Einherjar86
Active Member
rms seemed to find it informative, so maybe you should rethink that. I didn't change the subject, I offered another perspective. You should try changing yours sometimes.
Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week
- Thread starter Ender Rises
- Start date
Dak
mentat
But it didn't actually answer his question. Or rather, it did, but not in a positive way. That is, it didn't inform him as to what America is/has, or if it is/has what it purports to (regardless of label). All it said was "Derrida says we both do and do not have a democracy" (depending on what definition/label you want to use for either). So democracy doesn't have to mean what people usually use democracy to mean. Ok. Now let's get back to the the original question. I mean, if rms is no longer interested in his original question then fine. But it was never answered, regardless of the informative nature about labels being flexible.
I have changed my perspective multiple times, and I'm all about entertaining new definitions or perspectives, as long as they are useful for or relative to the purpose that is under discussion. Otherwise, like I said, a change in the subject should be explicitly indicated, particularly when labels are being reappropriated.For instance:
My response to Derrida would be: Fine. Then provide a label for the system you have taken the label from, which we were discussing.
I have changed my perspective multiple times, and I'm all about entertaining new definitions or perspectives, as long as they are useful for or relative to the purpose that is under discussion. Otherwise, like I said, a change in the subject should be explicitly indicated, particularly when labels are being reappropriated.For instance:
My response to Derrida would be: Fine. Then provide a label for the system you have taken the label from, which we were discussing.
Einherjar86
Active Member
I don't want this to come off as crude, but you're missing the fucking point, jesus-fucking-christ.
Derrida isn't simply redefining democracy; he's not taking the term and arbitrarily assigning a new meaning to it. He's saying that if we pursue the logic of democracy far enough, we encounter a paradox that precludes the possibility of talking about democracy as we have previously talked about it. He's taking democracy at its word, and he's critiquing that word. He's taking to task the liberal tendency to justify its actions and policies in the name of democratic action. He's actually criticizing the same establishment that you can't stand! You're so caught up on this idea that he's somehow defending democracy that you're not getting the point of his argument: democracy involves a kind of false consciousness, or cognitive dissonance, by which we reify democracy as an ideal that justifies political action. Derrida is saying that if we actually look hard at what democracy entails, we find that it undermines our ability to promote political policies and justify progressive action in the name of democracy.
If we want to pursue democracy, then we must accept that it precludes the justification of any political practice or program in its own name.
Derrida isn't simply redefining democracy; he's not taking the term and arbitrarily assigning a new meaning to it. He's saying that if we pursue the logic of democracy far enough, we encounter a paradox that precludes the possibility of talking about democracy as we have previously talked about it. He's taking democracy at its word, and he's critiquing that word. He's taking to task the liberal tendency to justify its actions and policies in the name of democratic action. He's actually criticizing the same establishment that you can't stand! You're so caught up on this idea that he's somehow defending democracy that you're not getting the point of his argument: democracy involves a kind of false consciousness, or cognitive dissonance, by which we reify democracy as an ideal that justifies political action. Derrida is saying that if we actually look hard at what democracy entails, we find that it undermines our ability to promote political policies and justify progressive action in the name of democracy.
If we want to pursue democracy, then we must accept that it precludes the justification of any political practice or program in its own name.
rms
Active Member
Well this exploded!
Ein sort of answered this already but I think there were two ways to answer the question I proposed. One to argue against our level of 'democracy' in America and one to (re)define what democracy is. I kinda just posted that link to get some discussion about a news show that is better than most, imo, and seems to have this kind of crap on it. Not sure if anyone else subscribes to the Breakingtheset youtube feed, but I do and it usually has some interesting things like Vice.
Yeah, that's why I wasn't upset without a direct response to the video. I mean you guys are way over my head most of the time and I was just bored and interested in hearing some other opinions about it.
Ein sort of answered this already but I think there were two ways to answer the question I proposed. One to argue against our level of 'democracy' in America and one to (re)define what democracy is. I kinda just posted that link to get some discussion about a news show that is better than most, imo, and seems to have this kind of crap on it. Not sure if anyone else subscribes to the Breakingtheset youtube feed, but I do and it usually has some interesting things like Vice.
Yeah, that's why I wasn't upset without a direct response to the video. I mean you guys are way over my head most of the time and I was just bored and interested in hearing some other opinions about it.
Usually interested in debates, especially if I can kinda look like I know what i'm talking about.
