Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

Liberalism test

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 1 of 1
 [ 6 posts ] 
Liberalism test
Author Message
MyrtonosPosts: 86Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 9:23 am Gender: Male

Post Liberalism test

It is part of the common understanding in most developed countries that the individual human is, or should be, the highest authority, and is the source of all power and meaning in this world. I have come up with a test to see if one is a liberal humanist, this is based on various read world implications of this belief.

Most developed countries are democracies with elections where each citizen at least a certain age (with the possible exception of prisoners) gets to decide for themselves, regardless of fundamental characteristics, such as race or gender, and regardless of level of education, and a winner is chosen.
This is the best system for ruling a jurisdiction. Strongly agree, agree, disagree, strongly disagree.

Customers should have, in effect, the ultimate authority on what gets produced. If enough people want to buy it, it should get produced. Strongly agree, agree, disagree, strongly disagree.

Contrast this with a communist economy where the party controls the whole economy

Each adult should be allowed to decide which consenting adult to marry based on their own thoughts and feelings. Strongly agree, agree, disagree, strongly disagree.

Contrast this with arranged marriage

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder: Whether something can be considered art or not and the virtue of what can be considered art, is subjective. Strongly agree, agree, disagree, strongly disagree.

The main thing education should do to students is try to teach students to think for themselves. Strongly agree, agree, disagree, strongly disagree.

If you want to take the test post there, but for any question of concerns, send me a private message or email me.
Tue Oct 23, 2018 9:03 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2607Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Liberalism test

Frankly perplexing. You seem to have borrowed all your ideas from Harari. I think you should simply cite him in every post as it's his ideas you're writing.

So to the 'test'.


Most developed countries are democracies with elections where each citizen at least a certain age (with the possible exception of prisoners) gets to decide for themselves, regardless of fundamental characteristics, such as race or gender, and regardless of level of education, and a winner is chosen.

This is the best system for ruling a jurisdiction. Strongly agree, agree, disagree, strongly disagree.


Strongly disagree.


Customers should have, in effect, the ultimate authority on what gets produced. If enough people want to buy it, it should get produced. Strongly agree, agree, disagree, strongly disagree.


Strongly disagree.


Contrast this with a communist economy where the party controls the whole economy


Is this an essay question? Describe and discuss...


Each adult should be allowed to decide which consenting adult to marry based on their own thoughts and feelings. Strongly agree, agree, disagree, strongly disagree.


Agree


Contrast this with arranged marriage


Compare and contrast in 650 words...


Beauty is in the eye of the beholder: Whether something can be considered art or not and the virtue of what can be considered art, is subjective. Strongly agree, agree, disagree, strongly disagree.


First clause: strongly agree.
Second clause: strongly disagree


The main thing education should do to students is try to teach students to think for themselves. Strongly agree, agree, disagree, strongly disagree.


Half way between agree and disagree. Not the 'main' thing, just one of many things.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Wed Oct 24, 2018 2:18 am
MyrtonosPosts: 86Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 9:23 am Gender: Male

Post Re: Liberalism test

Sparhafoc wrote:
Most developed countries are democracies with elections where each citizen at least a certain age (with the possible exception of prisoners) gets to decide for themselves, regardless of fundamental characteristics, such as race or gender, and regardless of level of education, and a winner is chosen.

This is the best system for ruling a jurisdiction. Strongly agree, agree, disagree, strongly disagree.


Strongly disagree.

So do you believe some source or authority knows better than everyone eligible to vote on who should rule a country?

Sparhafoc wrote:
Customers should have, in effect, the ultimate authority on what gets produced. If enough people want to buy it, it should get produced. Strongly agree, agree, disagree, strongly disagree.


Strongly disagree.

Again, do you mean you believe that customers don't always know what they should get.

Sparhafoc wrote:Is this an essay question? Describe and discuss...

In each communist country, a party sitting in the capital decides what goods the people get and if people don't like it and want something else, that is their problem.
For example; In East Germany, people sitting in East Berlin decided that nearly everyone who needed a car would get a Trabant. They all had to live with a poorly designed, poorly built, slow, noisy and smoky car. If they didn't like anything about the car, it was their problem. Such a car would never sell in a free/capitalist market no matter how cheaply it were sold and many East Germans abandoned them after the fall of the Berlin wall.

Sparhafoc wrote:
Each adult should be allowed to decide which consenting adult to marry based on their own thoughts and feelings. Strongly agree, agree, disagree, strongly disagree.


