Liberalism

[Demiurge]

Demiurge, while I agree with you on the point of potential and its limitations, your posts can come off as very pretentious and hostile. Neither I, nor Kenneth have a problem with words longer than "x" length... thats silly. The issue is the tone and density of words for a concept that is just not that complex. You could express your ideas much more clearly and effectively; communication is the reason you are here, yes? We see that you have intellegent ideas, no need to impress with prose.

-Kenneth, surely you dont believe something that far removed from reality. I understand the importance of personal motivation and effort, but you must acknowledge different apptitudes, and how in reality (not abstraction land) these make all the difference in the world.
Youre entire argument steams from your religious belief that there are metaphysical properties to man (soul, etc) that can compensate or trump physiology. Proven science destroys this; if i stimulate or remove sections of ones brain i can achieve certain, irreversible effects. For example, If i remove the section that handles "mathematics", you WILL NOT be able to compute and rationalize symbols- how can you refute this? Similar is brain development; if certain parts arent there due to an infintie amount of variables, the parts arent there.

While I think I've been rather clear, I agree that this topic is very simple and can be discussed easily enough with simple language. The point is taken..

I'm not hostile when I enter a discussion, but I get irritable when I feel the need to repeat myself using different words because there is a refusal or inability to understand what I'm saying. It makes the discussion seem more of a hassle than a potentially enlightening experience and my frustration is manifested in the hostility you note.

 

[Kenneth R.]

just because something seems impossible does not negate the often essential need to attempt it anyway.

i pity those who simply accept everything as it is, "that's life" or "get real" when, what we see as real now, was considered beyond what was capable before. not everyone who furthered it came from ideal starts either.

edit: did you perhaps think maybe the reason why i won't "accept" what you say is because i disagree with it? it's not that i don't understand you and your verbosity. i just disagree with what it's saying, big words or not. that you use such language to sound intellectual gets on my nerves when it clearly isn't necessary to the discussion

 

[Justin S.]

Everyone is constrained, everyone is limited. It's life, you were thrown into a world you did [not] create with certain attributes at your disposal. You can shape your life and your world to an extent, but you have complete control over neither.

Well said. Its scary that one has to type it out! Peoples desperation and fear of powerlessness gets manifested in the most absurd idealism and delusions. For a very intereseting look at this check out Freud's Totem and Taboo. There is a little section on what he calls the "Omnipotence of Thought" and where its found; children, neurotics, totism/religion. He shows how this is in conflict with science and industrialization and how it stems from the very symptoms it claims to be against; fear and hopelessness.

 

[Kenneth R.]

i disagree, the reason why i say what i say has nothing to do with fear or hopelessness. it has to do with belief in myself, my own abilities, and that the impossible is only so as long as no one has overcome it. it doesn't have to do with religion.

 

[Justin S.]

i pity those who simply accept everything as it is, "that's life" or "get real" when, what we see as real now, was considered beyond what was capable before. not everyone who furthered it came from ideal starts either.

Thats an entirely different idea. I absolutely agree we should explore all options; but when we explore them to their fullest, and especially so when they are not overly complex or demanding futher analysis, we have to acknowledge our results and the inevitable limitations. The acts of exploring, and the recognition of that information are two different steps and ideas.

 

[Justin S.]

i disagree, the reason why i say what i say has nothing to do with fear or hopelessness. it has to do with belief in myself, my own abilities, and that the impossible is only so as long as no one has overcome it. it doesn't have to do with religion.

Everything has to do with religion. What your world view is will seep into everything, consciously or not.

I dont expect you to say "Justin S, you are so right!". I expect total denial and a lack of reflection on the psychology of your beliefs and motivations.

Systems dont come out of nowhere; they respond to crises. The extreme idealism that you advocate is in response to something. The tenets and ideas of Christianity are in response to other factors, etc. Again, i recommend Freud's Taboo. It has a great section of the nature of taboo and morality. The basics are that laws are constructed to prevent a ideas or behaviors that have some drive behind them... we dont pass laws against things that no one wants to do! Same goes for mental constructions. Piety is a cover for the depraved, delusional individualism and "positivity" for the hopeless.

 

[Kenneth R.]

my argument is, contrary to what demiurge has been saying, regardless of whatever initial "limitations" are placed upon people, that should not diminish their drive to exceed them.

i'm curious, demiurge, would you call yourself a "conservative"? i don't consider myself "liberal". rather i think there is positive and negative from both categories.

 

[no country for old wainds]

And so, we must conclude that I am superior to all AIDS-ridden Africans with Down's.

 

[no country for old wainds]

my argument is, contrary to what demiurge has been saying, regardless of whatever initial "limitations" are placed upon people, that should not diminish their drive to exceed them.

He did say "drive to succeed is without a doubt important", his point is that one can only succeed at realising their own potential. The boundaries of that potential, however, vary from person to person, depending on their environment and genetics.

To suggest that limitations can be exceeded is completely contradictory, that's where your argument falls methinks. You're either saying that, or that there are no limitations, and the examples stated in this thread show that to be false.

 

[G-Master]

As one has stated: Intelligence is sometimes defined as the capacity of the individual to adjust himself successfully to his enviroment--or to adjust the enviroment to his needs.

