Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

"right" & "left"?

"right" & "left"?
October 13, 2011, 08:33:46 PM
I read various people talking about a categorical or 'inherent' dichotomy between left and right, and the 'clearly defined' differences that motive each. I read that the left just want equality while the right (perhaps without knowing it) promote social structures which encourage diversity, competition (ethnic and economic) and hence evolution? If this interpretation is right, I think it's extremely simplistic.

-----------------------
Regarding the Right, it is although this label is to be considered as something over and above the way individuals use/have used it.

The right does not promote any sort of refinement process captured by a vague association with 'evolution', At least not in my country, and I wouldn't think in American politics either.

1. the right is often CONSERVATIVE, i.e. in the worst sense of the idea of *never evolving an idea*. "Let's say that homosexuality is bad, just because my innate sensibilities tell me that viginal sex is pure and anal sex is dirty and i'm not willing/able to rationally override these evoled reflexes." or "oil is good because it makes our keeps our economy strong and keeps hard working americans in jobs". Conservatives, and i don't mean some ideal notion of a 'conservative', seem in the real world to be all too willing to vindicate 'it's always been the case, so it must be good'. In this ense I simply can't equate the right with evolution in the real world! And I think it's possibly verging on absurd.

2. the right is all about monotheism and hence one world hegemony. Just like hard core marxists, but via a religion about supernatural agents and not a religion about the 'proloteriat'. They will stifle diversity and hence evolution. You can bang on about your pagan Right, but thats a hard core fringe movements and about 0.00000001 per cent of people in the world attach a pagan meaning to the label 'Right'

----------------------

It's interesting to analyse the unlderying cause of, or naturalistic basis for, the left/right dichotomy. This apporach focuses on a set of 'things' humans psychologically value as a species and views politics as arising from different psychological distrubtions. Human beings can't create values. We must be motivated by a definite finite set of vlues which evolved because these values benefitted our ancestors. If you disagree with this point, it should be argued because if you do you're effectively arguing that humans can grow new limbs (psychological limbs). We are machines, in a crude sense, and we run on the equipment nature has given us, which includes the normative equipment. We can use 'reason' to value something we didn't value before, but we will be motivated by a pre-existing moral 'faculty' in the sense that we will be putting something new into a pre-exsting box.

Empirically speaking, humans accross cultures (and indeed perhaps even some primates) have been found, based on cross cultural surveys (not the primates, obviously), to value the following. There are very good evolutionary hypotheses about why we value each, too, which sure up the empirical findings:

1. Avoiding harm/suffering
2. Fairness/justice
3. Authority/respect/heirarchy
4. Purity/sanctity

The above normative 'faculties' comprise the moral landspace of homo sapien. But of course there will be different distrubutions, or different peaks on this landscape, embodied by the particular moral bent of individual human beings. From an analysis of modern politics, correlating political conerns with this moral landscape, it seems logical to conclude that:

left: dominated primarily by dispositions to alleviate suffering and injustice (1 & 2)
right: dominated [primarily by dispositions to uphold purity/sanctity and heirarchy (3 & 4)

http://moralfoundations.org/

*Perhaps the above evolved dispositions give rise, in terms of cause then effect, to a left/right dochotomy in the world in which left=standardisation and right=diversity and competition, but i really don't think the world is moving in that direction so clearly and categorically.

Phoenix

Re: Normativity = Politics
October 13, 2011, 09:56:12 PM
It's all fucked up. It used to be the right who were thinking more for the future, now they're the ones refusing to invest in infrastructure, education and R & D. I have to go now, but perhaps I'll write a lengthier response to this thread later. I certainly agree that the right has nothing to do with dynamic evolution; the right sees capitalism as a veritable roll of the dice whereby the landscape is open / unobstructed enough to allow hard work to decide the winners (I mean to allow god to decide the winners)... it's no surprise then that the elite who given their positions of power can manipulate the system so well promote religion so much. And some of the elite aren't even trying to be manipulative, they're actually dumb enough to believe god chose them! LMAO

Re: Normativity = Politics
October 13, 2011, 10:02:45 PM
It's all fucked up. It used to be the right who were thinking more for the future, now they're the ones refusing to invest in infrastructure, education and R & D. I have to go now, but perhaps I'll write a lengthier response to this thread later. I certainly agree that the right has nothing to do with dynamic evolution; the right sees capitalism as a veritable roll of the dice whereby the landscape is open / unobstructed enough to allow hard work to decide the winners (I mean to allow god to decide the winners)... it's no surprise then that the elite who given their positions of power can manipulate the system so well promote religion so much.

'Right'!

What sense is there in alligning one's politics with the right if they have nothing to do with what the right really is, in the real world? It just taints one's own position in piles of steaming shit.

Read the stuff about intuitive ethics as well if you have the time it's very interesting. It's only good nihilism to examine the cosmic motivation (darwinian forces) behind your own politics.

Phoenix

Re: Normativity = Politics
October 13, 2011, 10:09:50 PM
'Right'!

What sense is there in alligning one's politics with the right if they have nothing to do with what the right really, is in the real world, and hence taints one's position in piles of steaming shit?

It's as sane as believing the political lies in the first place, what can I say.

Read the stuff about intuitive ethics as well if you have the time it's very interesting. It's only good nihilism to examine the cosmic motivation (darwinian forces) behind your own politics.

I may try to get around to it.

Re: "right" & "left"?
October 15, 2011, 10:49:57 PM
I was under the impression that the "liberals suck, yay conservatives" mentality here arose out of some sort of marketing idea: while a mere, as you put it,  0.00000001 per cent of conservatives may be on the right track, the percentage of liberals is a factor 10 smaller, so we should strive to connect with conservatives because there's a slightly bigger comonality.