Agree

So you agree with this implication of the liberalist belief but not what it means in the field of politics or economics.

Sparhafoc wrote:Compare and contrast in 650 words...

650 words? I don't think so.

An arranged marriage is one arranged by parents, and a love marriage is a marriage to someone else with and only with their permission, not that of either of their respective parents.

Sparhafoc wrote:First clause: strongly agree.
Second clause: strongly disagree

How can you agree with the "first clause" and disagree with the "second clause"?
Wed Oct 24, 2018 4:22 am
SparhafocPosts: 2607Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Liberalism test

Myrtonos wrote:So do you believe some source or authority knows better than everyone eligible to vote on who should rule a country?


Absolutely, but that's not why I strongly disagree.


Myrtonos wrote:Again, do you mean you believe that customers don't always know what they should get.


Absolutely, but that's not why I strongly disagree.


Myrtonos wrote:
Sparhafoc wrote:Is this an essay question? Describe and discuss...


In each communist country, a party sitting in the capital decides what goods the people get and if people don't like it and want something else, that is their problem.
For example; In East Germany, people sitting in East Berlin decided that nearly everyone who needed a car would get a Trabant. They all had to live with a poorly designed, poorly built, slow, noisy and smoky car. If they didn't like anything about the car, it was their problem. Such a car would never sell in a free/capitalist market no matter how cheaply it were sold and many East Germans abandoned them after the fall of the Berlin wall.


So it was an essay question?

I like your potted fairy tale, though. B- for effort.



Myrtonos wrote:
Sparhafoc wrote:Agree


So you agree with this implication of the liberalist belief but not what it means in the field of politics or economics.


It's not a 'liberalist' belief, not least because through much of the period we would consider liberalism having held sway, there was no consensus or stated position in favour of freedom of marriage while arranged marriage, anti-miscegenation, and class based marriage were the norm.

I don't agree with any implication - I answer for myself, and my response was to the question, not to things you think can be extrapolated from my answer.




Myrtonos wrote:
Sparhafoc wrote:Compare and contrast in 650 words...


650 words? I don't think so.


You didn't specify, you just wrote 'Contrast this with arranged marriage'


Myrtonos wrote:An arranged marriage is one arranged by parents, and a love marriage is a marriage to someone else with and only with their permission, not that of either of their respective parents.


And water, is of course, wet. Why are you declaiming once again? Are you under the impression that anyone here, myself included, was unaware of the difference between an arranged marriage and a not-arranged marriage?


Myrtonos wrote:
Sparhafoc wrote:First clause: strongly agree.
Second clause: strongly disagree


How can you agree with the "first clause" and disagree with the "second clause"?


Well, quite easily. You can see I just did it, and I can assure you that it was no trouble at all.

Do you mean 'please expand'?

First clause: Beauty is in the eye of the beholder - beauty, an abstract concept dependent on a vast array of biological and social factors outside of our personal control, is perceived in different sources and in different ways by different people. Ergo, it's subjective or subject-dependent.

Second clause: Whether something can be considered art or not and the virtue of what can be considered art, is subjective - art is a human social practice which follows a slew of conventions and traditions.

Whether something is art or not is an entirely different kettle of fish. For better or worse, there's a consensus on what art is and what it's not. It's not opening a fridge, or watching a train go by, or reading a timetable, for example. What art is remains consensus-dependent.

If your friend thinks a girl/boy is beautiful, you don't say 'no, he/she's not beautiful' - you phrase it in terms of you as a subject, that you personally don't find that individual beautiful - but you cannot declare he/she is not and expect others to conform. Whereas, if your friend thinks that pulling his underwear backwards and forwards vigorously is art, you would be perfectly justified in objectively saying 'no it's not, you twat!'.

The post-truth world is a very odd place to be but looking in from outside does give one the benefit of seeing patterns. If you are thinking of appealing to the idea that 'some people say' X or Y is art, I am not interested in nor do I value what some people say. Some people say up is down, that doesn't make up or down subjective, it just means some people feel special by being different - and that they are - but they still remain wrong.


I see you didn't follow up the last one. Did you need to go check the relevant page in Harari's book to find out what you think first?
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Wed Oct 24, 2018 10:41 pm
MyrtonosPosts: 86Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 9:23 am Gender: Male

Post Re: Liberalism test

Sparhafoc wrote:
Myrtonos wrote:So do you believe some source or authority knows better than everyone eligible to vote on who should rule a country?


