Job Discussion Forums

[maruss]

Anne Applebaums article in todays Moscow Times, amongst other observations, sums up the situation very appropriately:Both Russia and Ukraine are corrupt but at least in Ukraine you can demonstrate openly against things which you believe are wrong and this is what a western democracy is all about, while in Russia anyone who protests is arrested and beaten up,proving it is not a democracy!Especially as the actual numbers of demonstrators were apparently quite small last weekend, why were the authorities so afraid of them??Unless they have something to hide!
The writer, who is no biased hack with a grudge against Russia etc. also wrote an excellent and very well researched book about the Soviet Gulag system which is essential reading for anyone trying to understand Russia and its history.

[rusmeister]

With no facetiousness intended, this stuff is truly important - if this life is the be-all and end-all of our existence.

If, for example, the Christian view of eternity is true, then how we react to whacko stuff here is far more important than the events themselves.

Strong concerns about politics - even when they affect our jobs - will be held at a level consistent with your beliefs about the meaning of life in general.

[maruss]

People in the former S.U. were told for 70 years that God did not exist, although luckily quite a few still secretly held their faith.Although there has been a revival of the Orthodox Church,it has unfortunately become closely linked with the Kremlin elite, while other religious groups have been repressed-even the Salvation Army, who did useful charity work for the many poor people in Russia was banned some years ago!
Banning anyone who has a different opinion from those in power is a very unhealthy principle and a dangerous precedent for a country.

[rusmeister]

Not sure why you say "luckily". From a believer's POV, it could be considered lucky, from an unbeliever's POV it doesn't matter.

Government members' use of embracing the faith is reprehensible when it is not sincere, and I imagine that in many cases it is not. However, to suggest that the OC is sharing in government power is inaccurate, to say it mildly. If people are linking to it, even for some perceived political capital, it does not follow that it is 'linking' to the structures they represent.

As I was saying on the philosphy of education thread - everything comes back to your ultimate philosophy. If your philosophy is pluralistic/relativist, one that insists that there is not ultimate truth - something that many physicists and mathematicians might disagree with you on there - then demanding a government that supports pluralism will probably be your #1 priority.

On the other hand, if you believe that some mushrooms are actually poisonous, you will not support a relativistic view on this issue but will do whatever you can to quash the idiots who suggest that it may only be in your own perception of reality and that perhaps those mushrooms have been treated unfairly... Ideas implemented do have real effects.

Bottom line again is that perceptions of the importance of politics hinge on your ultimate philosophy of life, death, and our purpose (or lack thereof) here.

[sebastienupper]

I�m not exactly sure what you�re trying to say Rusmeister, so I guess you can correct me if I got it wrong.

You seem to be saying that politics is only important if we perceive it to be important, associated with the perception of importance we place on life or death.

You also seem to be suggesting that we can, indeed, render such politics unimportant with our actions. But, for example, there were very many people in Europe in the 1930�s who did not perceive politics to be important and who did perceive their lives to be important and yet who were summarily killed, murdered, or bombed by the various political forces of their region and day. Those belligerent, political forces did view their own politics as important and not the lives of the people they had just slaughtered.

I can agree that people who do not view this life as important, one way or another, will almost certainly not view human affairs such as politics as important either. (Though, this is not the only way to achieve such a perception of politics.)

However, simply because we may see politics or certain politics as a relatively unimportant matter, it does not automatically mean that we cannot or do not express preferences about how we may prefer them to proceed�given the choice.

For example, I prefer sugar in my tea and coffee. This is a terrifically trivial matter. Yet, if it is possible to have sugar in my tea and coffee, I will certainly prefer it, and go to a deal of effort to make it so. The fact that it is not very important does not mean I do not have valid preferences and should not make an effort to obtain the preferred result. Though, it is certainly true that the effort is commensurate with the importance.

I�m not sure exactly where you are going with the mushrooms analogy, though it seems to be tied in with your views on relativism.

All I can say is that it is entirely possible to take a relativistic view on such a matter. Relativism does not state that there are not accurate observations. A relativist will not (ceteris paribus) eat mushrooms deemed as �poisonous� on the basis that this is only your perception of reality and not necessarily the perceptions of others. All that relativism states is that your notion of �poisonous� is relative: in other words, when you say �poisonous� what do you actually mean? Do you mean that eating one mushroom will cause death? Or will only cause injury? If you mean by �poisonous� that just 1 mushroom will cause death, do you mean death to all human beings or some mammals and or just smaller human beings or children? If I am a 120kg male human with a strong constitution developed in eating fungi, does that mean that I could eat these �poisonous� mushrooms and only find them yummy? What if I am a 120kg man and eat 10 mushrooms? Will this cause me injury and or death? Is it safe for me to eat 1 mushroom, but �poisonous� to eat 10 mushrooms?

In other words, relativism does not devalue the accuracy of your observations that some mushrooms are �poisonous�, but it does ask that the �poisonous�-quality being attributed to the mushrooms should be qualified and or the death or injury caused by ingesting such mushrooms defined with respect to quantity and the type of organism that ingests them.

Also, you seem to want to link a general belief in relativism or pluralism, with a corresponding belief in political pluralism, though this is not entirely clear. But in any case, relativism and pluralism are two different things. There are also many forms of pluralism. It is possible to believe in, for example, economic pluralism without necessarily believing in political pluralism.

The point that I would make here, is essentially the same point that Maruss made, and it is that simply because a person or their political party believe they have already found the real and final truth, it does not follow that the violent or otherwise forceful imposition of this truth or its implications is the best, most moral and efficient method of harnessing this �real and final truth� at the political (or any other) level.

In a democracy you lead, you guide, and you take the people �with you�. As Maruss said, it is dangerous and unhealthy for those in power to dismiss different opinions.

Furthermore, anybody clever enough to have accessed the ultimate truth should also be clever enough to deal intelligently and fairly with dissent from that truth, however misguided, in order that all humans can eventually see and enjoy its wonder. After all, even the ultimate truth is useless, unless people can be brought to understand it.

[rusmeister]

[sebastienupper]

I wasn�t suggesting that changing national politics was easy, akin to putting sugar in your tea.

The point I was making is that, even if a nation�s politics were to be seen as relatively unimportant and or even as being nearly impossible to change, we still can and should express our preferences as to how it might proceed (if we wish to). Furthermore, you seem to be implying that we already know or can otherwise operate to the conclusion that it is impossible to change these things. But this is one of the main points that we are still contending! By simply choosing to believe that something is impossible to change�there is a real danger of this becoming a negative and self-fulfilling prophecy. In fact, Russian history could be an interesting study on this exact point.

You describe my bit on the mushrooms as sophistry. Does this mean that you are seeking to re-assert your original take on relativism as being an accurate one? After all, my take wasn�t really intended to be a full argument by itself; it was supposed to be a clarification.

This is another reason why it is strange that you should have simply labelled it as �sophistry.� OK, so you believe it to be fallacious. However, I would suggest that when people wish to propose or otherwise prove that an argument is false, they normally provide reasons to believe so. And if people wish to assert that a certain thing belongs in a certain category or under a definition (such as sophistry), again, they should provide reasons for why this is so.

You provide only the label and no reasons to believe why it applies. It does not follow anything. Anyone can apply a label in this manner. For example: You know that crazy idea that the earth is round? Well that�s just sophistry, since it seeks to defy our common sense, when I look around�the land I see is flat.

In any case, I believe my analogy is straightforward and explains the manner in which the actual concept of something being �poisonous� can be qualified. Therein, it does not contain any grammatical deconstruction. So, it could not even be described as �language parsing.�

I hold that, as far as I know, there are no true representative democracies in the world. (Although I am open to suggestions.) Unfortunately, power seems to reside in the hands of a few individuals who direct the policies of the major political parties in most countries.

But Rusmeister, I�m still not trying to attack your faith. I responded to your ideas, and included some of my own ideas in there too. All I can say is that when people's ideas and beliefs overlap they may well conflict, even where a �conflict� may not be the intention of either party�

[rusmeister]

Oops! Looks like duplicate post!

[rusmeister]

Thanks for the thoughtful reply!

On the first point, I mostly agree, actually. I think it's just a matter of degree. I do think you can change small things locally, which may eventually lead to broader change, but the idea, for example, that changing the American president will make a serious difference is not one that I subscribe to.

I should use a different word, I suppose, because sophistry does technically mean an idea that is actually false. What I mean is ideas, that while they may be true, serve to distract from the general truth, in this case by focusing on exceptions to the general rule. My case is that denying the general rule or making it out to be less important than the exceptions is wrong. The current war in the world is around the idea that absolute ideas should not be tolerated - that we should tolerate everything except intolerance of something. Didja notice the line in "Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith" when Obi-Wan (the representative of the good guys!) says, "Only Siths deal in absolutes!"

Please let me recommend an excerpt from Chesterton's "Heretics" (This stuff is in the public domain):

[sebastienupper]

Hi there!

Sorry it�s taken me so long to get back, but I still disagree and for the following reasons:

You said, �What I mean is ideas, that while they may be true, serve to distract from the general truth, in this case by focusing on exceptions to the general rule.�

But, what actually is this �general truth� of which you speak at this time?

This truth, in this case, is what we were deciding should or could be said about the mushrooms with regard to their quality of being poisonous. This is what we were actually talking about and trying to determine�whereas you have jumped to the conclusion that we already �knew� what the general truth was, in order to assert that the qualifications I originally suggested are really only �exceptions to the general rule.� This appears to be the only basis for declaring these different elements as �exceptions� at such a point.

So, we must consider all the evidence we can before forming our general rule. Therefore, when we do not jump to the conclusion that we already know what the general truth is, the idea that the mushrooms could, for example, be �very poisonous� like potassium cyanide or only �slightly poisonous� like alcohol remains open and now could become a legitimate part of the general truth.

In this way, qualifications or descriptions of relative poisonousness would not necessarily be exceptions at all.

[rusmeister]

Enjoyed your post! (But had to put it off till the morning � can�t do lengthy ones when I�m exhausted, like at 9:00 pm)

On the whole mushroom thing, I think I should point back to my original comment: