The Open Society — Banno

What makes you think the "Open Society" is even something to be desired? :s

Are you worth talking to? Your views have been shown to be incoherent, yet you persist. And persist. And persist.

Your motivation is fear, your politics is nasty. Your argument too often a shallow tu quoque or loaded question.

Your views have been shown to be incoherent, yet you persist. And persist. And persist. — Banno

Show me where they have been shown to be incoherent. I think quite the contrary.

Show me where they have been shown to be incoherent. I think quite the contrary. — Agustino

Not a promising reply. Do you want to discuss philosophy or score points? Nowadays i don;t have time to post as often as I once did, and so am at a clear disadvantage in the points-scoring game.

If you want to talk about the open society, start a conversation instead of a confrontation.

Your motivation is fear, your politics is nasty. — Banno

I find yours nasty and immoral too on top of that. I think in as much as you engaged in dialogue I showed that you have no reason of presuming your values are everyone else's values, and we're at least equal one to each other in fighting for different values.

And by the way, your motivation is fear too. You fear that your world, as you know it, dominated by progressive/liberal ideology is coming to an end. For me it's not fear driving me but hope - my world is yet to be born, it is fresh and still young.

I offered a critique of democracy, which hasn't been rebutted in this thread, by you or anyone else. You should look back a few posts for it. Instead I was given ad hominems and dismissive replies by Wayfarer and Moliere, who refused to counter my points.

Do you want to discuss philosophy or score points? — Banno

Well I'm sure here to discuss things if you're actually going to discuss them.

If you want to talk about the open society, start a conversation instead of a confrontation. — Banno

Well I disagree with "open society" for the same reasons I disagree with democracy, which I've already listed before. Neither you nor anyone else offered any response to that critique.

So you try to engage in a discussion by doing exactly what was pointed out as uninviting.

So you try to engage in a discussion by doing exactly what was pointed out as uninviting. — Banno

You're a very strange fellow. I merely said back to you what you said to me, and now that's uninviting. Look Banno, all these look like excuses to me - excuses for not being able to mount an intellectual defence for your worldview and values.

Which pretty much brings us back to what I recall was my first reply to you: Why should I care what you think?

Why should I care what you think? — Banno

If you don't care what other people think, then get ready to lose in the political arena, it's quite simple.

I've seen that you are a scared fascist and hypocritical christian. I have not seen that there is something interesting to be had from further conversation.

But notice your non sequitur from "why should I care what Agustino thinks" to "why should I care what anyone thinks". Again, your style is more trollish than interesting.

The only reason you have my attention now is that I am procrastinating.

I've seen that you are a scared fascist and hypocritical christian. I have not seen that there is something interesting to be had from further conversation. — Banno

Your activism Banno shows me that you are scared. You (and by this I mean progressive/liberals) have everything to lose, and nothing to gain. I have nothing to lose and everything to gain.

But notice your non sequitur from "why should I care what Agustino thinks" to "why should I care what anyone thinks" — Banno

Well if you apply such a principle to me, why would you not apply it to many other people, presumably those who are like me, and there's many of us out there?

You talk about being scared, and you run to protest pissing in your pants that you're going to lose your world? Pff. Give me a break. >:O

Thanks for again showing why you are not worth entering into discussions with.

Back on topic, consider the following which Madeleine K. Albright placed on her Facebook page this morning.