Absolutely, but that's not why I strongly disagree.

How could that not be why you strongly disagree.

Sparhafoc wrote:
Myrtonos wrote:Again, do you mean you believe that customers don't always know what they should get.


Absolutely, but that's not why I strongly disagree.

How could that not be why you strongly disagree.

Sparhafoc wrote:So it was an essay question?

I like your potted fairy tale, though. B- for effort.

There is no fairy tale here, this is how it really was in "socialist" republics. If VEB Sachsenring were free to produce whatever sort of car sufficiently many East German car buyers wanted, they would not have produced a plastic bodied car with a (carburetor) two-stroke engine which required oil to be mixed through the filler cap with each refuel and was smoky.

Sparhafoc wrote:It's not a 'liberalist' belief, not least because through much of the period we would consider liberalism having held sway, there was no consensus or stated position in favour of freedom of marriage while arranged marriage, anti-miscegenation, and class based marriage were the norm.

It is a liberalist belief because it follows from belief in individual freedom, as does belief in democracy with elections and the practice of producing goods that enough people want to buy.

Sparhafoc wrote:You didn't specify, you just wrote 'Contrast this with arranged marriage'

I said that so that readers here know what I mean by deciding who to marry based on their own thoughts and feelings.

Note that there are different kinds of arranged marriage, they aren't always forced, but it is my impression that many people in the west think of forced marriages when they think of arranged ones. That is why I explained what an arranged marriage is or at least tried to explain it.

Sparhafoc wrote:
First clause: Beauty is in the eye of the beholder - beauty, an abstract concept dependent on a vast array of biological and social factors outside of our personal control, is perceived in different sources and in different ways by different people. Ergo, it's subjective or subject-dependent.

Second clause: Whether something can be considered art or not and the virtue of what can be considered art, is subjective - art is a human social practice which follows a slew of conventions and traditions.

Whether something is art or not is an entirely different kettle of fish. For better or worse, there's a consensus on what art is and what it's not. It's not opening a fridge, or watching a train go by, or reading a timetable, for example. What art is remains consensus-dependent.

If your friend thinks a girl/boy is beautiful, you don't say 'no, he/she's not beautiful' - you phrase it in terms of you as a subject, that you personally don't find that individual beautiful - but you cannot declare he/she is not and expect others to conform. Whereas, if your friend thinks that pulling his underwear backwards and forwards vigorously is art, you would be perfectly justified in objectively saying 'no it's not, you twat!'.

The post-truth world is a very odd place to be but looking in from outside does give one the benefit of seeing patterns. If you are thinking of appealing to the idea that 'some people say' X or Y is art, I am not interested in nor do I value what some people say. Some people say up is down, that doesn't make up or down subjective, it just means some people feel special by being different - and that they are - but they still remain wrong.

I can't think of anything to say on the first clause.

Reply to the second clause: While I doubt that anyone in their right mind would consider opening a cupboard door art, what is considered subjective is whether something like a representation of opening and shutting a door can be considered art. There may be a consensus on what art is, and to define art according to that is quite democracy like. Note the similarity between consensus and majority vote.

But what about the virtue of art, isn't that still subjective even if there is a consensus on what counts as art?

Sparhafoc wrote:I see you didn't follow up the last one. Did you need to go check the relevant page in Harari's book to find out what you think first?
I had nothing useful to say on it.
Sat Oct 27, 2018 10:35 am
SparhafocPosts: 2607Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Liberalism test

Myrtonos wrote:
Sparhafoc wrote:Absolutely, but that's not why I strongly disagree.

How could that not be why you strongly disagree.


Your question is nonsensical. How could it be? Because why I strongly disagree isn't what you said, that's how.


Myrtonos wrote:
Sparhafoc wrote:Absolutely, but that's not why I strongly disagree.

How could that not be why you strongly disagree.


Your question is nonsensical. How could it be? Because why I strongly disagree isn't what you said, that's how.


Consider me old fashioned, but I am of the school of thought that follows the antiquated notion that when you want to find out someone's opinion, you ask them what their opinion is; you don't try and tell them what their opinion is then argue with them whether or not it is their opinion! :roll:



Myrtonos wrote:
Sparhafoc wrote:So it was an essay question?

I like your potted fairy tale, though. B- for effort.


