|
rudatron posted:Foucault was a pedophile who wanted to abolish the age of consent. Woolie Wool posted:Like anybody would willingly read his impenetrable rambling without a professor making them do it. Dr. AA Hazredstein posted:I think you might be posting in the wrong forum. Denying the existence of mental illness would probably be best pursued over here. These are all loving terrible posts. Bob le Moche posted:But if you talk to some Liberals, there seems to be a different attitude where, because liberalism is the rational solution to the problem of "what is the greater good", everyone should logically agree with it, and if they don't, then it's because there's something wrong with them. Why can't they see that liberalism is just the correct opinion? There is a kind denial of politics in the sense that there is no room in this conception of politics for opposing camps except for abberant and irrational ones. No population will really benefit from promoting the politics of the far right or the far left, so only insane or evil people would do it, and as people who recognize what the greater good is, we are the ones who know what is actually best for them. I don't believe that liberalism is immune to what some would call totalitarian tendencies. This is a good post. Lots of poo poo in there to unpack - while my snide response is that perhaps liberalism is just another word for historical ignorance, I don't think any of these symptoms are intrinsic to liberalism necessarily. It's likely they are endemic to the political ideology that currently has a power monopoly on the social discourse in a given society. Even the characterization of political views as existing along a two-dimensional spectrum with liberalism in the middle is an inherently liberal conception designed to make itself look like its got a monopoly on rationality. The truth is that your big three high-modernist political ideologies - fascism, liberalism (in the classical sense, so including American conservatism and libertarianism) and socialism have very little in common. Different basic definitions and conceptual frameworks, different ideals and values, different analytical tools and reasoning processes, different streams of historical origination. None of them are really able to communicate with one another very well because even the same words have different meanings within the different frameworks. Hence, you know, World War 2 and stuff. We are live in a liberal age in liberal societies - the vast majority of us are inculcated with classically liberal frameworks from an early age and taught the history that liberalism tells about itself. Liberalism is the ideology that the liberal system reproduces in people in order to reproduce itself. If you're going with the flow and immersed in mainstream social institutions you're going to have a liberal outlook by default even if you have no real political convictions. Mental illnesses and political ideologies that are not liberalism have one thing in common in a liberal social context - they are fundamentally unable to effectively communicate with the mainstream discourse apparatus. From within liberalism this appears to be a correlation between insanity and 'fringe' ideologies. There is no direct causative link, although living in a liberal society with an irreducibly alien interpretive framework is really loving alienating and isolating, which isn't all that great for mental stability. emTme3 fucked around with this message at 08:55 on Oct 9, 2016 |
#
¿
Oct 9, 2016 08:47
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 13:28 |
|