Submitted by ADefiniteDescription t3_10k8y95 in philosophy
VersaceEauFraiche t1_j5pgy7q wrote
Reply to comment by token-black-dude in On Whether “Personhood” is a Normative or Descriptive Concept by ADefiniteDescription
I agree. Our good care of animals, the environment, etc, should be predicated upon us being good stewards of our lands, not because animals are cognitively capable. A good deal of philosophy tries to decenter the Human in its attempts at systemization. There is no death of the author though, we remain. I will continue privilege being human in my value-system because I am human.
Ill_Department_2055 t1_j5pq8r7 wrote
Without another objective set of reasons, that's not much better than privileging white people because you are white, or males because you are male, or Americans because you are American.
token-black-dude t1_j5qp5fp wrote
If you're american, does it not make sense to prioritize the wellbeing of other americans over the wellbeing of irish or italians (in Ireland and Italy)? How is that racism? When you're american you are part of a community with rights and obligations, you pay taxes and expect certain rights as a citizen. That reciprocal relationship does not include irish and italians or any other nationality. And obviosly, as an american they have no responsibility to take care of you.
Ill_Department_2055 t1_j5qtust wrote
Recognizing my personal obligations towards a person on the basis of some connection we have is one thing. But it's a different thing entirely from assigning moral value to that person. All persons have the same basic moral value which is entirely independent from how I may or may not be connected to them.
Cmon, the world doesn't revolve around you or me. We cannot base moral theory or law on such navel gazing tactics!
VersaceEauFraiche t1_j5prrjr wrote
and I would privilege Chinese people if I were Chinese, or females if I were female, and Armenia if I were born in Armenian. Yes, those things would be permissible, and that is okay. If I am what I am, why would I not support that?
Ill_Department_2055 t1_j5prz7i wrote
>Yes, those things would be permissible, and that is okay.
What are you talking about? You're literally condoning racism, sexism, and nationalism?
AhmedF t1_j5pso2z wrote
Yeah what a weird "gotcha" which is just mask off.
Ill_Department_2055 t1_j5pt60q wrote
I'm taking you by your own words. You may change your stance at any time!
AhmedF t1_j5q1f2x wrote
[I'm agreeing with you - I'm saying OP to you basically thought they GOTCHA! but really it was a mask off moment for themselves]
Ill_Department_2055 t1_j5q1s7h wrote
Omgosh, I just realized you're not the other commenter. Your little icons have the same color and I didn't register further than that. Please forgive my snark!
AhmedF t1_j5q8c5j wrote
It's all good, I assumed that is what happened (I've made the same mistake, so we're basically doofus-twins).
TubularHells t1_j5r2w8h wrote
Racism, sexism, and nationalism are the decadent obsessions of a dying civilization.
Ill_Department_2055 t1_j5r4wmm wrote
That sounds fancy, but what exactly do you mean?
[deleted] t1_j5r9qaw wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j5rfhwz wrote
[removed]
BernardJOrtcutt t1_j5s9127 wrote
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:
>Be Respectful
>Comments which consist of personal attacks will be removed. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted.
Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
token-black-dude t1_j5qba32 wrote
So is everybody, inherently. Everyone prioritizes the health and well-being of those closest to them over the health and well-being of strangers. People spend thousands of $ on their pets and nickles on relief for developing countries.
Ill_Department_2055 t1_j5qdtln wrote
Just to be clear: Are you condoning racism? Why or why not?
And do you actually think we should base philosophy and/or laws on what the individual prioritizes in their private life? OR do we recognize that our subjective preferences are not a good basis for general rules without reference to more objective things?
token-black-dude t1_j5qf987 wrote
It seems that people perceive their surroundings in concentric circles, family is closest, friends and colleagues close, the "in-group" also quite close and strangers are far away and not considered important. It is not racism to fail to place significant value on the lives of strangers, unless one arbitrarily places value on certain strangers because of the color of their skin. So I don't want to legitimize racism, and racism is probably not relevant to the fact that "distant" strangers are automatically given a lower value than close relatives.
I think it's pointless to make an elaborate philosophical system, if it is likely to be ignored by ordinary people, I think that is the case with deontology and utilitarism, both are really far from the way people make decisions in reality.
Ill_Department_2055 t1_j5qgz8y wrote
"Ordinary people" are quite capable of understanding that racism is bad.
And surely it makes no sense to place more importance on someone who lives 100miles from me rather than 1000miles. Even the "ordinary person" would be able to understand that both of these persons are equally deserving of basic human rights and decency.
