Personal Political Philosophy Over Time

Cain · 10th April 2007, 06:42 PM

Sometimes I go months without reading these boards, plus I didn't bother searching for relevant threads, so I don't know if this has been done before quite so directly. I do recall topics asking if you inherited or rejected your parents political beliefs. This deals with that but emphasizes formative experiences and political awakenings throughout life. If you did grow up making your own granola, and calling your parents by their first name, cool. Or if 9/11 "changed you" (like Dennis Miller), or the Bush administration changed you (Michael Lind?), or the war against "Islamofascism" changed you (Christopher Hitchens), a co-worker got you thinking, a book, and so on. Where you were, where you are, and why. Keep it relatively brief, hitting only the highlights. Your post should not be longer than mine because what you have to say cannot possibly be as compulsively interesting. Also, I will delete any and all off-topic meanderings.

In junior high and the beginning of high school I probably would have considered myself a Goldwater Republican, even though I didn't know Barry Goldwater. It was more of a reaction to my parents centrist, but firmly Democratic Reagan-hating politics. That slowly changed and evolved as I started high school and began looking toward college. Although a Dole rally (in Orange County, CA) was the only function I have ever attended for a political candidate, I knew while there that Clinton's policies and ideas appealed more to me personally.

In my last two years of high school I got into humanism, Chomsky, and Zinn In college as an undergrad/grad student until today there has been an uneasy internal tension between more radical, visionary left-wing ideals and liberal Rawlsian egalitarianism. This can sometimes be seen in issues of _The Nation_, specifically the contrasting politics of Eric Alterman and Alexander Cockburn. The former is a fairly typical Paul Krugman-loving, Ralph Nader-hating NYC liberal, while the latter enjoys bashing U.S. foreign policy (esp. with respect to Israel), the Democratic Party (esp. Bernie Sanders and the late Paul Wellstone), but maintains everyone should be able to own any type of gun she pleases, and global warming is a hoax. I tend to consciously identify more with Cockburn, finding him more interesting, voting Green, and being repulsed by most Democrats.

Darth Rotor · 10th April 2007, 07:56 PM

Originally Posted by Cain

In my last two years of high school I got into humanism, Chomsky, and Zinn

Chomsky has his agenda, but sometimes, he sees through a lot of BS and hits the spot.

9-11 didn't change my politics. It perhaps made me more cynical, thanks to people failing all over themselves, with much rending of garments, over some ragheads having counted coup.

DR

Tsukasa Buddha · 10th April 2007, 08:00 PM

I was raised by my parents and grandparents as a loyal Republican. I even read one of Savage's books (Something about the "Enemy Within" I think). After 9/11, I was right there ready to give up civil liberties for more security. I probably was a loyal Bushie up until the 10th grade.

During the 11th grade, I started getting involved in skepticism, especially in Evolution. Now, since reality has a well known liberal bias, the more I learned the less Republican I was. I explored Libertarianism after being exposed to it from Penn & Teller BS. I liked the social view, but was uncomfortable with the anti-environment and health care views. Now that I am more socially responsible, I am less anti-censorship. I am also now in favor of universal health care, Global Warming control, and better public education.

I kind of like the Green party. But some of the things (like the "taking back the airwaves) I really don't understand. I also am pro-gun rights and pro-GM food. I support Obama for being more open to the other side than most are today. I plan to go to each parties club when I go to college later this year.

FarmallMTA · 10th April 2007, 08:00 PM

Yeah, I know what you mean. I've gone from hating liberals and Democrats to laughing at them. I mean, how seriously can you take a bunch of whining wussies who want to shut down the United States economy over some fat dude's preoccupation with hot weather? Hell, fat people always think it's hot and getting hotter.

Darth Rotor · 10th April 2007, 08:02 PM

Originally Posted by FarmallMTA

Yeah, I know what you mean. I've gone from hating liberals and Democrats to laughing at them. I mean, how seriously can you take a bunch of whining wussies who want to shut down the United States economy over some fat dude's preoccupation with hot weather? Hell, fat people always think it's hot and getting hotter.

