//
you're reading...
Uncategorized

Change the Path or Change the People?


The Elephant and the Rider. Cover image of The Happiness Hypothesis by Jonathan Haidt

The American Constitution and capitalism are successful because they change the path.

The French Revolution and communism/socialism/collectivism fail because they try to change the people.

Changing the path and changing the people are defining characteristic traits of the Constrained and Unconstrained visions, which is to say of conservatism and leftism.

It causes no end of frustration in me that seemingly 99.99% of analysis and debate surrounding social issues ignores or is unaware of these basic differences, and amounts to little more than riders vs riders throwing rationalizations of their respective defining traits back and forth at each other.

Even the focus on evidence and reason, while laudable on its face, ignores the fact that evidence and reason are always employed in service to one of the two defining traits.

It’s a textbook example of fish unaware of water.

It affects even voting. Rider-based rationalizations of each side aside, a vote for the right is a vote for the approach of changing the path, and a vote for the left is a vote for changing the people.

The rest is noise.

Discussion

One thought on “Change the Path or Change the People?

  1. Given the scientific advances in psychology, cognitive neuroscience and complexity science, we are now aware that ALL ideologies and dogmas are examples of narrow, one-dimensional linear thinking. By definition, this means that they will never solve complex problems in a complex world, but yet both left and right equally cling to their illusions.

    Also, anyone who denies that facts and evidence is the starting point of all discourse, has no claim to the historical linkage with the thinking of Aristotle, Locke, Newton, Hume, Smith or the Founding Fathers. In the definition of Ayn Rand, that person is a witch doctor.

    Lastly, reason has nothing to do with facts, as Sperber and Mercier have demonstrated(in addition to Hume), reason has never been a path for discovery of truth, but merely a mechanism to win arguments, so linking reason and facts is logical fruit salad.

    Like

    Posted by tomrossman2017 | September 15, 2019, 11:43 am

Leave a Reply to tomrossman2017 Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

I Support Viewpoint Diversity

www.heterodoxacademy.org

A politically diverse group of social scientists, natural scientists, humanists, and other scholars who want to improve our academic disciplines and universities. We share a concern about a growing problem: the loss or lack of “viewpoint diversity.” When nearly everyone in a field shares the same political orientation, certain ideas become orthodoxy, dissent is discouraged, and errors can go unchallenged.

An Interpretation of Jonathan Haidt’s Moral Foundations Theory

This sidebar lists a series of posts which together make up an essay relating Moral Foundations Theory to today's politics, and even a little history, as viewed through The Independent Whig's six-foundation moral lens.

Categories

Venn Diagram of Liberal and Conservative Traits and Moral Foundations and

%d bloggers like this: