From: rhinoceros (rhinoceros@freemail.gr)
Date: Tue May 21 2002 - 06:02:06 MDT
[kharin 1]
http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/00000006D8EE.htm
History has not yet begun
by Frank Furedi
<snip>
[rhinoceros 1]
I don't like it at all.
[kharin 2]
I don't recall anyone asking you to. Like or dislike don't come into it.
[rhinoceros 2]
Oh, I do it all the time. I speak without being spoken to and I use deprecated expressions in my alleged rational discussions, such as "like" or "don't like" (but never "dislike"). Bad manners? Incompetence? Who knows?
The worse part is that I usually mean something entirely different. Here, for example, when I said "I don't like it at all", what I really meant was "I am going to argue against this article in the next paragraph".
[rhinoceros 1]
I think this article is almost as bad as Fukuyama's views.
[kharin 2]
Which would be bad for what reason? Other than because you assert them to be so?
[rhinoceros 2]
Be patient. This was not an argument. I was still trying to state my intent and define my point of view. This sentence (hopefully) says that I am not going to argue against the article by taking Fukuyama's side.
I just find it more easy to check an argument if I know its intent beforehand (because context switching tricks abound out there), so I try to do the same thing in my own arguments. I am annoyed whenever I have to read a long article without knowing where it is getting at (such as the one discussed here).
[rhinoceros 1]
The author keeps gazing at his navel, pretending that historical thinking is a product of the "intellectual imagination of humanity".
[kharin 2]
Whereas it is in fact a product of what exactly?
[rhinoceros 2]
Next paragraph.
[rhinoceros 1]
The author makes a point of distinguishing between history and historical thinking, so that he can ignore the true forces that produce history and cause historical thinking as well as the motives and intentional actions of the people or institutions that impersonate these forces.
[kharin 2]
And these true forces are what exactly? And on what grounds exactly do you reduce people to the status of a cipher whose sole capacity is to 'impersonate' these mysterious forces?
[rhinoceros 2]
Ok, I'll give it a try without using big words. Entities such as people, unions, corporations, states and every kind of institutions do whatever they usually do to promote their own interests, using their own means and ways. No mystery here. However, every marketer or advertiser and almost every political scientist knows that there are patterns in their seemingly random behavior.
At a level high enough, these patterns constitute the laws of motion of society. Technology and production play a major role in this. Another important factor is to what extend and in what ways the most ambitious entities can reach out for wealth and/or authority and in what ways the rest can resist and promote their own goals; this also depends on technology and production.
Of course, ideas have also a serious influence on society, but not just any ideas. They have to be on par with the laws of motion of society at the given time and place. If they don't, they will be ignored and discarded as irrelevant or crackpot ideas. (I know this is simplistic and could be discussed more. Here, I just wanted to put things to some perspective.)
Example: The rise of racism in European politics is not due to the spread of some racist ideas. It is due to the discomfort of a part of the people. Under these conditions, racist ideas become relevant and start to have an appeal to some people (and of course, anti-racist ideas too).
[rhinoceros 1]
>From that point of view, it is natural that the marginal role of rationality in society seems puzzling.
[kharin 2]
As opposed to what point of view?
[rhinoceros 2]
It should be clear by now, but let me add something more. Rationality can be defined in various ways. I am not going to do it, since I am not into lexicography, but a suitable definition of rationality could lead to one of the following conclusions:
(1) Social reality is rational.
(2) Social reality is irrational
(3) Social reality is almost rational and tends to become completely rational.
I think this is just a matter of definition, but generally I prefer a definition of rationality which would lead to the conclusion (1).
---- This message was posted by rhinoceros to the Virus 2002 board on Church of Virus BBS. <http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=51;action=display;threadid=25497>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:46 MDT