So do menopausal women. Be careful, if they know where the shotgun is. Your life depends on it.

DR

FarmallMTA · 10th April 2007, 08:03 PM

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

So do menopausal women. Be careful, if they know where the shotgun is. Your life depends on it.

DR

Point noted. Thanks for the tip, DR!

D'rok · 10th April 2007, 08:16 PM

Originally Posted by Cain

In my last two years of high school I got into humanism, Chomsky, and Zinn In college as an undergrad/grad student until today there has been an uneasy internal tension between more radical, visionary left-wing ideals and liberal Rawlsian egalitarianism. This can sometimes be seen in issues of _The Nation_, specifically the contrasting politics of Eric Alterman and Alexander Cockburn. The former is a fairly typical Paul Krugman-loving, Ralph Nader-hating NYC liberal, while the latter enjoys bashing U.S. foreign policy (esp. with respect to Israel), the Democratic Party (esp. Bernie Sanders and the late Paul Wellstone), but maintains everyone should be able to own any type of gun she pleases, and global warming is a hoax. I tend to consciously identify more with Cockburn, finding him more interesting, voting Green, and being repulsed by most Democrats.

I don't have much use for Chomsky or Cockburn. They're both one-trick ponies and they get kind of tiresome. Actually I really don't have much use for any of the polemicists. When you say political philosophy, you should be aware that that phrase doesn't mean politics - it is a philosophical tradition that goes back for well over 2000 years to Xenophon, Plato, Aristotle and the like, all the way through Cicero, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke, Hegel, Nietzsche, Strauss, Kojeve...the list goes on.

Of all the names you mentioned, the only political philosopher is Rawls. His updated Social Contract theory of Justice is interesting.

I'm personally fond of the ancients, especially Plato and Cicero, and I'm a little obsessed lately with Hegel.

ETA: I'm curious as to how you will delete off-topic posts. How did you get that power?

steverino · 10th April 2007, 08:20 PM

Originally Posted by Cain

This can sometimes be seen in issues of _The Nation_, specifically the contrasting politics of Eric Alterman and Alexander Cockburn. The former is a fairly typical Paul Krugman-loving, Ralph Nader-hating NYC liberal, while the latter enjoys bashing U.S. foreign policy (esp. with respect to Israel), I tend to consciously identify more with Cockburn, finding him more interesting, voting Green...

So you go for this Rooster Cockburn dude who belives in bashing our Israel policy?

The Green Party has a pro-Palestinian bias, and I just don't see this party's allure...

http://www.commondreams.org/news2002/0814-01.htm

"The only way we'll see Israel reverse its illegal treatment of Palestinians and withdraw from the occupied territories is through massive pressure from the U.S., including a threat to end aid to Israel," said Charles Pillsbury, Green candidate for Connecticut's 3rd Congressional District. "Unfortunately, there is nearly unqualified bipartisan support for the Sharon agenda, except for a very few courageous Congressmembers such as Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D.-Ga.), who has been targeted for defeat in her bid for reelection this year for her views. Sharon is not only supported by Jewish pro-Israel lobbies but by even more powerful conservative pro-Israel Christian fundamentalists -- the very people who are dictating Bush policy."

"F" them. What about the Palestinian treatment of Israeli Jews?

steverino · 10th April 2007, 08:24 PM

Originally Posted by D'rok the Lacone

ETA: I'm curious as to how you will delete off-topic posts. How did you get that power?

I am too. And what kind of political mind votes for such a castrating meme?

FarmallMTA · 10th April 2007, 08:30 PM

Originally Posted by steverino

So you go for this Rooster Cockburn dude who belives in bashing our Israel policy?

I thought Rooster Cockburn believed in dynamiting bad guys who wanted to rape Katherine Cockburn. Did Israel even exist during the glory days of the American western films of the 1880's?

D'rok · 10th April 2007, 08:32 PM

Originally Posted by steverino

I am too. And what kind of political mind votes for such a castrating meme?

Machiavelli for sure. After all, it's better to be feared than loved.

Cain · 10th April 2007, 10:09 PM

Originally Posted by D'rok the Lacone

I don't have much use for Chomsky or Cockburn. They're both one-trick ponies and they get kind of tiresome. Actually I really don't have much use for any of the polemicists. When you say political philosophy, you should be aware that that phrase doesn't mean politics - it is a philosophical tradition that goes back for well over 2000 years to Xenophon, Plato, Aristotle and the like, all the way through Cicero, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke, Hegel, Nietzsche, Strauss, Kojeve...the list goes on.

Of all the names you mentioned, the only political philosopher is Rawls. His updated Social Contract theory of Justice is interesting.

I only mentioned political philosophy in the title, and it's not intended in any lofty sense. If I wanted to be still more specific I'd agree with Brian Barry in identifying with pre-_Political Liberalism_ Rawls (circa 1975). For some reason I doubt many people here will say, "and so I finally abandoned utilitarianism for contractarianism." Interestingly when rationales change a person's politics can appear the unchanged (Jan Narveson's experience seems to track with the above example). If someone's politics is strongly influenced by Hannah Arendt, then fine, but I suspect people who study Arendt are already highly interested in politics, have well developed views on most major issues, and their positions are not noticeably different for the types of exchanges witnessed on this forum. Chomsky, Cockburn, Alterman, Rawls (probably the most well-known contemporary political philosopher) are more obvious sign posts.

Quote:

ETA: I'm curious as to how you will delete off-topic posts. How did you get that power?

Oh, I have that power. Steverino, I'm going to warn you to watch yourself only because I'm feeling too lazy to delete posts. Please don't feed the trolls.

steverino · 10th April 2007, 10:12 PM

Originally Posted by Cain

Oh, I have that power. Steverino, I'm going to warn you to watch yourself only because I'm feeling too lazy to delete posts.

Whatever you say, Citizen Cain, if you are able.

D'rok · 10th April 2007, 10:30 PM

Originally Posted by Cain

I only mentioned political philosophy in the title, and it's not intended in any lofty sense. If I wanted to be still more specific I'd agree with Brian Barry in identifying with pre-_Political Liberalism_ Rawls (circa 1975). For some reason I doubt many people here will say, "and so I finally abandoned utilitarianism for contractarianism." Interestingly when rationales change a person's politics can appear the unchanged (Jan Narveson's experience seems to track with the above example). If someone's politics is strongly influenced by Hannah Arendt, then fine, but I suspect people who study Arendt are already highly interested in politics, have well developed views on most major issues, and their positions are not noticeably different for the types of exchanges witnessed on this forum. Chomsky, Cockburn, Alterman, Rawls (probably the most well-known contemporary political philosopher) are more obvious sign posts.

I've never heard of Jan Narveson before. Just checked out his Waterloo faculty page - no idea there where still anarchists around. It has to be the ultimate irony that an anarchist would spend his professional life in that most inertia-laden bureaucracy - the University.

I think the reason the ancients appeal to me so much is the paucity of reasonable thought in contemporary political discourse. (Could I write a more pretentious sounding sentence?...perhaps, but that one was pretty darn good...hehe).

chillzero · 11th April 2007, 04:27 AM

Originally Posted by Cain

Also, I will delete any and all off-topic meanderings.

Only mods can delete posts, and they will not be deleted for being off-topic; only for breaching your forum membership agreement.

Posted By:chillzero

I believe that you can request a moderated thread by approaching Darat or Lisa, but again, this will also be moderated by the forum mods.

Freddy · 11th April 2007, 08:14 AM

Originally Posted by D'rok the Lacone

I'm personally fond of the ancients, especially Plato and Cicero, and I'm a little obsessed lately with Hegel.

ETA: I'm curious as to how you will delete off-topic posts. How did you get that power?

Careful, obsession with Hegel isn't healthy.

I share your fondness for the ancients, though I prefer Aristotle to Plato.

D'rok · 11th April 2007, 08:28 AM

Originally Posted by Freddy

Careful, obsession with Hegel isn't healthy.