In fact the "ordinary person" can even understand that their own child and a complete stranger have equal rights.
What you're perhaps more importantly speaking to is personal responsibility: I have a personal responsibility toward my family that I do not have toward a stranger. That has nothing to do with how the law should deal with my family vs. strangers to me however. The law and philosophy need to treat all persons equally. "Ordinary people" do understand that.
token-black-dude t1_j5qicmx wrote
>And surely it makes no sense to place more importance on someone who lives 100miles from me rather than 1000miles.
Of course it does. If I am french I have every reason to expect to be able to enjoy the rights of a french person in the french society which provides a reasonably amount of protection from illness and crime and so on. Obviously that is contingent on me also recognizing that every other member of that community enjoys the same rights. We are in a reciprocal relationship, even if we are strangers. That same community does not include people in Australia, I can demand nothing from them and they nothing from me.
Ill_Department_2055 t1_j5qinad wrote
You're missing the point. I hope.
You cannot possibly actually believe an Australian deserves fewer human rights than a French person simply because you happen to be French.
token-black-dude t1_j5qjiul wrote
No and that's not what i'm arguing. I'm arguing that there is no practical responsibility for me to ensure, that strangers who I am not in a reciprocal relationship with (even as "fictional" as nationality) have the practical ability to enjoy their rights. And I don't think people are willing to accept that there even is such a theoretical responsibility.
Ill_Department_2055 t1_j5qk6ki wrote
You're turning into some strange sort of pretzel here.
But let me try to glean the main message here: you DO understand that Australian people have rights that have nothing whatsoever to do with your personal relationship to them.
token-black-dude t1_j5qkx5s wrote
Yes, that's between them and their government. They have no right to expect me to take responsibility for their wellbeing, just as I can't expect them to care for mine. We are not in a mutually reciprocal relationship
Ill_Department_2055 t1_j5qldxr wrote
>Yes
Cool. Then you do agree with everything I was saying in the first place. Good talk.
VersaceEauFraiche t1_j5psp8h wrote
It is difficult to take the moralization of -isms seriously from someone who doesn't place any importance on being human to begin with.
Ill_Department_2055 t1_j5pt04h wrote
Huh?
Seeking to elevate the status of non-humans means I don't like humans and can't dislike racists?
What the what now?
VersaceEauFraiche t1_j5pu7kf wrote
You are not elevating the non-human, you are denigrating the Human. Feigning outrage is cliché and banal. You asked a question and I answered. You are upset because I did not answer in the way you liked. Accusations of -Ism's (and the assignment of any kind of moral weight to such accusations) is the last refuge for the incompetent.
Ill_Department_2055 t1_j5puk1e wrote
>you are denigrating the Human.
How in the world do you get that from anything I said?
>Accusations of -Ism's (and the assignment of any kind of moral weight to such accusations) is the last refuge for the incompetent.
So now you just don't think racism exists?
VersaceEauFraiche t1_j5puy3p wrote
"How in the world do you get that from anything I said?"
I should have simply posted this in response to every single one of your replies to me. You do not ask questions in good faith. Okay, that is fine. You don't have to ask questions in good faith. If this is the case we don't have to speak to each other.
Ill_Department_2055 t1_j5pv5yp wrote
Oh, look at that, you've argued yourself into a corner for all the world to see, but you can't deal, so you accuse me of bad faith.
C'est la vie. Better luck next time!
VersaceEauFraiche t1_j5pw36c wrote
Same to you as well. Have a blessed day.
kgbking t1_j5sq3op wrote
>I would privilege Chinese people if I were Chinese, or females if I were female
I agree with you. Because I am an American male, I too privilege men over women and Americans over all other nations. America and men first! (face palm and /s)
>If I am what I am
Are you not ignoring how your identities are constructs?
VersaceEauFraiche t1_j5tft9u wrote
Labelling (or correctly identifying, words which you may prefer) these identities as constructs does not negate them. Language, mathematics, computers, the internet are constructs. These constructs are useful. I do not think that your real contention with my identities is that they are constructions.
These identities as constructs still retain power, they still retain use. They contribute to our collective intersubjectivity. Also, there is the issue which proceeds which, the referent or the reference? My position still stands within your own framework, so I don't find it necessary to belabor this point.