Most of you have seen the draft executive order on immigration and refugees that the President is expected to sign. If signed as written, it would ban Syrian refugees from entering our country, suspend the entire refugee program for 120 days, cut in half the number of refugees we can admit, and halt all travel from certain Muslim countries.
Having looked at the draft, I felt I had no choice but to speak out against it in the strongest possible terms.
In doing so, I want to make three points.
First, it is a cruel measure that represents a stark departure from America's core values. We have a proud tradition of sheltering those fleeing violence and persecution, and have always been the world leader in refugee resettlement. As a refugee myself who fled the communist takeover of Czechoslovakia, I personally benefited from this country’s generosity and its tradition of openness. This order would end that tradition, and discriminate against those fleeing a brutal civil war in Syria. It does not represent who we are as a country.
Second, this measure would directly harm our security interests. As you all know, the humanitarian crisis in the Middle East poses an extraordinary threat to the stability of that region and to our allies in Europe. We need to be doing more, not less, to alleviate the problem – and one important way to do that is to accept a modest number of thoroughly vetted refugees. The signing of this executive order would send a terrible signal to our allies in Europe and in the Middle East, who will now have an excuse to do less. It will also be a gift to ISIS, which has been telling Muslims around the world that the west is their enemy. I have no doubt they will use this order as propaganda to support that claim.
Third, there is no data to support the idea that refugees pose a threat. This policy is based on fear, not facts. The refugee vetting process is robust and thorough. It already consists of over 20 steps, ensuring that refugees are vetted more intensively than any other category of traveler.
The process typically takes 18-24 months, and is conducted while they are still overseas. I am concerned that this order’s attempts at “extreme vetting” will effectively halt our ability to accept anyone at all. . When the administration makes wild claims about Syrian refugees pouring over our borders, they are relying on alternative facts – or as I like to call it, fiction.
The truth is that America can simultaneously protect the security of our borders and our citizens and maintain our country’s long tradition of welcoming those who have nowhere else to turn. These goals are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, they are the obligation of a country built by immigrants.
Refugees should not be viewed as a certain burden or potential terrorists. They have already made great contributions to our national life. Syrian refugees are learning English, getting good jobs, buying homes, and starting businesses. In other words, they are doing what other generations of refugees – including my own – did. And I have no doubt that, if given the opportunity, they will become an essential part of our American fabric.
Yesterday, I tweeted about my own background. I was raised a Catholic, married an Episcopalian and then found out I was Jewish. I said in my tweet that should a registry of Muslims be instituted by this administration, I would add my name to such a list.
Such a registry is not included in the language of this order, but by targeting Muslim-majority countries for immigration bans and by expressing a clear preference for refugees who are religious minorities, there’s no question this order is biased against Muslims. And when one faith is targeted, it puts us all at risk.
When I came here as a child, I will never forget sailing into New York Harbor for the first time and seeing the Statue of Liberty. It proclaims “give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” There is no fine print on the Statue of Liberty, and today she is weeping because of the actions of President Trump.

(My bolding).

So here's my question: given the Trump admin's propensity for co-opting the language of their opponents, is it reasonable for the opponents to co-opt their language? It seems so to me, along the lines proposed by Žižek in the article discussed above, of pointing out the incoherence of Trump's policies.

What is the process when an executive order is illegal? We have no equivalent here, as neither the Governor General nor the Queen use anything equivalent to that privilege. That it can be so in the USA strikes me as a breach of the Separation of the Powers.

Absurd posturing. You have no less to lose in political conflict than a progressive or a liberal. If you lose, you are stuck with a society with values and culture you cannot stand. Even if a liberal or progressive society is a continuation of a status quo, it still means the value and culture you want have been lost. If you had nothing to lose in this conflict, you would not be fighting. You wouldn't even care about politics.

Like much of you political analysis, you cannot see past the projection of image, which supposedly amounts to status or moral victory. A lot of time you remind me of the naive and lazy progressives I encounter for time-to-time, who think just shouting: "Down with capitalism/patriarchy/kyriarchy, etc." amount to delivering the functioning alternative. The world and society are far more complex than worshipping tyrants who masquerade as philosopher kings.

Absurd posturing. You have no less to lose in political conflict than a progressive or a liberal. If you lose, you are stuck with a society with values and culture you cannot stand. Even if a liberal or progressive society is a continuation of a status quo, it still means the value and culture you want have been lost. — TheWillowOfDarkness

No it doesn't. Something cannot be lost unless it exists in the first place. As my society doesn't currently exist, it cannot be lost, it can only be gained.

If you had nothing to lose in this conflict, you would not be fighting. You wouldn't even care about politics. — TheWillowOfDarkness

I care about politics because I hope and desire for such a society. Not because I stand to lose something that I haven't already lost, but rather because I stand to gain.

The world and society are far more complex than worshipping tyrants who masquerade as philosopher kings. — TheWillowOfDarkness

I don't think DJT is a philosopher king. For the record, as I've said before, Trump fits somewhere between timocracy and oligarchy - and that's much better than Obama, who fits squarely in the democratic distinction, as Plato drew them.

That's pure bullshit. Though, I will say it is consistent with you aversion to recognising loss. I'll use an example you might understand: abortion. Just because a growing child has yet developed and be born, it doesn't mean they aren't lost if the pregnancy is terminated. Loss doesn't require existence to occur. Something can be lost merely by the world not allowing it to exist in the first place.

I don't think DJT is a philosopher king. For the record, as I've said before, Trump fits somewhere between timocracy and oligarchy - and that's much better than Obama, who fits squarely in the democratic distinction, as Plato drew them. — Agustino

My point wasn't about Donald Trump. It's about the very concept of the philosopher king. They are incoherent. No government or political system functions or is born from one person's authority. That's a illusion, a posturing to assert status, rather than an understanding of how the political system works.

Those who think politics works that way are tyrants, not because of a specific organisation or authority, but because they believe society functions by their authority alone. Plato's political analysis is naive, based on the posturing and ego of leaders, rather than on looking at governance itself.

That's pure bullshit. Though, I will say it is consistent with you aversion to recognising loss. I'll use an example you might understand: abortion. Just because a growing child has yet developed and be born, it doesn't mean they aren't lost if the pregnancy is terminated. Loss doesn't require existence to occur. Something can be last merely by the world not being allowed to exist in some way in the first place. — TheWillowOfDarkness

The child is a human being whether he is born or not once he is conceived. So yes, there is the loss of a human being. But if the child isn't given birth conceived in the first place, because say the mother and the father don't want to have children, then is the child lost? :s That would be the height of incoherency.

No government or political system functions or is born from one person's authority. That's a illusion, a posturing to assert status, rather than an understanding of how the political system works. — TheWillowOfDarkness

In my experience, leadership always involves the person's authority in practice.

Since inauguration, Amazon's #1 best seller is Orwell's 1984.

True or alternate fact?

It was on TV, so it has to be true.

Well. it's the best seller now. I don't know how long it has been.

Since inauguration, Amazon's #1 best seller is Orwell's 1984.

Animal Farm may also enjoy renewed interest.

The arrival of the pig-man embryo might suggest a progression from post truth to post human to post moral by way of pragmatics

Interesting. I wonder if the purchasers are reading it.

Good question. I read it a long time ago. I'm not overly in need of a re-read. Seems like the text would be on the internet somewhere.

Those who think politics works that way are tyrants, not because of a specific organisation or authority, but because they believe society functions by their authority alone. Plato's political analysis is naive, based on the posturing and ego of leaders, rather than on looking at governance itself. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Plato's political analysis is not naive, it's simply the only analysis that is possible from the reference frame of a decaying democracy (remember that Plato lived in a decaying democracy, which sentenced Socrates to death for "corrupting the youth"). The Republic was Plato's answer to such a democracy.

Since today we live in a decaying democracy, we are in a similar situation to the one Plato was in. We're rebelling against democracy, because democracy has lost any aristocratic principle - it has flattened. Democracy has become like a heavy anchor, that we, the man struggling to get out of the water, finds tied around his neck and pulling him perpetually down. It is in this sense, and in this sense only that Plato speaks against democracy - hence why he counts as its vices the ascent of the poor in demanding and expecting better without doing anything for it (or relying on empty social standards, such as education, and then demanding to be given everything simply because they have finished school/university), the valuation of the easy path - the immoral path - giving in to our base lusts, hedonism/consumerism, being consumed by desires, and being governed by the notion of freedom which is equivalent to being able to do whatever you want, whenever you want. Democracy decays when people in weakness look to the state - not to each other - for help. When the state is expected to do so and so for them, and they are expected to be given so and so. Civilisation is, to a certain extent, anti-thetical to "enlightened democracy".

Plato could not see the idea of an "enlightened democracy" - because the people of his time, just like the people of our time, cannot handle it. Freedom is so misunderstood that the entire notion of an enlightened democracy appears incoherent. But the ideal state is not the philosopher king - the ideal state is the democratically enlightened community where people are actively engaged with and respectful of each other and their mutual interests. The community which naturally adopts moral standards, perceiving it as the best way to live, which naturally restrains its desires and lives close to the earth. The philosopher king is the answer once morality has already disappeared...

"When the Great Dao is forgotten, kindness and morality arise; when wisdom and intelligence are born, the great pretense begins; when there is no peace in the family, filial piety and devotion arise; when the country is confused and in chaos, the loyal ministers appear. Give up sainthood, renounce wisdom, and it will be a hundred times better for everyone. Give up kindness, renounce morality, and men will rediscover filial piety and love. Give up ingenuity, renounce profit, and bandits and thieves will disappear. These three are outward forms alone, they are not sufficient in themselves, it is more important to see the simplicity, to realise one's true nature" - DaoDeJing

So yes, Plato, just like me, is merely reacting to his times. Our focus on ethics and morality exists because we have no ethics and no morality, and indeed it is the absence of such in society that pushes one towards them.