Of course, the ridiculous hyperboles and plethora of strawmen with regards to liberalism are making it hard to consider criticism of it as more than parody or to consider the way it is used here as anything but a neologism for 'bad' ("Have you heard the new Immolation album? Yeah, but unfortunately it is totally liberal :("  ), and the conservatism promoted here has next t to nothing in common with what anybody outside of the fringe would associate with conservatism, although I do find it somewhat saddening that, in what I hope is merely an attempt to connect with mainstream politics, now and then there actually is a thread on how Bush wasn't that bad...

Re: "right" & "left"?
October 16, 2011, 12:22:02 AM
Just because something sucks/doesn't fit exactly with your political outlook, doesn't mean you reject it completely and go your own way. This is exactly why the political landscape is a joke, why no consensus about anything important can be formed. People decide "hey these conservatives just care 'bout the economy and nothing else; screw that I'm going my own way *cracks open another beer*".  If you see some value in something, and if the alternative is far worse, you align yourself with that something, and improve it.

Re: "right" & "left"?
October 16, 2011, 02:56:23 PM
Ah quit your whining folks. Just because the Crowd has low standards doesn't mean you have to too.

What do the best of the Right have to tell us? What is their criticisms of their antithesis? Similarly, what do the best Lefists have to tell us (if anything ;))?

Then, you organically combine these into your own individualised worldview, which should be identifiable neither as Left, nor Right, nor an on the fence Centrist position. Your position is simply the pursuit of life itself. Learn from whowever has lived.

Re: "right" & "left"?
October 17, 2011, 04:34:09 AM
I'll say this one more time: there are political differences in every country. America has a two party system, it's very simple for Americans: either vote left(tm) or right(tm). Liberals=left, conservatives=right.

In other countries such as the Netherlands and Australia the liberal parties are on the right and conservative parties find themselves on the (centre)-left. There are more than just two parties to vote for (lol, silly Americans living in your third world democracy) and parties can share seats in the ruling cabinet. That means liberals could work together with conservatives against socialists or an environmental party. Or the conservatives might decide to cut a deal with the environmentalists after both parties get the majority of votes during an election and have the liberals and socialists as the opposition. It's a lot more flexible than a two party system. But because of this flexibility the liberals might find themselves on the right (certainly when the socialists are the biggest opposition) and the conservatives could find themselves on the centre (because they mostly focus on family values and other "light" topics) It mostly depends on what kind of deals are made with regards to the way the shared cabinet will run it's business. Politicians don't sell ideals, they sell solutions and those solutions are usually very far from idealistic. That's hardcore politics for you.

All the generalizations that are made on this forum about "left and right" are about as intelligent as claiming the earth is flat. Yes, you can define liberal and conservative but you can't define them with simple terms like left and right. You have to look at the complete picture of a country before you can label parties as left and right.

The terms left and right are on par with the terms good and evil. They are subjective terms that only serve to get the votes of clueless people.

Re: "right" & "left"?
October 17, 2011, 10:20:38 AM
All the generalizations that are made on this forum about "left and right" are about as intelligent as claiming the earth is flat. Yes, you can define liberal and conservative but you can't define them with simple terms like left and right. You have to look at the complete picture of a country before you can label parties as left and right.


Fantastically worded, and too true. The sweeping generalizations brought here sometimes make me cringe.

Re: "right" & "left"?
October 20, 2011, 09:17:17 AM
not having this polarization can be chaotic for some nations...

Re: "right" & "left"?
October 20, 2011, 07:39:17 PM
All the generalizations that are made on this forum about "left and right" are about as intelligent as claiming the earth is flat. Yes, you can define liberal and conservative but you can't define them with simple terms like left and right. You have to look at the complete picture of a country before you can label parties as left and right.

The terms left and right are on par with the terms good and evil. They are subjective terms that only serve to get the votes of clueless people.

Quote
http://www.anus.com/zine/blog/pivot/entry.php?id=420

The fundamental ideal of liberalism is equality.
The fundamental ideal of conservatism is harmony.

Harmony requires that not all notes be the same. It requires that some rise above, and some below, but that all serve the same role. It is not deconstructive like liberalism, but its resulting insistence on inequality and evolution (social Darwinism, religion, values, competition) is anathema to liberals, who insist on personal equality at the expense of all else.

Re: "right" & "left"?
October 20, 2011, 07:41:00 PM
The world is complex and doesn't usually fit one person's philosophy of history with it's procomations of 'essences'.

For many, MANY, liberals (insert: lefties), equality means ignoring differences between human beings that play no functional role and which other people would invoke for their own benefit (I am white, so I only want to compete economically, athletically, etc with other whites because I will do better that way... Unconsciously I see that those chinese people are more motivated than me). This is so people can then be ranked according to how smart, skillful, productive they are and not according to which god they pray to at night. Whereas a conservative will react psychologically to individuals who are outside the group and exclude some people who are smarter, fitter, happier...

Re: "right" & "left"?
October 22, 2011, 06:39:32 AM
I read various people talking about a categorical or 'inherent' dichotomy between left and right, and the 'clearly defined' differences that motive each.

The left = individual feelings

The right = consequences

It's that simple.

Re: "right" & "left"?
October 22, 2011, 08:21:10 AM
I really can't tell if you're trolling or not. Such oversimplification, and it really is, is exactly what the OP disagreed with.

Re: "right" & "left"?
October 22, 2011, 09:10:44 AM
I really can't tell if you're trolling or not. Such oversimplification, and it really is, is exactly what the OP disagreed with.

They've convinced you to go looking in the wrong places again.

"Oversimplification" is not a category. Sky is blue, grass is green.

While you're looking at surface attributes, and he's complaining about the flavor of the language used, I'm interested in...

(drum roll)

the actual differences between left and right as philosophies

...well, I think we all learned something today.