Ugh....tell me about it. My brain has permanently been infected by Hegel. I can see everything with Hegel goggles now if I choose. I feel the presence of an absence....I think I'll exercise the power of the negative and differentiate myself from Given Being by going over to the fridge and negating a bagel.

I enjoy Aristotle too, but his works suffer from the ravages of history a little more than Plato's do. Most of what we have from Aristotle are compiled lecture notes, which can make for some pretty dry reading. I love the premise of the Name of the Rose (movie - haven't read the book) where an Aristotelian comedic dialogue is discovered.

Schneibster · 11th April 2007, 07:21 PM

Originally Posted by Cain

I do recall topics asking if you inherited or rejected your parents political beliefs. This deals with that but emphasizes formative experiences and political awakenings throughout life.

In my teens, I got hung up on personal liberties, like most teenagers do. I explored libertarianism, and Libertarianism, and like that. I found I liked the small "l" variety a lot better than the US Libertarian Party, or Ayn Rand. Rand made good points about political power, and made them well, but ignored the fact that personal freedom is as much a matter of economics as politics. What I wanted was real personal liberty. Not just from regulations, but from bosses. Working for several who were not overly bright merely brought the lesson home. And the worst problem with it was, Rand never speaks of responsibility. It's politics for rebellious teenagers who haven't figured out how money works yet.

mumblethrax · 11th April 2007, 08:34 PM

I was raised in Crunchytown, USA by educated Australian parents who presented a model of non-commital humanism, social democratic political values, and casual racism. I tried desperately to rebel against it, but I settled into non-commital humanism, social democratic political values, and casual anti-racism by my early 20s. At least I wasn't a hippie.

When I moved to New York, my circle ran the gamut from anarchists to Marxists. I guess I identified with the former to a greater extent than the latter, but I was more interested in drinking than politics at the time. I started trying to develop defensible political positions after being trounced in a debate (more like a stupid competition) where I asserted something dumb like "there is no morality."

These days I identify most closely with the people who sometimes describe themselves as the Darwinian left, even though I desperately wish they wouldn't. I've adopted a few positions that I don't consider particularly political, but which are inevitably interpreted as politically radical.

I once had the temerity to say that the Democrats are just as bad as the Republicans, but six years can change a man's mind.

PS: Please do not delete this post with the power that you have to delete posts in this thread.

10th April 2007, 06:42 PM	#1
Cain Contrarian Join Date: May 2002 Location: S. California Posts: 4,415	Personal Political Philosophy Over Time Sometimes I go months without reading these boards, plus I didn't bother searching for relevant threads, so I don't know if this has been done before quite so directly. I do recall topics asking if you inherited or rejected your parents political beliefs. This deals with that but emphasizes formative experiences and political awakenings throughout life. If you did grow up making your own granola, and calling your parents by their first name, cool. Or if 9/11 "changed you" (like Dennis Miller), or the Bush administration changed you (Michael Lind?), or the war against "Islamofascism" changed you (Christopher Hitchens), a co-worker got you thinking, a book, and so on. Where you were, where you are, and why. Keep it relatively brief, hitting only the highlights. Your post should not be longer than mine because what you have to say cannot possibly be as compulsively interesting. Also, I will delete any and all off-topic meanderings. In junior high and the beginning of high school I probably would have considered myself a Goldwater Republican, even though I didn't know Barry Goldwater. It was more of a reaction to my parents centrist, but firmly Democratic Reagan-hating politics. That slowly changed and evolved as I started high school and began looking toward college. Although a Dole rally (in Orange County, CA) was the only function I have ever attended for a political candidate, I knew while there that Clinton's policies and ideas appealed more to me personally. In my last two years of high school I got into humanism, Chomsky, and Zinn In college as an undergrad/grad student until today there has been an uneasy internal tension between more radical, visionary left-wing ideals and liberal Rawlsian egalitarianism. This can sometimes be seen in issues of _The Nation_, specifically the contrasting politics of Eric Alterman and Alexander Cockburn. The former is a fairly typical Paul Krugman-loving, Ralph Nader-hating NYC liberal, while the latter enjoys bashing U.S. foreign policy (esp. with respect to Israel), the Democratic Party (esp. Bernie Sanders and the late Paul Wellstone), but maintains everyone should be able to own any type of gun she pleases, and global warming is a hoax. I tend to consciously identify more with Cockburn, finding him more interesting, voting Green, and being repulsed by most Democrats.
	__________________ Some chick: I'll try anything once. Cain: Yeah? Try suicide. Some chick: **** you!

