in BLEEDING HEARTS(oh no.....poor children must be saved!) ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ultimately I believe that all moral axioms are from instinct or 'from the heart', rather than some sort of a priori reasoning. ---------------------------------------------------------------- a true logic person should only care about himself and his family and try to maximize his/her utility When someone spend a large amounts of energy caring about other people/other species/the environment etc he is acting illogicaly ---------------------------------------------------------------- 90% of those who think their political position is either consistent or well-thought out is lying to themselves, the other 10% simply admit it - that number is shifting through any position through any person as well, The idea that reason is a right-wing position is laughable, as much as thinking emotions are a left-wing position, ---------------------------------------------------------------------- " I claim that right-wing ideologies have root in LOGIC,FACTS etc while left-wing ideologies have root in BLEEDING HEARTS(oh no.....poor children must be saved!) " I'd love to see the completely logical, totally non-emotional reasoning behind this claim. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Why would humans, creatures of biological origin, possessing emotions, wish to completely suppress those emotions? Logic gains us nothing in and of itself it's only logic applied to, and with emotions that can actually bring us happiness, and what's the point of even existing if we're not trying to become as happy as we can be? We then apply the fact that our goal is personal happiness through the harm principle, which reasons that if everyone is working towards everyone's happiness, people will be a lot happier overall. Logic and emotions should work together, not against each other. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ludicrous proposition that one side of the spectrum is logical and the other emotional. We've done this argument many times before with one side or the other claiming rationality. The 'bleeding heart' liberal stereotype has its perfect counterpart in the 'think of the children' conservative. Similarly, the A=A Randroid sounds uncannily like the 'scientific socialism' Marxist. It's a false opposition. You can't just seal your emotions in some treasure chest and evolve into SUPEROBJECTIVEHUMAN. How it really works is that people have instinctual emotional feelings on a range of issues and then rationalise these into a general set of political principles, before then using rational arguments to try and explain why their preferences are best. Other people then look at the ideologies on the market and choose the one that best fits their feelings, perhaps modifying it slightly to achieve a better fit. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Why is it illogical to save a stranger's life? It's useful: it creates a society where I'm more likely to receive help should I need it. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- It's not really an issue of how logical you are, so much as it is an issue of what your basic axioms are. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Do you even know what the word "logic" actually means? Logic is a means by which you can arrive at correct conclusions given true premises. Nothing more, nothing less. What you're looking for is "reason," and even still you haven't demonstrated that right-wingers are more rational than left-wingers. If you want to claim that you need to present a rational argument or you'll just look like a fool. -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