Perhaps you point out these identities are constructs in effort to get me to vacate my positions. Perhaps I am willing to do so. The question is, is it possible/are you willing to persuade each person you happen upon, these people who fills our lives and contributes to our collective intersubjectivity, that each and every one of their identities is constructed, is a dissimulation of reality, is a falsity? It would be an exhausting endeavor. I would be unable to do it out of lack of energy, nor do I think I have the animating moral forcefulness to try to convince these people that the way they view themselves (and subsequently how they treat others accordingly) is wrong. Besides, what is Right and what is Wrong? I think most people on this subreddit (and probably reddit in general) don't actually believe in concrete, objective morality. All things should be understood within this context.
kgbking t1_j5vu3jl wrote
>Labelling (or correctly identifying, words which you may prefer) these identities as constructs does not negate them
It does and does not negate them. Any definition of these identities put forward can be negated and shown to be inadequate.
>These identities as constructs still retain power, they still retain use. They contribute to our collective intersubjectivity.
I fully agree
>is a falsity?
For clarity, I do not think identities are a falsity. I believe that identities do exist. I also believe that God exists. However, I believe that identities and God exist as social constructs; they are social products of the collectivity. I also think identities are beneficial in many ways. As you say and recognize, identities contributes to our collective intersubjectivity by allowing us to understand the other as part of a collective "We" and this is important.
One of my issues with identities is that they are often taken for being fixed objectivities, or in other words, they become for many people reifications. This happens when people make claims such as: "I am what I am". They completely neglect how they are in a process of becoming, that their identity is not fixed but fluid / changing, that their identity exists through opposition to a contrary identity, and that all of this is the result of a historical process.
>I do not think that your real contention with my identities is that they are constructions.
From your last posting, I believe that people are criticizing your usage of identity because you are using it to justify exclusionary practices and unequal treatment. I do not believe that abstract identity categorizations such as "man / women", "American / Mexican" justifies such forms of unequal treatment.
On the contrary, I believe that we need to enlarge our collectivities and attempt to include more and more within a collective "We". All of our particular identities (national, gender, etc. ) exist against the background of this collective 'We', but many people overwhelmingly fail to recognize this background because they are entrenched in their particular identity. The more we de-emphasize the particular, the better we can connect to the universal. There is a pressing need to grow our collective intersubjectivity and encompass more people within our intersubjective relations. Entrenching oneself in one's particular identity is a barrier to this. It sets up an "us vs them" dynamic which is grounded in relations of force.
VersaceEauFraiche t1_j5ygxpa wrote
I appreciate your response.
I suppose that my main contention is the one that can be found amongst post-modernists and traditionalists alike, that Capitalism (Capital, TechnoCapital, etc.) is a corrosive force that destroys barriers, particularity, specificity. It deterritorializes and detemporalizes the human experience. I do not think these are good things, and should be combatted when possible.
I understand the impulse and reasoning as to why someone would want to cultivate a larger "We", to be more inclusive with our philosophical and political programs. I also agree that one shouldn't limit themselves to what they are (race, sex, religion) and should put effort into what they can be in regards to art, athletics, academics, etc.
However, this request can be a bit disconcerting. I am told to relinquish my particularities for the universal, this particular person's particular universal. I don't think there is a Universal that has been stripped of metaphysics, so these Universals will carry with it always the unexamined premises (or bias, or baggage, which ever word you prefer). We will be adopting someone's Universal, whether it is everyone speaking English as a second language, neoliberal American global military hegemony, or Technocapital reaching back in time to assemble itself. To, for what Universal should I relinquish my ethnicity, my language, my God?
I believe that the more particular and the more specific a phenomenon is (ethnic customs, religious practice, etc.) the more meaning and weight it carries with each person of that way of life. And since I believe this, it behooves me to search out and to create more particularity, more specificity in our world. It creates meaning, it creates a multiplicity of meanings. This impulse creates diversity in the fight in contrast to the homogenizing effects of Capitalism.
kgbking t1_j67p38h wrote
Hey, so a few things.
>my main contention is the one that can be found amongst post-modernists and traditionalists alike, that Capitalism (Capital, TechnoCapital, etc.) is a corrosive force that destroys barriers, particularity, specificity.
I think this is completely incorrect on many levels. First, barriers, limits, particularity, specificity will always exist. The question is not whether or not they exist, but rather: in what form?
Do you really think that borders and particularity are being wiped out? Do we not live in an age of rampant perspectivism, identity politics, reviving nationalism ("my country first!"), etc.? Are national borders not being strengthen? Is there not growing intolerance of immigrants and refugees? Are more and more countries not building walls? I believe the paradox of globalization is: the freer the movement of capital, the more restrictions on the movement of labor (or, at least labor from the global South countries).