10th April 2007, 07:56 PM	#2
Darth Rotor Salted Sith Cynic Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Rat cheer Posts: 29,313	Originally Posted by Cain In my last two years of high school I got into humanism, Chomsky, and Zinn Chomsky has his agenda, but sometimes, he sees through a lot of BS and hits the spot. 9-11 didn't change my politics. It perhaps made me more cynical, thanks to people failing all over themselves, with much rending of garments, over some ragheads having counted coup. DR
	__________________ Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission. "Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is some one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton____If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok____ "Your onus is aimed in the wrong direction." -- Cleon__"... they don't make pills for being a self-absorbed twit. --bookitty

10th April 2007, 08:00 PM	#3
Tsukasa Buddha Other (please write in) Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: NeverLand Posts: 5,078	I was raised by my parents and grandparents as a loyal Republican. I even read one of Savage's books (Something about the "Enemy Within" I think). After 9/11, I was right there ready to give up civil liberties for more security. I probably was a loyal Bushie up until the 10th grade. During the 11th grade, I started getting involved in skepticism, especially in Evolution. Now, since reality has a well known liberal bias, the more I learned the less Republican I was. I explored Libertarianism after being exposed to it from Penn & Teller BS. I liked the social view, but was uncomfortable with the anti-environment and health care views. Now that I am more socially responsible, I am less anti-censorship. I am also now in favor of universal health care, Global Warming control, and better public education. I kind of like the Green party. But some of the things (like the "taking back the airwaves) I really don't understand. I also am pro-gun rights and pro-GM food. I support Obama for being more open to the other side than most are today. I plan to go to each parties club when I go to college later this year.
	__________________ Monk to Zen Master: What happens after death, master? Zen master: I don’t know. Monk: But you are a master! Master: Yes, but I’m not a dead one yet.

10th April 2007, 08:00 PM	#4
FarmallMTA Muse Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 736	Yeah, I know what you mean. I've gone from hating liberals and Democrats to laughing at them. I mean, how seriously can you take a bunch of whining wussies who want to shut down the United States economy over some fat dude's preoccupation with hot weather? Hell, fat people always think it's hot and getting hotter.
FarmallMTA Muse Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 736

10th April 2007, 08:02 PM	#5
Darth Rotor Salted Sith Cynic Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Rat cheer Posts: 29,313	Originally Posted by FarmallMTA Yeah, I know what you mean. I've gone from hating liberals and Democrats to laughing at them. I mean, how seriously can you take a bunch of whining wussies who want to shut down the United States economy over some fat dude's preoccupation with hot weather? Hell, fat people always think it's hot and getting hotter. So do menopausal women. Be careful, if they know where the shotgun is. Your life depends on it. DR
	__________________ Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission. "Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is some one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton____If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok____ "Your onus is aimed in the wrong direction." -- Cleon__"... they don't make pills for being a self-absorbed twit. --bookitty

10th April 2007, 08:03 PM	#6
FarmallMTA Muse Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 736	Originally Posted by Darth Rotor So do menopausal women. Be careful, if they know where the shotgun is. Your life depends on it. DR Point noted. Thanks for the tip, DR!
FarmallMTA Muse Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 736

