Super interesting observations in both the Weird and the Gud. I was especially interested in your comments about the truth and our very common practice of distorting the truth--a practice that is not always synonymous with "lying". I wonder if you are familiar with the philosopher Harry Frankfurt's book "On Bullshit". He draws some really interesting distinctions between lying (which, on his account, is comparatively virtuous because at least it involves some recognition of and respect for the value of truth), and bullshitting, which has not regard for the truth at all (one just says whatever one does to achieve a particular objective). I will attach a brief interview of Frankfurt talking about bullshit. I hope you like it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lArA7nMIqSI&t=5s
Yes, that's exactly the distinction I was trying to dig into here. That's a very Nietzschean idea, that outright lying is almost "more honest" in that it at least must identify what is true in order to promote its opposite. Frankfurt's "bullshit" is exactly the kind of dishonesty we're dealing with more in popular discourse now -- a kind of "lying" that exists independent of truth or falsity, almost its own reality and as such, doubly hard to refute.
I'll check out this interview! Thanks for sharing, I'm not familiar with him.
There's a lot to think about here! I really like the example of the hideous bowl. I'm curious about "absolute truths" and whether there is always, without fail, a completely authentic account of a situation or history. My inclination is to live in the grey area, but that can come with its own difficulties (at best, indecision; at worst, moral unclarity).
On another note, I’d love to hear your thoughts on economic systems like capitalism, socialism, and communism and the current discourse around them. For example, I’m fascinated by promises of economic/social utopia from people on the left AND right (“If we just brought back jobs, lowered taxes and regulations, our town would be completely restored" to “capitalism is irreformable & communism would create a crime-less society”).
That’s no small topic of course, so no worries if discussing it isn’t in the cards, but I thought I’d put it out there. I enjoy hearing your thoughts!
I'm also like you in that I tend towards the grey area, which is usually what introducing nuance to an absolute creates. It certainly comes with its own risks though. There is even a seductive safety in the grey areas; they can act like a no man's land that lets us postpone commitment to one idea or another.
Haha, I can't claim to have any economic expertise, but the discourse surrounding them is something I'm too familiar with. I dislike the moral judgments and emotional appeals that each side uses to argue for its preferred economic system and I don't have enough knowledge to claim why one clearly outperforms others based on technical reasons.
What I do have is eyes, a knowledge of history, and the innate evolutionary skill of learning from and adjusting future behavior based on past experience. If we look at past experience, there's little uncertainty about what the preferred system should be. Capitalism, for all its very real flaws, has facilitated an unprecedented increase in the wealth of individuals and countries in which it's practiced.
Communism reliably leads to poverty and starvation. The desperation that system consistently creates is why I'm a first-gen American. Sure, there are arguments for "real" communism and communism that isn't interfered with by other countries, but this is another extension of utopianism. If your system's success depends on every other country always acting in your interest, it is a dangerously vulnerable system.
Socialism and capitalism seem to thrive when tempered with each other. The current state of capitalism in the US is not ideal for the average person; there's a reason the US is the cradle of so much innovation and hyper-wealth. Putting aside that there could be a bit more in the way of social provisions to individuals and anti-trust legislation in the US, if you want to make a lot of money and push the limits of your enterprising spirit, the US is the economic environment for that.
The Nordic countries are an example of a blend that benefits the average person. Few people who truly want to amass wealth and create expansive businesses prefer a restrictive economic environment. Yet, what these countries lack in the hyper-wealth of a fraction of the population, they make up for with the moderate wealth of the majority of the population. If you want to be comfortable, but still balance that with family, personal pursuits, and community, the Nordic model of socialist capitalism seems to be the environment for that.
Ultimately, whether one works better than the other is difficult to answer when comparing vastly different countries. The populations are different, the culture is different, even the potential of the country is different -- Sweden is the most populous Nordic country and still has less than half the population of Florida. I used to compare the US to these countries in wishing we could model their systems more closely, but now I think that might be forcing a square peg in a round hole.
All of this and I've yet to even touch on the discourse! Without writing you another novel here, I believe a lot of the discourse that places certain systems on a pedestal is driven by many things, but the most interesting to me is one's inclination towards a "masculine" government or "feminine" in the archetypal sense.
Is the government's role to mature you, like the father who decides it's time his child learn to drive, or the mother who protects you from the threat of perishing amid too much of your own freedom? These ideals neatly predict political alignment.
Government is and has been a parental figure no matter what its form. In the Russian monarchy, the czar was also referred to as the "little father," a figure that guided the people. It's something worth a lot more than I can say in a comment, but lately I wonder how much we look to our government almost as a parent, one way or the other. And of course, whichever figure you choose, a child can see no wrong in their own parent.
the putting into practice is the interesting bit, and maybe harder to write about. the hypotheticals are too... unwoven? drama is a good place for showing the practice of truth etc. the golden rule i have found pretty cold - there is no kindness in it and cannot counter 'eye for an eye'. (if you think you should be hanged for stealing apples, then its ok to do it to the apple thief). sometimes we have to do better than we expect for ourselves. sometimes worse too, like when people are 'made examples of'.
