Entry 2306, on 2023-12-07 at 20:33:32 (Rating 2, Philosophy)
I listened to a podcast recently which tried to turn the anti-woke narrative around from what we usually hear. Those of us who campaign against irrational wokeness are often accused of being negative, and of criticising other people's ideas without having anything positive to contribute, so why not try to say what we do want, rather than what we don't?
OK, challenged accepted...
First, I am not a conservative, but I do think there are well-established traditions, institutions, and rules in society which are worth preserving, unless a very good reason can be shown for changing them. At the same time, nothing should be above criticism, or be ruled out as being a candidate for change.
That might not sound very helpful, because how do you know what is worth preserving and what isn't? But what I am saying is that people at the extremes: those who want to tear down the whole system, and those who want to preserve traditional values, no matter how inappropriate they are, are both wrong.
For example, capitalism has its issues, and we all should acknowledge that, but are the disadvantages outweighed by the advantages? Look at the attempts at alternative economic systems and there is a clear trend towards total failure. Anyone who says capitalism has to be thrown out is probably not very aware of how poor the alternatives are. I would suggest studying the real conditions in communist and extreme socialist states.
Second, I value the individual above the collective. In other words, I am not saying that we don't need to be cognisant of the needs of others or of society as a whole, but in the end, a person should be responsible for themselves, and seek to improve their own lives, within reason.
Note that I emphasised both sides of this phenomenon: making life better for yourself, but also accepting responsibility for yourself. The dangers of collectivism are just too great to ignore, and I think that might be the one aspect of woke culture which is the most harmful (and there are many candidates for that "honour").
Third, freedom is everything. Well, not everything, because there have to be limits to a person's freedom to act, but that should be minimised. The usual way of stating this is that I should have the freedom to do anything, as long as it doesn't disadvantage another person's natural rights.
And yes, I know that "natural rights" are both hard to define, and hard to justify as even existing (where do these rights come from?), but there are norms which are shared across many diverse societies. So we should have the right to be safe from physical harm from others, to maintain ownership of items which we fairly acquired, etc, but not the right to avoid having our ideas or speech criticised, or to force others to follow our political or philosophical beliefs.
Fourth, related to this is free speech. I don't condone free speech absolutism, but I do think we should maximise it. So everyone should have the right to say or publish whatever they want, as long as it doesn't incite immediate physical violence, or reveal any information which would normally be considered private.
For example, I can say I think Islam is a terrible religion, or even that Muslims are stupid, but I can't say let's go kill Muslims, or here is Mohammed's password, now go and hack his computer.
Additionally, any comment made on a public forum should be open to commentary and criticism. Anyone who makes a public comment should be prepared to defend it. I don't want to see stuff like I sometimes see on X (Twitter) where people make a controversial political statement and either limit who can reply or turn off comments completely. If you are confident enough in your statement to make it public, you should also be confident enough to defend it, otherwise just keep it to yourself!
Fifth, I think we need to be aspirational. I talked about this in some detail in a recent post titled "To Boldy Go". I think we have lost our confidence to a large extent, and have become inwards looking and defensive.
Sure, you can fight the "climate crisis" to a certain level, or protect the environment, or send money to the poor, but I would prefer to be working harder on technologies like nuclear fusion, which could potentially solve all of these problems at once.
A space program is possibly the most important thing we could have. When the catastrophic asteroid arrives (like it did 65 million years ago) what's the point of having a cooler climate, equity for everyone, and having everyone dancing around singing "Kumbaya" if we all die? Better to have some of us living on other planets; most will still die, but it's kind of nice to think the species might survive.
Sixth, stop being so tied up with identity politics. I don't care whether a new CEO is a woman or trans or black or all of the above, I just care what they think and what they do.
It's embarrassing for women (or should be) when they do something fairly mediocre yet it is celebrated like some sort of big deal. And it's embarrassing for black people (or again, should be) when they get into medical school with lower grades than others.
Surely the least racist person is one who doesn't even notice that race exists and treats everyone the same, whatever colour they are. And surely the least sexist person is one who accepts that men and women are both very capable, but with some differences in a complementary way. Can we just celebrate this instead of denying it?
Seventh, I don't want to be lead, so I don't need a leader! What possible use would I have for someone who thinks they can show or tell me what to do? I don't have leaders and I intensely distrust anyone who wants to lead.
When I see a person who is doing something outstanding, I might assimilate some of their ideas as my own, but it is unlikely for that person to be deliberately trying to lead. The best leaders are those who just do what is right, or best, and wait for others to appreciate that.
Finally, let's be practical, rational, and moderate. Anyone who follows an ideology, especially a pure or extreme one, is likely to be wrong a lot of the time. Anyone who follows the teachings of a book or other source, might get something from it, but might miss out on other valuable material.
If you label yourself with a title like "progressive" or "conservative" or "Christian" or whatever else, you are restricting yourself. No belief system is always right. A lot of what I believe in might be broadly though of as libertarian, but I don't use that label because it doesn't always fit, and there are aspect of conservatism, progressivism, and even socialism which I think sometimes are correct.
So there are my suggestions for making the world better. Maybe if I could sum everything up in a single sentence it would be this: think carefully before you act or speak, and think for yourself, instead of being told what to think.
Thanks. Ralph. I never knew you were so keen on reading my blog posts!
Comment 3 by EK on 2023-12-09 at 16:58:23:
Labelling is a fraught business. And unwanted labelling can make bitter enemies (like labelling someone an idiot). And few people want to be pigeonholed suggesting that they have no individual personality that gives them "singularity".
But from the perspective of cognitive theory, alas we do need easy classification to understand, order and function in the world.
Independent thinking is good. But it has its limits. If we don't share basic classification principles we’d have to explore everything on our own. Seeing a table for instance, we’d have to find out what its function is, its material, why it has 4 legs etc. By the time we know all that we might be dead, died of starvation because we had nothing to put our piece of bread on. Etc. etc. Something like that goes also for conservative, wokist (or wokarian), Christian, cynic, optimist, Marxist, rationalist etc. It’s just plainly useful to have ready-made categories.
Anyway, appreciate your musings.
Comment 4 by OJB on 2023-12-09 at 20:07:22:
Well, sure, I completely agree that some sort of classification is necessary so that we all know what we are talking about. Problem is when it is taken too far the opposite happens.
I remember discussing some sort of political issue and commenting on how feminism is out of control. The person said "I'm a feminist". But she was a very different type that the ones I was criticising. I should have criticised some of the actions of a certain type of feminist rather than feminism in general.
Also, don't make classification labels your primary way of seeing the world. I have been dismissed in debates because I'm an "old white guy". Sure I am, but have a look at by points if you want to criticise me effectively.
Comment 5 by EK on 2023-12-09 at 20:54:27:
But at least she wasn't talking about penguins and you about computer software. Look at the bright side. You had at least a talking point/starting point in common. That’s the fun when you discover you have different angles on the thing.
I have been called borgu borgu (prestigious old man in Walmatjari (Aboriginal language) when I was 26 years old. Neither one of the attributes was correct (I was neither old nor prestigious), but I was chuffed as this title was a compliment in this culture. Try and take “old white guy” in the same way.
Comment 6 by OJB on 2023-12-09 at 21:10:27:
Yes, I agree classifying people and things into categories is necessary for effective communications, but I think it is given too much priority, and that has lead to identity politics and all its problems.
Yeah, I consider being called an "old white guy" a compliment, but I don't think that is how it is intended!
You can leave comments about this using this form.
Enter name, email (optional), enter number, comment, click Add. You can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies. Comment should appear immediately (authorisation is inactive).
BLOG PAGE