10th April 2007, 08:16 PM	#7
D'rok Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Ottawa Posts: 3,791	Originally Posted by Cain In my last two years of high school I got into humanism, Chomsky, and Zinn In college as an undergrad/grad student until today there has been an uneasy internal tension between more radical, visionary left-wing ideals and liberal Rawlsian egalitarianism. This can sometimes be seen in issues of _The Nation_, specifically the contrasting politics of Eric Alterman and Alexander Cockburn. The former is a fairly typical Paul Krugman-loving, Ralph Nader-hating NYC liberal, while the latter enjoys bashing U.S. foreign policy (esp. with respect to Israel), the Democratic Party (esp. Bernie Sanders and the late Paul Wellstone), but maintains everyone should be able to own any type of gun she pleases, and global warming is a hoax. I tend to consciously identify more with Cockburn, finding him more interesting, voting Green, and being repulsed by most Democrats. I don't have much use for Chomsky or Cockburn. They're both one-trick ponies and they get kind of tiresome. Actually I really don't have much use for any of the polemicists. When you say political philosophy, you should be aware that that phrase doesn't mean politics - it is a philosophical tradition that goes back for well over 2000 years to Xenophon, Plato, Aristotle and the like, all the way through Cicero, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke, Hegel, Nietzsche, Strauss, Kojeve...the list goes on. Of all the names you mentioned, the only political philosopher is Rawls. His updated Social Contract theory of Justice is interesting. I'm personally fond of the ancients, especially Plato and Cicero, and I'm a little obsessed lately with Hegel. ETA: I'm curious as to how you will delete off-topic posts. How did you get that power?
	__________________ "War exists within the continuum of politics, in which play is continuous, and no outcome is final, save for a global thermonuclear war, which might be." - Darth Rotor "Life, like a Saturday afternoon, finds its ruination in purpose." - MdC Last edited by D'rok; 10th April 2007 at 08:19 PM.

10th April 2007, 08:20 PM	#8
steverino Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Seattle, Washington Posts: 3,687	Originally Posted by Cain This can sometimes be seen in issues of _The Nation_, specifically the contrasting politics of Eric Alterman and Alexander Cockburn. The former is a fairly typical Paul Krugman-loving, Ralph Nader-hating NYC liberal, while the latter enjoys bashing U.S. foreign policy (esp. with respect to Israel), I tend to consciously identify more with Cockburn, finding him more interesting, voting Green... So you go for this Rooster Cockburn dude who belives in bashing our Israel policy? The Green Party has a pro-Palestinian bias, and I just don't see this party's allure... http://www.commondreams.org/news2002/0814-01.htm "The only way we'll see Israel reverse its illegal treatment of Palestinians and withdraw from the occupied territories is through massive pressure from the U.S., including a threat to end aid to Israel," said Charles Pillsbury, Green candidate for Connecticut's 3rd Congressional District. "Unfortunately, there is nearly unqualified bipartisan support for the Sharon agenda, except for a very few courageous Congressmembers such as Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D.-Ga.), who has been targeted for defeat in her bid for reelection this year for her views. Sharon is not only supported by Jewish pro-Israel lobbies but by even more powerful conservative pro-Israel Christian fundamentalists -- the very people who are dictating Bush policy." "F" them. What about the Palestinian treatment of Israeli Jews?
	__________________ "Ferchrissakes I am not Jewish..."- Darth Rotor "Well, my nipples are pink. I've never looked at my own butt-hole, but I hope it's pink too." Mycroft "In the military, a gay man might see a wiener, and we all know that when a gay man sees a wiener, he goes into an uncontrollable frenzy of lust."- Marquis de Carabas Last edited by steverino; 10th April 2007 at 08:22 PM.

10th April 2007, 08:24 PM	#9
steverino Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Seattle, Washington Posts: 3,687	Originally Posted by D'rok the Lacone ETA: I'm curious as to how you will delete off-topic posts. How did you get that power? I am too. And what kind of political mind votes for such a castrating meme?
	__________________ "Ferchrissakes I am not Jewish..."- Darth Rotor "Well, my nipples are pink. I've never looked at my own butt-hole, but I hope it's pink too." Mycroft "In the military, a gay man might see a wiener, and we all know that when a gay man sees a wiener, he goes into an uncontrollable frenzy of lust."- Marquis de Carabas

10th April 2007, 08:30 PM	#10
FarmallMTA Muse Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 736	Originally Posted by steverino So you go for this Rooster Cockburn dude who belives in bashing our Israel policy? I thought Rooster Cockburn believed in dynamiting bad guys who wanted to rape Katherine Cockburn. Did Israel even exist during the glory days of the American western films of the 1880's?
FarmallMTA Muse Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 736