Dak
mentat
Well, to begin with, I'm not caught up in some idea of his defending what it is I loathe, because he doesn't appear to be speaking of that thing. When Hoppe speaks of it, it is recognizable, but not when Derrida speaks of it. If (and I do mean if), the tortured explication of Derrida's meaning is in fact the same thing, then Derrida should have worked on that. However, I don't think so, because from what I can google on deconstructionism in general, and Derrida in particular, it/he shows no particular attachment to meaning. So I have no reason to accept that when Derrida uses any word, he means what I mean, because he doesn't accept that I mean anything(or even that he means anything?) - at least - he doesn't think that/mean that we mean what we mean when we attempt to mean meanings. So how can anyone claim to mean what Derrida means in his meanings? Derrida's meanings preclude meaning, that is, what is the meaning of his meaning, or more precisely, what does his meaning mean? Maybe more broadly, do his meanings have meaning?
I have no subscriptions, so no to that specifically. Sure, democracy is open to redefinition, as are all things. But we do have something(s) in America, and some of those things are not as they are billed, regardless of semantical differences. Other things may be as billed, but not as good as the billing implies. I really hate the word "fascism"(or "fascist") because it is used to the point of meaninglessness. Which is why I responded as I did. What is fascism? America could be fascist, depending on the definition.
Derrida would proclaim every and all things democracy (in a way). Sure, we can do that. I have(in the past), essentially done that with the market, or "economic action". This lends itself to the somewhat preclassical term "political economy" in reference to the broad economy, if we combine the strains of thought that these perspectives pursue.
Well that's good. For all the shit that comes your way (and I am no stranger to personalized social shit), I'm always welcoming to someone trying to pursue some level of personal enlightenment.
The thing about this thread is that is has mostly turned into Pat and I working through completely disparate strains of thought, influenced by disparate schools, through the generalized common ground of Philosophy. Pat is a literary scholar, and I am coming from a Psychology background. We both have strained through opposing economic criticisms of Global Capitalism©, and perhaps general ethical perspectives.
This plays out in a constant back and forth and intertwining of perspective on nearly everything. Of course, what I find somewhat common is personality, and I expect that our differences in that regard influence not only what we find, but what we find to be significant in what we find. To put it in Myers Briggs terms, we divide "significantly" on J and P. Pat looks and me and is like "Why ya J-in so much?" and I respond "Well you have to J if you're going to do anything ya friggin P!". In contrast, Pat probably thinks I've fallen prey to misguided dogmatism rooted in false knowledge of objectivity of meaning, or something like that (I always expect that characterizations of differing views will be decried as something approaching a strawman, so I try to acknowledge that liklihood).
Einherjar86
Active Member
I think it's a good and important question. To be honest, less than a year ago I was fed up with notions of democracy and political rationalizations in the name of democracy. It seemed to be an archaic institution that met with failure after failure. Hägglund's argument about democracy, by way of Derrida, illuminated a new way for me to think about democracy that explained why it kept meeting with failure after failure. And not for the purpose of salvaging democracy, but for the purpose of exposing a false consciousness of democracy itself; for Derrida, modern belief about democracy is rooted in a paradoxical belief about what democracy is.
Because Google is a great way to learn about these things. I know you don't have the time to read all the stuff I do, but don't mistakenly believe that you can get a good handle on it from a quick Google search.
Derrida has a profound attachment to meaning, perhaps the most profound attachment to meaning of any modern philosopher. It's easy to disregard him because he complicates what meaning is, and how it works. You just regurgitated the typical ignorant resistance to Derrida by those who simply don't have the time to think about what he writes.
I don't want to be get overly confrontational, but you're the one who's not saying anything useful in this conversation.
Dak
mentat
Bubbles aside, Google is at least as good a way to learn about things as any old biased professor. I have read Derrida on 9/11 (for instance). A lot of what he said [in the middle] made perfect sense, but his entry was masturbatory, and his conclusion facepalmy. That the ending and conclusion go together isn't surprising. He did seem to approach a candor that his "official writings" certainly aren't privy too.
On a different note, I did offer something useful, specially towards what rms was talking about on the outset.
On a different note, I did offer something useful, specially towards what rms was talking about on the outset.
Einherjar86
Active Member
Dak
mentat
You're an odd duck.
I never claimed to be otherwise
But seriously. Most professors are older, and everyone is biased, so that label shouldn't be all that controversial. Given that I've lost count on how many times I've been instructed directly or indirectly to google something by a professor, it seems that even they also think it is quite useful. Not that that's a bad thing, the most we can hope for or need in most cases are mere "signposts" as it were, pointing the way.
I count myself fortunate to have had a handful of professors who have been more than that, but it isn't a majority.
In regards to political organization, all will fail at some point. Democracy has (at least) an additional problem that maybe other concepts don't have, and that is the lack of responsibility in any given voter (or representative in a rep. democracy). This immediately creates problems of moral hazard.
Einherjar86
Active Member
Yes, everyone is biased. But I also know your personality, and I know that you like to jump on calling professors out. You're biased against professors, due to your skepticism of academia in general.
Finally, as I have said at least twice already, Derrida is critiquing democracy. It doesn't look like the thing you know because he's revealing something about it that has remained hidden, or obscured, due to the political obsession with democracy in the West. You seem to be levying a critique at him for attacking something that isn't democracy at all; but that's not the case. You have to start at the beginning and watch how he deconstructs democracy down into something that looks different.
Finally, as I have said at least twice already, Derrida is critiquing democracy. It doesn't look like the thing you know because he's revealing something about it that has remained hidden, or obscured, due to the political obsession with democracy in the West. You seem to be levying a critique at him for attacking something that isn't democracy at all; but that's not the case. You have to start at the beginning and watch how he deconstructs democracy down into something that looks different.
Dak
mentat
I'm biased in that I don't think that academia, particularly in terms of the educational end, is worthy of it's golden calf status. What I've heard and observed in the last 2+ years has "confirmed the bias". 10% of professors appear excellent, probably 80% are just there, and another 10% are horrible. Not that this is probably any different than other sort of organizational breakdown, but hardly anything else benefits from such an extreme halo effect.
Well does he have anything specific on this, or is it buried amongst multiple disparate writings? I would ask for something concise but that wouldn't be a fair request
.On a different yet related note, I used Digg Reader for my RSS service, but also use it to keep tabs on the progressive zeitgeist in the form of the main Digg feed. Every one in a while I see something that has, or should have, the complete opposite of its intended effect:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L44aX-pUTGE"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L44aX-pUTGE[/ame]
Ignoring the ridiculous equivocation of Voter ID requirements with a literacy test, the fact that supposed Harvard students are flummoxed by questions like "Write right from the left to the right" and "Write backwards forwards" "Print a word that looks the same whether it is forwards or backwards" leaves me wishing for the return of such tests - maybe in the course of, you know, education. I'm further horrified at the degradation of US education in general, and frightened by every person disappearing behind the red white and blue curtains.
Einherjar86
Active Member
But you see the conflict inherent in this, right? Your observation cannot be separated from your bias. It isn't some means of pure calculation. We often can't even tell how our biases are operating, how they condition even the way in which we observe things around us. Your observations in no way confirm your biases to be true in any absolute sense. Even saying "my observations confirm my biases" is not only ambiguous (does it confirm that your biases are "true," or that you have biases?), but it is also contradictory: your observations are conditioned by your biases.
I find it indescribably frustrating that you would view this as evidence of decreasing educational standards.
That test was not required for everyone; it was required for those who could not prove education past a fifth-grade level. Who specifically do you think could not prove this?
The test is not meant to prove any amount of literacy. It was meant to keep black people from voting. The test has nothing to do with literacy, and everything to do with voting. Why the fuck would anyone need to learn how to write backwards? It was specifically meant to target black people, many of whom could not prove education beyond the fifth grade, and to prevent them from voting.
Furthermore, the test is incredibly difficult whether you're educated or not. White people back then wouldn't have been able to do it either; white people today can't do it. This isn't because they aren't educated, but because the test is designed to fail people. Most whites would not even have been required to take the damn test. It is next to impossible.
Dak
mentat
I know, that particular comment was tongue in cheek. On the way to the conference yesterday the conversation in the van with a few of the fellow undergrads turned towards experience with professors who would have been better off phoning it in. Given that all conversation participants are reasonably competent and driven (all were presenting research, which accounted for around 30-40% of the total presentations at the conference, and less than 10% of reported attendees were presenting), impressions were pretty consistent. Maybe they all also had similar bias, but I have no reason to expect that.
I expect that more people could have passed it in 1964 than could today, but that obviously isn't provable. That most whites weren't required to also take the test is unfortunate, as one would need more than a 5th grade education (probably a BA in philosophy these days) to answer those sorts of questions. Being able (or unable) to do the simple logic required to know that the answer to "Write 'backwards' forwards" is "Backwards" (and furthermore, knowing how to spell such a common word) indicates ones ability to understand the sorts of complex issues that are decided via political processes. Calling it a "literacy" test is misleading though, because it is clearly a logic test.
I would like to see that entire test myself. I would imagine the most "egregious" questions were those shown on the video, which don't appear significantly difficult.
Einherjar86
Active Member
It isn't a "test" in the first place. It isn't measuring anything. It was designed specifically to exclude an entire group of people.
Furthermore, even if you could manage to perform all the tasks accurately, it's unlikely that you could do so in under ten minutes. The questions require a bit of thought even for educated people: "Okay, so it wants... wait, 'backwards forwards'... oh, right 'backwards.'" Each question eats up time by forcing the taker to think for at least several seconds before carrying out the required task. And then, the taker can't make any mistakes while writing, or else would have to erase and begin again. It is in no way designed to test even logic.
Furthermore, even if you could manage to perform all the tasks accurately, it's unlikely that you could do so in under ten minutes. The questions require a bit of thought even for educated people: "Okay, so it wants... wait, 'backwards forwards'... oh, right 'backwards.'" Each question eats up time by forcing the taker to think for at least several seconds before carrying out the required task. And then, the taker can't make any mistakes while writing, or else would have to erase and begin again. It is in no way designed to test even logic.
Dak
mentat
It does measure (at least) logic ability; that that test wasn't specifically designed for the purpose of measuring anything doesn't change that. I'm not saying that the sociopolitical purpose behind the test was good, but that the difficulty of the test is not necessarily a problem.
It is possible that the time limit combined with the requirement of zero error is too extreme to be realistic; I would need to try it out to be sure. But to watch (what the general public would consider to be smart) people throw their hands up at the questions is pretty absurd. The entire focus of the little video is wrong. Quite obviously these people believe any restriction on voting is bad, that not voting is bad, that (when carried to logical conclusion) even the comatose should somehow have their "voice" heard. So why trot out this test for the show of crinkled faces and upthrown arms? Reveling in ones inabilities is disgusting and fails to make the point. If mere restriction of the vote is the issue, then why not point out that at least tests can be prepared for, and that no amount of preparation allows outright process dissent on the ballot or outside of the ballot, and severely restricts, beyond what any "ridiculous" test can do, anything outside of the two party paradigm. Despite the absence of tests, I cannot vote because of a lack of things to vote for that I accept. I cannot even directly affect anything by not voting. My voice is not heard. Too bad there's no test that would allow me access to take to fix that.
Einherjar86
Active Member
I agree that the focus of the video is wrong. Seeing as how no one's education, career, or lifestyle is on the line I can't say that watching students throw up their hands is all that offensive or frustrating.
Some of the questions might register a degree of logical capacity, but some of the questions are simply inane: write the word "Vote" upside-down, but in the right direction? This is not a task that relies on any logical capacity, it merely aims to trip up test-takers. Finally, getting one question wrong results in failure; there's thus no calculation of anybody's overall performance.
Even if you took the test and passed, it wouldn't change the historical fact that this test was never intended as a test, and was never used as such; so using it as evidence of educational decline is just absurd.
Some of the questions might register a degree of logical capacity, but some of the questions are simply inane: write the word "Vote" upside-down, but in the right direction? This is not a task that relies on any logical capacity, it merely aims to trip up test-takers. Finally, getting one question wrong results in failure; there's thus no calculation of anybody's overall performance.
Even if you took the test and passed, it wouldn't change the historical fact that this test was never intended as a test, and was never used as such; so using it as evidence of educational decline is just absurd.
Dak
mentat
This really is go way off down a different path, but the last sentence is very interesting, and certainly an opinion that seems to wax and wane in organizational estimation. Pass/Fail vs incremental grading. I know the Marine Corps has oscillated on this in terms of testing marksmanship, and having only experienced the incremental scoring process (the Marine Corps switched to incremental grading right before I joined and switched back to the pass/fail variant right after I got out) I'm not in a position to even give an anecdotal comparison opinion.
Of course it was never intended as a legitimate test, this imo is much more troubling than the fact that it existed - which is what troubles those in the video. However, I believe that the exasperation from Harvard students in 2014 would not be present in Harvard students in 1964.
Einherjar86
Active Member
This (if it could be proven true) says less about their level of education, in my opinion, and more about the considerations of cultural propriety during that time.
Dak
mentat
It cannot say something about cultural propriety without saying something about the education level. The two go together. The (what I believe to be intentional at some level of the bureaucracy) lack of focus on/the denigration of logic in education has led to a lack of it in general, which of course makes it unimportant in the general cultural context (it is unusual to expect what you don't have). Fantastic for the the power complex, whether it be "patriarchal" or of any other origination. Not so good for everyone else.
That your comment implicitly suggests that cultural propriety of today does not value, nor even seem to be aware of logic is certainly an indictment of the state of education today vs education (and culture) of yesteryears. My SJW, minority (former) philosophy professor thinks so probably more vociferously than I do, which is why we connected so well.
Einherjar86
Active Member
By "propriety," I merely mean the instilling of expected social behavior via family values and early education. This has nothing to do with the privileging of exercising one's logical faculties (or lack thereof).
My comment on propriety had nothing to do with logic. You're going to have to explain that connection. I simply mean that students throwing their hands up in the air and acting indifferent might signal a shift in how children are taught to behave in a purely performative sense; this has nothing to do with privileging the material or not.
If anything, the education of "yesteryear" places less emphasis on logic than the education of today, as the education of today has even attacked the institutions of logic, undermining them via their own purportedly axiomatic premises. The educated today have a far more comprehensive view of global politics and cultural dynamics than the educated of 1964.
