Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Good_Egg]

Fried Egg - thank you for your quote. (Writing about left and right from someone called Pinker ? Nominative determinism at work ?)

The "Tragic vision" seems to me to describe a laissez-faire conservative worldview - a perspective on history which says that our inherited culture is wiser than we are.

Contrast that with Count Lucanor's "humanistic project" which wants society to actively determine how much income everyone should get.

There's a real rationale there for a position that is clearly opposed to CL's brand of leftism.

And yet, there are trade unionists who idolise past industrial relations agreements in a way that fits within that Tragic view. Whom I would classify as conservative leftists. Which can happen wherever there is a tradition of leftism. So the idea that conservative/radical is the underlying motor or defining characteristic of left/right is clearly false.

[Fried Egg]

And yet, there are trade unionists who idolise past industrial relations agreements in a way that fits within that Tragic view. Whom I would classify as conservative leftists. Which can happen wherever there is a tradition of leftism. So the idea that conservative/radical is the underlying motor or defining characteristic of left/right is clearly false.

Perhaps they are not leftists? Or are they really "conservative" lefists if they are lamenting for institutions that are no longer with us (not in the form they would like) but were only with us for a very brief period of time in our very recent history? Really, they are still advocating for a quite radical social change. "Radical" because they are difficult to sustain without top down government controls intent on an industrial policy that allows for their protection.

To quote Count Lucanor: "In general, leftism encompasses all progressive tendencies, advocating for social change to improve society as a whole..."

Despite his disparaging view of Sowell's categorisation, it fits quite nicely with the Unconstrained or Utopian views articulated above.

[Pattern-chaser]

And if we achieve any 'success' in compressing reality, what will we gain? What could we learn from such a deformed thing?

Simple models trade-off comprehensibility and ease of application against level of fit to reality.

A one-dimensional model (think of linear regression on one variable) may - depending on the dataset you're dealing with - explain quite a lot (maybe >50%) of the variation in the data. What you've learned with such a model is a substantial proportion of what there is to learn.

I don't think it makes sense to be against simple models in principle. You can reasonably be against complacency, or against ignorance of the limitations of the model. But the best trade-off (between simplicity and adequacy) seems like something that can only be judged on a case-by-case basis.

It has long been my conviction that simplicity is a helpful and laudable aspiration. Where it applies, of course. Because compressing reality is a bit of a big deal, in some ways at least. Setting aside lossless compression — as in zip files, and the like — if we "compress" reality, we lose data. And this loss is usually irreversible. Losing data seems like something we would wish to avoid, if we can.

But here, we are discussing simplifications we might see as necessary. When reality is just to complex for us to grok in one go, we "simplify" it, for our own convenience of understanding. There is no justification for this; it's just plain wrong. But when you have little or no choice, as we have here, then I suppose all we can attempt is to minimise the damage done by the compression, if we can. As you say, judged on a case-by-case basis.

[Pattern-chaser]

So the idea that conservative/radical is the underlying motor or defining characteristic of left/right is clearly false.

We have considered a few of these pairs of complements. "Conservative/radical", revolutionary vs. reactionary, and so on. I think they all contribute to what we're discussing here. And, lumped together, I think we use the terms left and right, together, to represent all of these aspects. Is that not a helpful way of looking at things? It seems so to me...

[Count Lucanor]

If Sowell thinks there is a strictly-defined ideology of the left vs a strictly-defined ideology of the right, he’s simply dead wrong.

No one here, nor Stephen Pinker (which should be clear from the first bit of my quote from him above) and least of all Thomas Sowell believes this is any kind of "strictly-defined" categorisation. So the existence of counter examples should be expected and does not necessarily conflict with the possibility that as broad, loose generalisations, there may be some validity to them.

There are generalisations and loose generalisations. It would surprise me that two distinguished authors wrote books with loose generalisations and just some validity, while also claiming that they are showing “the best theory to date”. They are supposed to offer deep insights, not ambiguous, loose claims. What type of generalisation are we talking about here? You can generalize the common attributes of all horses to come up with the essence of being a horse, which makes it distinct from a lion. Yet, you can find common elements among horses and lions that make the category mammals, or animals, or living beings, etc. In any case, putting together attributes that do not make a class by necessity, distinguishable from another class, becomes an arbitrary classification. A broad generalisation still needs to point to a set of necessary attributes that distinguish that class from others (animals from plants, mammals from fish, etc.) and from other levels of classification (mammals and fish among animals or plants and animals among living beings). That should work for the distinction between left and right, too. It seems that Sowell and Pinker’s classifications are at the level of “living beings”, when we are looking for the level of “mammals” or perhaps “horses”. Differences among horses are not “counterexamples” of horseness, but differences among animals could clearly deny the possibility of something being a horse.

Again, it can easily be demonstrated that people at both sides of the ideological spectrum can hold any of those visions.