10th April 2007, 08:32 PM	#11
D'rok Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Ottawa Posts: 3,791	Originally Posted by steverino I am too. And what kind of political mind votes for such a castrating meme? Machiavelli for sure. After all, it's better to be feared than loved.
	__________________ "War exists within the continuum of politics, in which play is continuous, and no outcome is final, save for a global thermonuclear war, which might be." - Darth Rotor "Life, like a Saturday afternoon, finds its ruination in purpose." - MdC

10th April 2007, 10:09 PM	#12
Cain Contrarian Join Date: May 2002 Location: S. California Posts: 4,415	Originally Posted by D'rok the Lacone I don't have much use for Chomsky or Cockburn. They're both one-trick ponies and they get kind of tiresome. Actually I really don't have much use for any of the polemicists. When you say political philosophy, you should be aware that that phrase doesn't mean politics - it is a philosophical tradition that goes back for well over 2000 years to Xenophon, Plato, Aristotle and the like, all the way through Cicero, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke, Hegel, Nietzsche, Strauss, Kojeve...the list goes on. Of all the names you mentioned, the only political philosopher is Rawls. His updated Social Contract theory of Justice is interesting. I only mentioned political philosophy in the title, and it's not intended in any lofty sense. If I wanted to be still more specific I'd agree with Brian Barry in identifying with pre-_Political Liberalism_ Rawls (circa 1975). For some reason I doubt many people here will say, "and so I finally abandoned utilitarianism for contractarianism." Interestingly when rationales change a person's politics can appear the unchanged (Jan Narveson's experience seems to track with the above example). If someone's politics is strongly influenced by Hannah Arendt, then fine, but I suspect people who study Arendt are already highly interested in politics, have well developed views on most major issues, and their positions are not noticeably different for the types of exchanges witnessed on this forum. Chomsky, Cockburn, Alterman, Rawls (probably the most well-known contemporary political philosopher) are more obvious sign posts. Quote: ETA: I'm curious as to how you will delete off-topic posts. How did you get that power? Oh, I have that power. Steverino, I'm going to warn you to watch yourself only because I'm feeling too lazy to delete posts. Please don't feed the trolls.
	__________________ Some chick: I'll try anything once. Cain: Yeah? Try suicide. Some chick: **** you!

10th April 2007, 10:12 PM	#13
steverino Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Seattle, Washington Posts: 3,687	Originally Posted by Cain Oh, I have that power. Steverino, I'm going to warn you to watch yourself only because I'm feeling too lazy to delete posts. Whatever you say, Citizen Cain, if you are able.
	__________________ "Ferchrissakes I am not Jewish..."- Darth Rotor "Well, my nipples are pink. I've never looked at my own butt-hole, but I hope it's pink too." Mycroft "In the military, a gay man might see a wiener, and we all know that when a gay man sees a wiener, he goes into an uncontrollable frenzy of lust."- Marquis de Carabas

10th April 2007, 10:30 PM	#14
D'rok Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Ottawa Posts: 3,791	Originally Posted by Cain I only mentioned political philosophy in the title, and it's not intended in any lofty sense. If I wanted to be still more specific I'd agree with Brian Barry in identifying with pre-_Political Liberalism_ Rawls (circa 1975). For some reason I doubt many people here will say, "and so I finally abandoned utilitarianism for contractarianism." Interestingly when rationales change a person's politics can appear the unchanged (Jan Narveson's experience seems to track with the above example). If someone's politics is strongly influenced by Hannah Arendt, then fine, but I suspect people who study Arendt are already highly interested in politics, have well developed views on most major issues, and their positions are not noticeably different for the types of exchanges witnessed on this forum. Chomsky, Cockburn, Alterman, Rawls (probably the most well-known contemporary political philosopher) are more obvious sign posts. I've never heard of Jan Narveson before. Just checked out his Waterloo faculty page - no idea there where still anarchists around. It has to be the ultimate irony that an anarchist would spend his professional life in that most inertia-laden bureaucracy - the University. I think the reason the ancients appeal to me so much is the paucity of reasonable thought in contemporary political discourse. (Could I write a more pretentious sounding sentence?...perhaps, but that one was pretty darn good...hehe).
	__________________ "War exists within the continuum of politics, in which play is continuous, and no outcome is final, save for a global thermonuclear war, which might be." - Darth Rotor "Life, like a Saturday afternoon, finds its ruination in purpose." - MdC