>post-modernists
>
>It deterritorializes and detemporalizes the human experience. I do not think these are good things, and should be combatted when possible.
I find it funny that capitalism (in the form of neoliberalism) has actually strengthened and flourished in the post-modern era. I think that the post-modern emphasize on particularity actually strengthens, not harms, capitalism. Each asserting their particularity against everyone else creates division, isolation, impotence, etc. We end up divided rather than united. Capitalism thrives on this. We are fundamentally forgetting Marx: "workers of the world unite!"
When we see the world through particularity, we become alienated from workers in other countries, men become alienated from women, straight individuals from the LGBTQ community, etc. Each pursues their own self-interest in opposition to the others. We become divided and alienated and cannot engage in collective action. Capitalism thrives on such conditions.
>I am told to relinquish my particularities for the universal
I never said this. I said to "de-emphasize" particularity. I do not believe it is possible nor healthy to relinquish all particularity. We are always particular; however, we can have different relationships to the moment of difference. For example, I can be a Canadian while still existing in unity and recognizing identity with those from other countries. Or, I can be a Canadian who is threatened by and opposed to those from other countries. In the former, I would recognize particularity and universality, while in the latter, I would be so entrenched in my particularity that I neglect the dimension of universality. Consequently, the particularity of the other becomes a threat to my own particularity.
>I don't think there is a Universal that has been stripped of metaphysics, so these Universals will carry with it always the unexamined premises (or bias, or baggage, which ever word you prefer).
I disagree with this. There are many different conceptualizations of universality. Many theorists now theorize universality as "lack". That is, universality expresses itself through absence, exclusion, or lack. For example, all the various nations exist against the background of the universal system of nation states. However, there are also refugees. Refugees are an expression of those who are excluded from the universal.
I think the theory goes something like this: universality only exists through the particulars and particulars only exist against the background of universality. Particularity and universality exist in a dialectical relation, so to say. Therefore, to recognize the universal involves recognizing which particulars are excluded from participation within the universal.
In this conceptualization, universality is nothing that can be imposed, enforced upon people, nor expanded through imperialism. Rather, Nazism and neoliberal capitalism are forms of particularity that are forcefully imposed upon others and falsely presented as 'universals'
I recommend reading chapter two of this book:
http://cup.columbia.edu/book/universality-and-identity-politics/9780231197700
McGowan, a Marxist and Hegelian, explains it way better than myself. However, while I do find the theorization of 'universality' as merely an absence, I am not sure if I fully agree. I have not developed my thoughts on the subject enough to take a strong position in the debate / conversation.
>the more meaning and weight it carries with each person of that way of life. And since I believe this, it behooves me to search out and to create more particularity, more specificity in our world. It creates meaning, it creates a multiplicity of meanings.
I disagree here as well. I believe meaning can be cultivated in both particularity and universality. It is not restricted to one or the other. Rather than "either / or", I believe it is "both / and".
Many definitions of 'universality' involve the well-being of the whole. Therefore, those who find meaning in fighting for the well-being of the whole / collective are finding meaning in universality. In contrast, many definitions of 'particularity' define it, at least in certain aspects, as the pursuit of individual well-being. Thus, some characterize particularity as an egoism in opposition to the collective well-being. Furthermore, these theorists believe that such self-interestedness is vain and unfulfilling. Personally, I think we need to find a healthy balance between the two.
>the fight against Capitalism.
Personally, I think the best way to combat capitalism is to embrace collectivity. The more united we are, the more we can undertake collective action. If we want to alter our economic system, we need to act collectively. Revolutions are the perfect example of this. Unions are another example. In both, there is large scale collective action.
In contrast, each pursuing their own self-interest results in the most extreme form of capitalism. Margaret Thatcher literally stated that "there is no such thing as community, only individuals". Thatcher, like the post-modernists, was an extreme particularist who hated universality. Consequently, capitalism flourished, unions died, and collective action has become largely impossible.
Lastly, capitalism is upheld by individuals not caring about each other. When we care for each other, diminish our egotistical pursuits, and focus on the well-being of the collective, capitalism fails. It is our egoism that upholds capitalism. Capitalism would collapse if everyone in society was a minimalist hippie.
kgbking t1_j6knqkn wrote
Hey mate, what did you think? Do you have some agreements with me? :D
VersaceEauFraiche t1_j6kos33 wrote
I appreciate your thought out response. I shall return when I have the energy to muster. Hopefully in the next few days.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments