I've recently encountered two groups of (I kid in part) neo-Scholastics. The first group thinks that, if you define "sexuality" to have a moral component, you can remove any social problems which may arise from immoral aspects of sexuality (under the dictionary definition). The
-
Show this thread
-
There may (and likely are) be good or bad ways to play chess, or stage jury deliberations, or treat pedophiles; but trying to freight the words used to describe what people are up to with normative judgments just obscures the central normative Q's.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @PereGrimmer
is this the thing where some people mistake themselves talking about something for changing the way other people behave?
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @danlistensto
1/Maybe, in part. I think the problem is just that people expect defining words to substitute for argument. The fact XYZ may be "political" does not carry any moral heft. The idea that something immoral is not "sexuality" says nothing about why it's immoral. IMO, people are
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @PereGrimmer @danlistensto
2/ducking the "center of mass" of the arguments they wish to engage in through the specious means of encoding their values in (non-standard) definitions.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @PereGrimmer
what do they actually want to say? what do they expect to do after they've said it?
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @danlistensto
Re: the "many things that do not seem to be politics ARE politics crowd," I'm uncertain. I just don't know enough. But I'd know more if they just said what they wanted to say, rather than trying to define various things as politics.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @PereGrimmer
maybe it's just a confusion about what it means for an idea to have cultural presence? if it's there at all, if you can reference an idea without having to first explain it to someone, it has cultural presence. anything with presence is subject to some degree of politics.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
you always must evaluate the idea for true or false or undetermined or maybe or contextually true/false/maybe or whatever. immediately following that evaluation is the political evaluation agree/disagree/undecided. sometimes the truth evaluation itself is politicized.
-
-
Replying to @danlistensto
I think truth-approximating & falsity-reduction is always going to be a social endeavor; and various mathematical and empirical results from political science, economics, and other fields will often prove informative. But I don't see how just saying "that's politics" adds much.
0 replies 0 retweets 1 likeThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.