Idealism to the rescue!

By -
Both "the right" and "the left" suffer from a one-sided focus on an aspect of poverty at the expense of the full picture. The right focuses on agency, and tends to dump the entire blame for their condition on the poor, failing to keep in mind adages like, "There but for the grace of God go I!"

The left tends to focus exclusively on circumstances, which winds up denying the poor any agency themselves, and portrays them like shelter animals waiting for a good progressive to come along and adopt them.

The reality is that both views are partial truths, each of which needs the other to round out the picture.

Although Hegel was somewhat mad at times, teaching us to look at these supposedly irreconcilable divides like this was surely a great contribution to human thought.


Comments

  1. Unknown10:21 PM

    One of the better details of the book "Idealism: A Guide for the Perplexed" is its account of the politics of Idealists. I didn't know that they were so vocal about political theory!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Keshav Srinivasan11:48 PM

    Gene, for those of us who haven't read anything about the politics of idealists, could you briefly explain why a belief that matter cannot exist independently of mind should correlate in any way with political beliefs?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah9:11 AM

      Keshav, Who said they were correlated? Among the Hegelians we find communists (Marx and Engels, whose "materialism" was about economic factors of production, and not about metaphysics), fascists (Gentile), mild socialists (Green), middle-of-the-road liberals (Croce, Collingwood), and conservatives (Oakeshott, Ortega y Gasset).

      Delete
    2. Samson Corwell2:57 AM

      "…Marx and Engels, whose "materialism" was about economic factors of production, and not about metaphysics…"

      Eh? Mind explaining?

      Delete
  3. Samson Corwell12:54 AM

    "The right focuses on agency, and tends to dump the entire blame for their condition on the poor, failing to keep in mind adages like, 'There but for the grace of God go I'"

    It's a really bad right now for "the right" when it comes to the whole issue of the poor. I've never found the political issues surrounding poverty and wealth all that interesting, so I'd like to consider that my neutral analysis of the situation.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Samson Corwell12:57 AM

    And as far as progressives go, I think they can tend to be a little too—I hate using this phrase, because all it reminds of are angry movement conservatives—"bleeding heart". I don't think "bleeding heart" policies are necessarily paternalist, but sometimes it's difficult for them not to be.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Samson Corwell12:05 AM

    …teaching us to look at these supposedly irreconcilable divides like this was surely a great contribution to human thought.

    Is this concept somehow different from the saying that "the truth is somewhere in the middle"?

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose...
Read more