There is no fairy tale here, this is how it really was in "socialist" republics. If VEB Sachsenring were free to produce whatever sort of car sufficiently many East German car buyers wanted, they would not have produced a plastic bodied car with a (carburetor) two-stroke engine which required oil to be mixed through the filler cap with each refuel and was smoky.



All good fairy tales are how it 'really was'.



Myrtonos wrote:
Sparhafoc wrote:It's not a 'liberalist' belief, not least because through much of the period we would consider liberalism having held sway, there was no consensus or stated position in favour of freedom of marriage while arranged marriage, anti-miscegenation, and class based marriage were the norm.


It is a liberalist belief because it follows from belief in individual freedom, as does belief in democracy with elections and the practice of producing goods that enough people want to buy.



It's not a 'liberalist' belief, not least because through much of the period we would consider liberalism having held sway, there was no consensus or stated position in favour of freedom of marriage while arranged marriage, anti-miscegenation, and class based marriage were the norm.

In reality - something apparently residing in an alternative universe to yours - the modern, Western world didn't really get behind the notion of marriage for love, by choice, for all, regardless of station etc. until after the 2nd World War and was influenced by the 60's individualism which was actually counter-culture to traditional liberalism.



Myrtonos wrote:
Sparhafoc wrote:You didn't specify, you just wrote 'Contrast this with arranged marriage'


I said that so that readers here know what I mean by deciding who to marry based on their own thoughts and feelings.

Note that there are different kinds of arranged marriage, they aren't always forced, but it is my impression that many people in the west think of forced marriages when they think of arranged ones. That is why I explained what an arranged marriage is or at least tried to explain it.



Sparhafoc wrote:And water, is of course, wet. Why are you declaiming once again? Are you under the impression that anyone here, myself included, was unaware of the difference between an arranged marriage and a not-arranged marriage?




Myrtonos wrote:
Sparhafoc wrote:First clause: Beauty is in the eye of the beholder - beauty, an abstract concept dependent on a vast array of biological and social factors outside of our personal control, is perceived in different sources and in different ways by different people. Ergo, it's subjective or subject-dependent.

Second clause: Whether something can be considered art or not and the virtue of what can be considered art, is subjective - art is a human social practice which follows a slew of conventions and traditions.

Whether something is art or not is an entirely different kettle of fish. For better or worse, there's a consensus on what art is and what it's not. It's not opening a fridge, or watching a train go by, or reading a timetable, for example. What art is remains consensus-dependent.

If your friend thinks a girl/boy is beautiful, you don't say 'no, he/she's not beautiful' - you phrase it in terms of you as a subject, that you personally don't find that individual beautiful - but you cannot declare he/she is not and expect others to conform. Whereas, if your friend thinks that pulling his underwear backwards and forwards vigorously is art, you would be perfectly justified in objectively saying 'no it's not, you twat!'.

The post-truth world is a very odd place to be but looking in from outside does give one the benefit of seeing patterns. If you are thinking of appealing to the idea that 'some people say' X or Y is art, I am not interested in nor do I value what some people say. Some people say up is down, that doesn't make up or down subjective, it just means some people feel special by being different - and that they are - but they still remain wrong.



I can't think of anything to say on the first clause.


Presumably because it doesn't conflict with your inner gospel?


Myrtonos wrote:Reply to the second clause: While I doubt that anyone in their right mind would consider opening a cupboard door art, what is considered subjective is whether something like a representation of opening and shutting a door can be considered art. There may be a consensus on what art is, and to define art according to that is quite democracy like. Note the similarity between consensus and majority vote.


I don't think your response adds anything to what I already said, but more importantly, it confers the sense that you understand and acknowledge why I agreed with the first clause but disagreed with the second clause.

Only, you didn't actually acknowledge it.



Myrtonos wrote:But what about the virtue of art, isn't that still subjective even if there is a consensus on what counts as art?


Not if you use the word as most people do. If you've got some idiosyncratic definition stuffed up your sleeve, then possibly it's 'subjective' in your mind from that contrived definition, but not for anyone else.

Of course, I already specified exactly what I meant: subject-dependent / consensus dependent. These are not the same thing whatsoever.


Myrtonos wrote:I had nothing useful to say on it.


That hasn't stopped you before. /shrug
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Sun Oct 28, 2018 5:07 am
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 1 of 1
 [ 6 posts ] 
Return to Religion & Irreligion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests