Philosophy Now Forum

Philip Badger finds The Righteous Mind difficult to believe unqualifiedly.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/101/The_Righteous_Mind_by_Jonathan_Haidt

Philosophy Now wrote: ↑Sun Jul 11, 2021 11:14 pm Philip Badger finds The Righteous Mind difficult to believe unqualifiedly.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/101/Th ... than_Haidt

Haidt is one of those liberal types who's not interested in fighting with conservatives, but in creating mutual understanding, if he can. A little more of that wouldn't ever be a bad thing.

lol You make it sound like the antagonism between conservatives and liberals was all on the liberals' side, Manny. Can you name one conservative who is not interested in fighting with liberals, because I can't think of any right now.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jul 11, 2021 11:16 pm

Philosophy Now wrote: ↑Sun Jul 11, 2021 11:14 pm Philip Badger finds The Righteous Mind difficult to believe unqualifiedly.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/101/Th ... than_Haidt

Haidt is one of those liberal types who's not interested in fighting with conservatives, but in creating mutual understanding, if he can. A little more of that wouldn't ever be a bad thing.

Yes, a little more of that would be better. TIme to kill all the fundies and born agains. That would help understanding.

mickthinks wrote: ↑Thu Jul 15, 2021 1:06 pm lol You make it sound like the antagonism between conservatives and liberals was all on the liberals' side, Manny.

No, I just pointed out that Haidt comes from the liberal (not Leftist) side. That's his starting point. He has no say over conservatives, and isn't himself representative of them.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 15, 2021 1:30 pm

mickthinks wrote: ↑Thu Jul 15, 2021 1:06 pm lol You make it sound like the antagonism between conservatives and liberals was all on the liberals' side, Manny.

No, I just pointed out that Haidt comes from the liberal (not Leftist) side. That's his starting point. He has no say over conservatives, and isn't himself representative of them.

Perhaps it would be okay for people to think for themselves, While it is true that we all need to bow to the law and to the society we are in, we should each have freedom of thought within those confines.

If the boundaries are too severe, we should feel trapped and take appropriate measures to free ourselves.

The liberals need to address the boundaries but should not say there aren't any. They should define the boundaries in a way that is advantageous and welcoming. The conservatives can not create boundaries that are self serving but can create boundaries that serve the general population properly.

jayjacobus wrote: ↑Thu Sep 09, 2021 10:48 pm Perhaps it would be okay for people to think for themselves, While it is true that we all need to bow to the law and to the society we are in, we should each have freedom of thought within those confines.

"Within those confines" surrenders control to the collective. So no, I can't agree. And I think you can see why, because you switch your opinion in the next line:

If the boundaries are too severe, we should feel trapped and take appropriate measures to free ourselves.

Oh?

So what happened to "within those confines"?

I think we both know that freedom of thought has to be unconfined by "the society we're in."

Nobody, but nobody has a right to tell us what to "think." They may be able to force us not to voice some of the things we think, and they certainly might compel us not always to act on them; but they've no right to try to control our thoughts, be those thoughts ever so conventional or ever so antisocial.

Nobody gave them any such right.