Although I would agree that it's likely that many will deviate from those views at least to some degree, I find it hard to imagine that anyone who regards themselves as being firmly on the left would read that passage describing the "Tragic View" and find themselves agreeing with most of it. That just doesn't ring true to me but that's just how I feel about it.

There are several problems with Pinker and Sowell’s approach that make their dichotomy entirely false, and should be enough to dismiss it. One could agree with some or many of the statements presented as attributes of two distinct sides, but that doesn’t mean they actually form those two distinct fields. It is questionable that it is all reducible to “views on human nature”. Perhaps that could be one identifiable marker, but most likely it would have to consider several other criteria. Since they don’t offer any argument to support their view, anyway, I will leave that aside. The fact is that many of their descriptions,
which supposedly are opposed, are easily reconciled in reality. I can take things from the so-called Tragic and Utopian Visions at the same time and still be firmly on the left.

I'm not clear what your overall position is on the essential question in this thread; is there a uniting philosophy or wirkd view that underpins most of the different and seemingly unrelated policy positions that we associate with on the left or the right?

I believe I already answered that question, when I offered my own set of generalisations. The difference is that, unlike Sowell or Pinker, I don’t point to abstractions of psychological character, but to more concrete behaviors and active ways to approach issues. Pinker and Sowell resort to words like “believe”, “distrust”, “hope for”, etc., almost exclusively concerned with mental life. As I understand, that’s not the right approach.

To put it another way, why do we find those on the left tend to be broadly in favour of socialism, disapproving of nationalism and also think that the criminal justice system should emphasise rehabilitation over punishment/deterrent?

Aren’t you aware of the multiple nationalist left-oriented movements across the world? If you measured “nationalism” against Sowell or Pinker’s dichotomies, it would probably apply to all. The same could be said about crime rehabilitation: I don’t endorse the usual arguments behind it.

The core of idealist philosophy rests on the doctrine that the world, humanity, reality, etc., progresses by changes in foundational ideas, rather than material factors, which are said to be subordinate to a fundamentally mental, spiritual or ideologically-based reality. Being a materialist, I reject such notions. You can’t explain society by generalizing mental predispositions, it has the be the other way around: explain mental predispositions based on how societies configure themselves in practice.

I can't see how this is relevant. It is not explaining society, it is explaining (or attempting to explain) why people tend to agree (or disagree) with certain propositions also tend to agree (or disagree) with others. Unless you deny that there is any broad based agreement, in which case it is meaningless to talk about the "left" and "right" at all.

It is entirely relevant in assessing Sowell and Pinker’s approach. If we are talking about sets of people, classifiable in terms of how they deal with political issues, and if we are in the domain of social science, as Pinker admits, and if we are talking about humans in general, evidently we are also explaining society.
I did explain before how useful (and not so useful) those terms, left and right, are in specific contexts. I simply would not use them in rigorous, scientific analysis.

[Count Lucanor]

Contrast that with Count Lucanor's "humanistic project" which wants society to actively determine how much income everyone should get.

Let’s clarify that this interpretation of “CL’s humanistic project” is entirely yours and not based on something Count Lucanor had said himself. BTW, by definition, humanism is unlikely reducible to concerns about income.

[Count Lucanor]

To quote Count Lucanor: "In general, leftism encompasses all progressive tendencies, advocating for social change to improve society as a whole..."

Despite his disparaging view of Sowell's categorisation, it fits quite nicely with the Unconstrained or Utopian views articulated above.

No, it doesn’t. To start with the first, you don’t have to believe that human nature is essentially good,
nor essentially bad, to advocate for social change and improving society. The same for all other views described by Sowell, as I explained with my own views.

[Fried Egg]

There are several problems with Pinker and Sowell’s approach that make their dichotomy entirely false, and should be enough to dismiss it. One could agree with some or many of the statements presented as attributes of two distinct sides, but that doesn’t mean they actually form those two distinct fields. It is questionable that it is all reducible to “views on human nature”. Perhaps that could be one identifiable marker, but most likely it would have to consider several other criteria. Since they don’t offer any argument to support their view, anyway, I will leave that aside.

I still think you're wrong to think the existence of exceptions entirely invalidates the point here as they not supposed to be anything more than broad imperfect generalisations.

And again, it is unfair to say "Since they don't offer any argument to support their view..." when I have only supplied tiny extracts from both books. You would have to read their respective books to get the full argument.

For what it's worth, Pinker goes on (later in the chapter) to articulate different movements on the left that are not rooted in the Utopian view.

[Fried Egg]

To quote Count Lucanor: "In general, leftism encompasses all progressive tendencies, advocating for social change to improve society as a whole..."

Despite his disparaging view of Sowell's categorisation, it fits quite nicely with the Unconstrained or Utopian views articulated above.

No, it doesn’t. To start with the first, you don’t have to believe that human nature is essentially good, nor essentially bad, to advocate for social change and improving society.

One might have to think that humans are entirely malleable with no inherent traits that would conflict with social change being proposed. The central thesis of Pinker's book is arguing against the concept that the human mind begins as a "blank slate", with no essential nature and is entirely shaped by social conditioning.

[Good_Egg]

Contrast that with Count Lucanor's "humanistic project" which wants society to actively determine how much income everyone should get.

Let’s clarify that this interpretation of “CL’s humanistic project” is entirely yours and not based on something Count Lucanor had said himself.

The label was yours; I use it to refer to one particularly interesting bit of a rather long post.

I had understood that you think that society has the right to actively decide everyone's income and that you wish to use this power to ensure that no-one's personal development is constrained by lack of material resources. Is that not what you meant ?

We're talking about a mindset, described as "unconstrained" or "utopian", which seeks to change society in the direction of a particular vision of what a "good society" looks like.

In contrast to a conservative mindset which seeks to preserve and defend ancient rights, customs and liberties.

I suggest that it is characteristic of such "utopian" thinking that
1) its adherents talk up the vision - the good that is to be achieved - and play down the cost - the pain of change, the "collateral damage" -sometimes to the point of dishonesty
2) they take for granted that "we" have the right to make the change. Where that "we" is society collectively in theory, but in practice means not everyone but only a majority under whatever system of democracy they believe in. So "utopian" politics - vision-directed change - is inherently hostile to the notion that a minority has rights against the majority.(which is the "constraint" bit).

I tend to think that not all utopians are leftist. That this mindset could also describe a Thatcherite vision of enterprise culture and a society of shareholding property-owning citizens. A radical right.

But very possibly all leftists are utopian...

[Count Lucanor]

There are several problems with Pinker and Sowell’s approach that make their dichotomy entirely false, and should be enough to dismiss it. One could agree with some or many of the statements presented as attributes of two distinct sides, but that doesn’t mean they actually form those two distinct fields. It is questionable that it is all reducible to “views on human nature”. Perhaps that could be one identifiable marker, but most likely it would have to consider several other criteria. Since they don’t offer any argument to support their view, anyway, I will leave that aside.

I still think you're wrong to think the existence of exceptions entirely invalidates the point here as they not supposed to be anything more than broad imperfect generalisations.

But I’m not basing my argument against Sowell and Pinker as “the existence of exceptions”. This is a logical problem, not a statistical one. If someone claims that what makes the difference between cappuccino and expresso is that the first is coffee served in tall cups and the latter coffee in small cups, all I need to find is ONE cappuccino or expresso served in different cups to prove that the cup size criteria is not what distinguishes a cappuccino from an expresso. I don’t have to look for statistical correlations, even when it might be true that often cappuccinos are served in taller cups than expressos. The point is that cup size as a criterion for determining differences between types of coffee drinks, has very little predictive power. Just the same, Sowell and Pinker’s criteria and their corresponding dichotomies, have very little predictive power, as it is demonstrated by the fact that having any of those visions will not predict with some precision whether someone is from the left or the right.

And again, it is unfair to say "Since they don't offer any argument to support their view..." when I have only supplied tiny extracts from both books. You would have to read their respective books to get the full argument.

I could be proved wrong that they just offer descriptions as mere opinions without advancing any argument in support, but for that, such arguments should not be absent from this thread.

[Count Lucanor]

To quote Count Lucanor: "In general, leftism encompasses all progressive tendencies, advocating for social change to improve society as a whole..."

Despite his disparaging view of Sowell's categorisation, it fits quite nicely with the Unconstrained or Utopian views articulated above.

No, it doesn’t. To start with the first, you don’t have to believe that human nature is essentially good, nor essentially bad, to advocate for social change and improving society.

One might have to think that humans are entirely malleable with no inherent traits that would conflict with social change being proposed. The central thesis of Pinker's book is arguing against the concept that the human mind begins as a "blank slate", with no essential nature and is entirely shaped by social conditioning.

It is one thing to argue about the existence of something called human nature with some innate traits, and something quite different to argue that there’s an innate, essential moral predisposition in humans. Sowell, Pinker (and apparently you, too) think that there must be a direct relationship between believing in essential goodness and being a leftist, but as I have shown repeatedly, such notion would not be able to predict someone’s leftism.

Also, let’s be reminded that I offered a set of attributes that might be somehow useful to account for the differences between left and right, and not just one attribute alone. Promoting social change and improving society is not exclusively a leftist issue. Curtis Yarvin, for example, is a radical right-wing ideologue that wants social change, advocating for the shift from formal democracies to technomonarchies. BTW, he fits perfectly the role of an Utopian.

[Count Lucanor]

Contrast that with Count Lucanor's "humanistic project" which wants society to actively determine how much income everyone should get.

Let’s clarify that this interpretation of “CL’s humanistic project” is entirely yours and not based on something Count Lucanor had said himself.

The label was yours; I use it to refer to one particularly interesting bit of a rather long post.

But nowhere in my post I associated a humanistic project with “determining how much income everyone should get”. That’s an interpretation that is entirely yours.

I had understood that you think that society has the right to actively decide everyone's income and that you wish to use this power to ensure that no-one's personal development is constrained by lack of material resources. Is that not what you meant ?

I have no idea from where you came up with that, because it sounds strange to me. I find a bit strange the wording, too. I mean, “society has the right”? Society is an abstraction, what exactly would it mean that it “has rights”?

We're talking about a mindset, described as "unconstrained" or "utopian", which seeks to change society in the direction of a particular vision of what a "good society" looks like.

And I have insisted that this supposed mindset could be found at all sides of the political spectrum, given that politics on its own is concerned with better societies according to a particular vision. All sides would be “utopian” if that is what makes people utopian.

In contrast to a conservative mindset which seeks to preserve and defend ancient rights, customs and liberties.

There are conservatives, though, in both sides of the political spectrum. And those in the right can be utopian when they advocate for an ideal society, which is what they do all the time. The claim of leftists being utopian is a common cliche of right-wingers against the left (no surprise to find right-leaning Sowell among the exploiters of that stereotype), but other than that, it has no basis in reality. A recent paper was published in the Journal of Social and Political Psychology, which challenges that stigma. From the abstract of the study we get:

Utopianism – the tendency to engage in thought about an ideal form of society – has been shown to motivate social change and collective action. Yet, we know little about where on the political spectrum utopianism is most prevalent. Here we analysed seven datasets collected in the USA and Australia between 2015 and 2023, to examine the relationship between political orientation and utopian thinking. Results showed that in the United States, utopian thinking was somewhat higher at the liberal and conservative ends of the spectrum and lower in the centre.

I suggest that it is characteristic of such "utopian" thinking that
1) its adherents talk up the vision - the good that is to be achieved - and play down the cost - the pain of change, the "collateral damage" -sometimes to the point of dishonesty
2) they take for granted that "we" have the right to make the change. Where that "we" is society collectively in theory, but in practice means not everyone but only a majority under whatever system of democracy they believe in. So "utopian" politics - vision-directed change - is inherently hostile to the notion that a minority has rights against the majority.(which is the "constraint" bit).

That would make an utopian of everyone who ever advocated for democracy as the “rule of the people, by the people, for the people”, right? That includes quite a lot of right-wingers. The French Revolution, that is, the bourgeois revolution, from which most modern, democratic political systems, are said to have emerged from, and from which the left-right division arised, was precisely hostile to the rule of the monarchy, the Ancién Regime. So you’re implying that all liberal democracies are actually utopian projects imposed by a majority to the point of dishonesty. You’re beginning to sound like Curtis Yarvin.

I tend to think that not all utopians are leftist. That this mindset could also describe a Thatcherite vision of enterprise culture and a society of shareholding property-owning citizens. A radical right.
But very possibly all leftists are utopian...

If everyone is an utopian, as it seems to follow from your argument, then obviously all leftists, along with all rightists, will be utopians.

[Good_Egg]

I'm not saying that everyone is utopian. I'm agreeing with Sowell and Pinker in contrasting a politics of vision-driven change with a politics of defending rights and traditions.

I agree with you that both styles can be found on the left and the right.

Where I think we disagree is that you don't seem to accept that the unconstrained/utopian style describes your flavour of leftism.

Whereas I'm suggesting that emphasising the good outcomes and glossing-over the cost or pain of obtaining them is entirely characteristic of the utopian style.

Which is what you're doing when you're happy to be identified with the notion that everyone should have enough resources (to meet whatever criterion of "enough" you believe in). But not happy to be identified with any mechanism for obtaining those resources. (Which of course is a euphemism for taking them away from other people).

If you like, there's a contrast between those who are entirely open about their belief in robbing Peter to pay Paul. And those (dishonest ? delusional ?) people who try to claim that they're all about paying Paul and not really about robbing Peter at all.

I note your quote from JSPP talking about "liberal and conservative ends of the spectrum". Which reflects a (? US ?) language convention that uses "liberal" to mean left-leaning and "conservative" to mean right-leaning.

In contrast to "conservative" as a descriptor of the "constrained" style, and "liberal" as the opposite of "authoritarian" (which is arguably what you get when governments chase the vision without reference to rights and traditions).

[TommyJoe]

Appreciate the response. I don’t deny trade-offs—I just believe some are worth making. Wanting everyone to have enough isn’t utopian by default. It depends on how we go about it and that’s where honest debate matters.