|
Post by Cousin Lou on Jan 30, 2020 22:13:09 GMT
There’s so much to say about this and debate but I am getting increasingly reluctant to do so as these sort of threads just die halfway.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2020 22:13:27 GMT
I'm not sure you understand what I'm saying. Often your posts are analytical, rational. They don't betray any personal belief because you're attempting to understand certain behaviours. Why is that? They very much reflect a personal belief I would say, but done in a very academic language or with reference to various high blown thinkers, in order to make them more authorative rather than simply being personal opinion..which is what they are.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. FOLLARD on Jan 30, 2020 22:17:30 GMT
Sometimes, yes. But sometimes they seem driven by a desire to look at global phenomena FACTUALLY - if indeed such a thing is possible.
You get this from so-called independent journalists sometimes. They attempt to find reason behind big changes, movements, and by doing this they bypass opinion altogether.
Like I alluded to earlier - the classic example is 'Trump happened because a majority of voters felt ignored for so long'. No mention is made of the writer's opinion of Trump.
|
|
|
Post by tory on Jan 30, 2020 22:24:25 GMT
Of course we try to assess things rationally to a certain extent. We live in a "rational" society where being "rational" is the core modus operandi
I'll reference Oakeshott here again, because in my opinion he nails the issue with the "rationalist". When I read this for the first time, there was a certain BCBer who, without any doubt, perfectly slotted into his explanation. You should all be able to get it
|
|
|
Post by Mr. FOLLARD on Jan 30, 2020 22:26:55 GMT
Of course we try to assess things rationally to a certain extent. We live in a "rational" society where being "rational" is the core modus operandi But if you feel passionately about something, you don't attempt to find reason behind certain problems. You see the problem and you point the finger of blame. You try to solve it. And these are the people who instigate change. Can't you see what I'm getting at here?
|
|
|
Post by Mr. FOLLARD on Jan 30, 2020 22:27:54 GMT
'of course the reason gay marriage wasn't accepted before 2015 is because....' etc. etc.
Why bother?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2020 22:35:41 GMT
Reading that version of "rationalism," I find the people who try to employ that technique or hold that standard almost always bring their own slights and experiences into their views to bolster them, or bring in selective examples to bolster their views.
|
|
|
Post by tory on Jan 30, 2020 22:36:12 GMT
Of course we try to assess things rationally to a certain extent. We live in a "rational" society where being "rational" is the core modus operandi But if you feel passionately about something, you don't attempt to find reason behind certain problems. You see the problem and you point the finger of blame. You try to solve it. And these are the people who instigate change. Can't you see what I'm getting at here? Sort of. Are you indicating that it is only the people who are emotional who instigate change? Because in Brexit that is the case I guess - Brexit was, to a certain extent, an emotional response to the problem of the EU. There are perfectly rational reasons for leaving the EU (being sovereign in legal and jurisdiction matters is a very big one to be fair). I'm still not really getting your train of thought to be honest. Rational people instigate change too - I'd say emotional people reactto change as a whole.
|
|
|
Post by tory on Jan 30, 2020 22:37:19 GMT
Reading that version of "rationalism," I find the people who try to employ that technique or hold that standard almost always bring their own slights and experiences into their views to bolster them, or bring in selective examples to bolster their views. Of course, it's an individual perspective, as it can only be. To read it as a "neutral" conception is almost pointless - it's an articulation of a viewpoint.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. FOLLARD on Jan 30, 2020 22:40:39 GMT
We make quiet choices about how we choose to react to things. If your first choice is to try to work out WHY, then to me that sometimes indicates a lack of empathy.
It's the old head vs heart thing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2020 22:42:53 GMT
But if you feel passionately about something, you don't attempt to find reason behind certain problems. You see the problem and you point the finger of blame. You try to solve it. And these are the people who instigate change. Can't you see what I'm getting at here? Sort of. Are you indicating that it is only the people who are emotional who instigate change? Because in Brexit that is the case I guess - Brexit was, to a certain extent, an emotional response to the problem of the EU. There are perfectly rational reasons for leaving the EU. Do you really think that was their reason behind it? I don't get the impression that people who voted for it were that politically philosophical. To me, an American, they simply didn't like foreigners in the UK, and this was their reaction to it. It seems a lot more isolationist and racist from where I'm sitting. I've been to the UK four times since 1979, decades apart. The UK reminds me of the Southern states, which I've visited about as many times, since then. I found the South incredibly overtly racist on my first trip, as I did the UK, and much less so each time. it seems they were finally getting it, but have since established voter limitation laws because they were scared it was getting a tad too "equal" for the establishment's liking. Basically, they made it more institutional. That's the impression I get with Brexit. It just institutionalizes prejudice.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2020 23:49:58 GMT
A lot of people didn't have deep reasons for voting Brexit at all. That's the point that's almost always missed in all the analysis. I don't think it's particularly to do with racism either. There's been a constant stream of anti-EU rhetoric from the mainstream right wing media for 40 years and its had a real effect on the way people think.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2020 0:23:00 GMT
A lot of people didn't have deep reasons for voting Brexit at all. That's the point that's almost always missed in all the analysis. I don't think it's particularly to do with racism either. That's interesting. It's such a big economic move I would have thought that people would put a lot of thought into such a jump. For the UK's sake, I was hoping it would be overturned. I recently saw something one of my old BCB friends posted and I was surprised how many Brits expressed that it was going to be inconsequential. I think they're sadly mistaken, but I'm off topic.
|
|
|
Post by tory on Jan 31, 2020 6:30:01 GMT
And again I think G’s analysis is anecdotal.
Look at Matthew Goodwin’s analysis - it is much more complex and multi-faceted than a lot of people seem to believe.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2020 10:22:54 GMT
Nah, don't bother with Goode, stick with mine!
|
|