Super interesting observations in both the Weird and the Gud. I was especially interested in your comments about the truth and our very common practice of distorting the truth--a practice that is not always synonymous with "lying". I wonder if you are familiar with the philosopher Harry Frankfurt's book "On Bullshit". He draws some really interesting distinctions between lying (which, on his account, is comparatively virtuous because at least it involves some recognition of and respect for the value of truth), and bullshitting, which has not regard for the truth at all (one just says whatever one does to achieve a particular objective). I will attach a brief interview of Frankfurt talking about bullshit. I hope you like it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lArA7nMIqSI&t=5s
So glad you liked this one!
Yes, that's exactly the distinction I was trying to dig into here. That's a very Nietzschean idea, that outright lying is almost "more honest" in that it at least must identify what is true in order to promote its opposite. Frankfurt's "bullshit" is exactly the kind of dishonesty we're dealing with more in popular discourse now -- a kind of "lying" that exists independent of truth or falsity, almost its own reality and as such, doubly hard to refute.
I'll check out this interview! Thanks for sharing, I'm not familiar with him.
There's a lot to think about here! I really like the example of the hideous bowl. I'm curious about "absolute truths" and whether there is always, without fail, a completely authentic account of a situation or history. My inclination is to live in the grey area, but that can come with its own difficulties (at best, indecision; at worst, moral unclarity).
On another note, I’d love to hear your thoughts on economic systems like capitalism, socialism, and communism and the current discourse around them. For example, I’m fascinated by promises of economic/social utopia from people on the left AND right (“If we just brought back jobs, lowered taxes and regulations, our town would be completely restored" to “capitalism is irreformable & communism would create a crime-less society”).
That’s no small topic of course, so no worries if discussing it isn’t in the cards, but I thought I’d put it out there. I enjoy hearing your thoughts!
Glad you liked this edition!
I'm also like you in that I tend towards the grey area, which is usually what introducing nuance to an absolute creates. It certainly comes with its own risks though. There is even a seductive safety in the grey areas; they can act like a no man's land that lets us postpone commitment to one idea or another.
Haha, I can't claim to have any economic expertise, but the discourse surrounding them is something I'm too familiar with. I dislike the moral judgments and emotional appeals that each side uses to argue for its preferred economic system and I don't have enough knowledge to claim why one clearly outperforms others based on technical reasons.
What I do have is eyes, a knowledge of history, and the innate evolutionary skill of learning from and adjusting future behavior based on past experience. If we look at past experience, there's little uncertainty about what the preferred system should be. Capitalism, for all its very real flaws, has facilitated an unprecedented increase in the wealth of individuals and countries in which it's practiced.
Communism reliably leads to poverty and starvation. The desperation that system consistently creates is why I'm a first-gen American. Sure, there are arguments for "real" communism and communism that isn't interfered with by other countries, but this is another extension of utopianism. If your system's success depends on every other country always acting in your interest, it is a dangerously vulnerable system.
Socialism and capitalism seem to thrive when tempered with each other. The current state of capitalism in the US is not ideal for the average person; there's a reason the US is the cradle of so much innovation and hyper-wealth. Putting aside that there could be a bit more in the way of social provisions to individuals and anti-trust legislation in the US, if you want to make a lot of money and push the limits of your enterprising spirit, the US is the economic environment for that.
The Nordic countries are an example of a blend that benefits the average person. Few people who truly want to amass wealth and create expansive businesses prefer a restrictive economic environment. Yet, what these countries lack in the hyper-wealth of a fraction of the population, they make up for with the moderate wealth of the majority of the population. If you want to be comfortable, but still balance that with family, personal pursuits, and community, the Nordic model of socialist capitalism seems to be the environment for that.
Ultimately, whether one works better than the other is difficult to answer when comparing vastly different countries. The populations are different, the culture is different, even the potential of the country is different -- Sweden is the most populous Nordic country and still has less than half the population of Florida. I used to compare the US to these countries in wishing we could model their systems more closely, but now I think that might be forcing a square peg in a round hole.
All of this and I've yet to even touch on the discourse! Without writing you another novel here, I believe a lot of the discourse that places certain systems on a pedestal is driven by many things, but the most interesting to me is one's inclination towards a "masculine" government or "feminine" in the archetypal sense.
Is the government's role to mature you, like the father who decides it's time his child learn to drive, or the mother who protects you from the threat of perishing amid too much of your own freedom? These ideals neatly predict political alignment.
Government is and has been a parental figure no matter what its form. In the Russian monarchy, the czar was also referred to as the "little father," a figure that guided the people. It's something worth a lot more than I can say in a comment, but lately I wonder how much we look to our government almost as a parent, one way or the other. And of course, whichever figure you choose, a child can see no wrong in their own parent.
the putting into practice is the interesting bit, and maybe harder to write about. the hypotheticals are too... unwoven? drama is a good place for showing the practice of truth etc. the golden rule i have found pretty cold - there is no kindness in it and cannot counter 'eye for an eye'. (if you think you should be hanged for stealing apples, then its ok to do it to the apple thief). sometimes we have to do better than we expect for ourselves. sometimes worse too, like when people are 'made examples of'.