11th April 2007, 08:14 AM	#16
Freddy Muse Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: South Bend, IN Posts: 591	Originally Posted by D'rok the Lacone I'm personally fond of the ancients, especially Plato and Cicero, and I'm a little obsessed lately with Hegel. ETA: I'm curious as to how you will delete off-topic posts. How did you get that power? Careful, obsession with Hegel isn't healthy. I share your fondness for the ancients, though I prefer Aristotle to Plato.
	__________________ Evidence is not facts. -Without Rights Debunkers claim their superior list of scientists with advanced degrees somehow proves their THEORIES are superior. -Douglas Herman

11th April 2007, 08:28 AM	#17
D'rok Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Ottawa Posts: 3,791	Originally Posted by Freddy Careful, obsession with Hegel isn't healthy. Ugh....tell me about it. My brain has permanently been infected by Hegel. I can see everything with Hegel goggles now if I choose. I feel the presence of an absence....I think I'll exercise the power of the negative and differentiate myself from Given Being by going over to the fridge and negating a bagel. I enjoy Aristotle too, but his works suffer from the ravages of history a little more than Plato's do. Most of what we have from Aristotle are compiled lecture notes, which can make for some pretty dry reading. I love the premise of the Name of the Rose (movie - haven't read the book) where an Aristotelian comedic dialogue is discovered.
	__________________ "War exists within the continuum of politics, in which play is continuous, and no outcome is final, save for a global thermonuclear war, which might be." - Darth Rotor "Life, like a Saturday afternoon, finds its ruination in purpose." - MdC

11th April 2007, 07:21 PM	#18
Schneibster Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 3,966	Originally Posted by Cain I do recall topics asking if you inherited or rejected your parents political beliefs. This deals with that but emphasizes formative experiences and political awakenings throughout life. In my teens, I got hung up on personal liberties, like most teenagers do. I explored libertarianism, and Libertarianism, and like that. I found I liked the small "l" variety a lot better than the US Libertarian Party, or Ayn Rand. Rand made good points about political power, and made them well, but ignored the fact that personal freedom is as much a matter of economics as politics. What I wanted was real personal liberty. Not just from regulations, but from bosses. Working for several who were not overly bright merely brought the lesson home. And the worst problem with it was, Rand never speaks of responsibility. It's politics for rebellious teenagers who haven't figured out how money works yet.
Schneibster Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 3,966

11th April 2007, 08:34 PM	#19
mumblethrax Muse Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 691	I was raised in Crunchytown, USA by educated Australian parents who presented a model of non-commital humanism, social democratic political values, and casual racism. I tried desperately to rebel against it, but I settled into non-commital humanism, social democratic political values, and casual anti-racism by my early 20s. At least I wasn't a hippie. When I moved to New York, my circle ran the gamut from anarchists to Marxists. I guess I identified with the former to a greater extent than the latter, but I was more interested in drinking than politics at the time. I started trying to develop defensible political positions after being trounced in a debate (more like a stupid competition) where I asserted something dumb like "there is no morality." These days I identify most closely with the people who sometimes describe themselves as the Darwinian left, even though I desperately wish they wouldn't. I've adopted a few positions that I don't consider particularly political, but which are inevitably interpreted as politically radical. I once had the temerity to say that the Democrats are just as bad as the Republicans, but six years can change a man's mind. PS: Please do not delete this post with the power that you have to delete posts in this thread.
mumblethrax Muse Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 691	Last edited by mumblethrax; 11th April 2007 at 08:35 PM. Reason: Insufficiently obsequious