That's why it's naive. It can't see beyond authoritarian reaction, thought to be a direct imposition of the leaders will. All it amounts to is an apology for power, an image that specifies the next scapegoat, an illusion of greatness when all that's happened is a shift in social status and a rubber stamp for tyranny-- the self-confirming aristocratic illusion which turns them blind to the world.

A philosopher king is not a solution to a decaying society. Community is needed to that purpose. Whether that be in local relationships actions (which the post-industrial has has difficulty with because of a surplus labour force; it has to run the trivial and wasteful to keep people employed) or in international relations and power (e.g. obtaining resources, eliminating invasion threats, etc.). This isn't really a question of government type (one can have dictators who get their populace drunk on freedoms and recreations), but of what a society does.

The philosophy king thinks social change can be achieved inactivity, by nothing more than his decree and speech. Dazzled by his visions of grandeur and self-importance ( "I am the great man who will save this society" ), the philosopher king forgets he's (supposedly) leading a community.

That's why it's naive. It can't see beyond authoritarian reaction, thought to be a direct imposition of the leaders will. All it amounts to is an apology for power, an image that specifies the next scapegoat, an illusion of greatness when all that's happened is a shift in social status and a rubber stamp for tyranny-- the self-confirming aristocratic illusion which turns them blind to the world.

A philosopher king is not a solution to a decaying society. Community is needed to that purpose. Whether that be in local relationships actions (which the post-industrial has has difficulty with because of a surplus labour force; it has to run the trivial and wasteful to keep people employed) or in international relations and power (e.g. obtaining resources, eliminating invasion threats, etc.). This isn't really a question of government type (one can have dictators who get their populace drunk on freedoms and recreations), but of what a society does.

The philosophy king thinks social change can be achieved inactively, by nothing more than his decree and speech. Dazzled by his visions of grandeur and self-importance ( "I am the great man who will save this society" ), the philosopher king forgets he's (supposedly) leading a community. — TheWillowOfDarkness

I don't read it that way. The PK is not a tyrant, Plato has another category for tyranny. The PK and the surrounding aristocracy are those dedicated to the re-establishment of their community by putting back the aristocratic tendency that has disappeared from the decaying democracy (indeed this is precisely why it is decaying). But this putting back the broken pieces of the vase will never make the vase the same as it was before it broke, and this is what Plato didn't understand. Paradise regained isn't the same as the initial Paradise.

But there is no alternative. The PK and the aristocracy are the only ones left who can reform community. But even their attempt seems bound for failure, and the only thing that ends up restoring community is its death and re-birth from ground zero. Indeed, we have seen this many times through history, with many empires, kingdoms, villages, and so forth.

Today's installment is: the rationale for the campaign of organised xenophobia and racial discrimination that Trump has passed by executive decree is that the subjects involved represent 'a threat to the security of Americans'. These are the explicit words used by one of Trump's apparatchiks - 'we're not discriminating against Muslims, we are safeguarding Americans against harm'.

Isn't this the way of all tyranny? By grounding itself in supposed 'threats to the citizens', or 'threats to the security of the state'. (Never mind that it is a statistical certainty that in the 72 hours since the order was signed, there will have been nearly 100 Americans shot dead by other Americans. Talk about that 'threat to American safety', however, and you'll find yourself being called 'an enemy of freedom' on other grounds altogether.)

I don't read it that way. The PK is not a tyrant, Plato has another category for tyranny. The PK and the surrounding aristocracy are those dedicated to the re-establishment of their community by putting back the aristocratic tendency that has disappeared from the decaying democracy (indeed this is precisely why it is decaying). — Agustino

The philosopher king has to lay the foundations for the new society. I'd say he is more of a visionary then anything else, he must see far into the future, with a plan, to direct the coming into being of the new society. Remember, the task of the philosopher king is not to rule over society, but to lead the people out of the cave, to help them to see the light. Morality for Plato is tied up with eugenics, as an attempt to direct evolution. Jesus Christ could be understood as a sort of philosopher king. Religion made him into a god. But it would be impossible to have a philosopher king without involving religion.