 

[anonymousnick2001]

Effort allows one to realize his innate potential, but it cannot alter the potentiality itself. Try as you might, you can be constrained as such that you cannot achieve a goal. Additionally, many accomplishments require more than cultivated potentiality, the aid of external circumstances also must be on one's side. "Drive to succeed" is without a doubt important, but by no means is it all.

Okay, but to play devil's advocate, how do we *know*? Is there a limit to will power? Is there a limit to what will power can accomplish? Have human beings truly tested the potential of the mind over the body? What if there are no limits to how far the "drive to succeed" can take you?

There are a million other examples. You want to be an NBA center, your adult height is 5' 7''. You want to be US president, you immigrated to the country at the age of 26. You have an accent and were not born in the country. You want to be a mathematics professor at Harvard, your IQ is 53. You want to set the alltime record in the 40 yard dash, you've suffered an injury which taken away your ability to walk.

All potential recipies for deterrence, but how do we know that will stop the people in those given situations? Unlikely or unbelievable as it is, each of those scenarios can be triumphed.

 

[speed]

An interesting discussion here. SO basically everyone is arguing whether or not one has an equal opportunity or choice? By law of course, eveyone has equal opportunity, but as we shall see, I disagree with this notion.

I think it is quite clear that it is a ridiculous fantasy to think everyone is born with a totally equal shot of becoming someone important or imminently talented in a field. I know I do not have the innate ability, genetics, etc, to be either a Mathematician or a artist. No amount of training in the world would grant me artisitic skills good enough for me to be considered talented.

The ancients used to say talent was a gift from the gods, that it did not come from ones effort or training, but was innate and seperate from man--almost divine. Now I wont go so far, because I do believe some luck, external factors, training, and will power can improve ones talent. SO some people have few if any talents? There is nothing wrong with that. Surely most people come to this conclusion sometime in their lives.

And I dont know what is so difficult with Demiurge's language?

 

[no country for old wainds]

Okay, but to play devil's advocate, how do we *know*? Is there a limit to will power? Is there a limit to what will power can accomplish? Have human beings truly tested the potential of the mind over the body? What if there are no limits to how far the "drive to succeed" can take you?

All potential recipies for deterrence, but how do we know that will stop the people in those given situations? Unlikely or unbelievable as it is, each of those scenarios can be triumphed.

What if donkeys are secretly spies from Europa studying our nature so that they can return to their homeland with enough information about us to invade and take us over with considerable ease? What if raping and murdering lots of small children will make you God's best pal for all eternity? What ifs are useless, you're dreaming.

 

[Kenneth R.]

you've gone and taken the argument and twisted it beyond extremes. i'd agree with nick's post above.

 

[Demiurge]

How do I know that there is a limit to willpower? Let's call it a tremendous accumulation of empirical knowledge. If you'd like to believe that one's will can make him grow a foot, turn a teenager who cannot learn at a first grade level into an acclaimed scientist, cause an orange to turn into an ideal mate, there is nothing I can do bring you around.

 

[Kenneth R.]

i'm not talking about turning oranges into people. i'm talking about setting limitations on people because of the conditions and current state they exist in. those limitations are not absolute, and are only limitations so long as no one has broken them yet.

 

[no country for old wainds]

Unless said environment is certainly unchangeable, maybe, but I never suggested it was solely external environmental conditions that limited things anyway.

 

[Demiurge]

i'm not talking about turning oranges into people. i'm talking about setting limitations on people because of the conditions and current state they exist in. those limitations are not absolute, and are only limitations so long as no one has broken them yet.

I was responding to anonymousnick's post. If I'm considering the possibility of mental strain causing the body to grow a foot or increase metacognition 100-fold, I might as well address changing the nature of objects entirely.

Very simply, for your argument to be valid, everyone must be innately equal in all significant ways. Otherwise, maximum effort for one person in a field will yield different results than the same maximum effort of another. In such a case, you are defeated because strain of will is the only limitation you're willing to accept It "equalizes" us all. You cannot accept the possibility that if we both try as hard as we can to be the fastest runners we can, one of us will wind up being faster. Assume the effort is equal and even maximal(also, we've trained together for years, so current physical conditions are nullified, etc., no copouts) for each, some other factor, a potentiality as most say, is causing this inequality.

It is impossible for you to win this argument, but I imagine you'll keep on trying into the distant future, until I grow overly bored. This isn't relevant to the discussion at hand, but I already understand your MO from limited dealings with you. I'm not persisting to "defeat" you, which is already done, pointless anyway, and you will never acknowledge, but perhaps someone else will find my posts of interest. It's the best I can hope for.

 

[Kenneth R.]

"defeat" me? this is a discussion. its not a contest

i see what you're saying. my argument contains the assumption that not all people will try as hard as they can. if they did, then yes, you would be exactly right. but they just don't.

anyway, back to liberalism, where would you identify with on the political spectrum and why?

 

[Demiurge]

Debates are contests of sorts. Each participant holds a different view, one of them "wins"(the view and its proponent), or neither does. Ideally, this contest is moreso between representatives of the differing ideologies than clashes of ego, but some of the latter usually seeps in. This is clear because hardly anyone ever admits defeat(comes to believe in his foe's argument and say as much). No matter what the issue is or how thoroughly one is failing to make cogent points, outside of a philosophical dialogue in print, debates seldom change the minds of their participants. Online, this is particularly the case. The thing that makes it worth our while despite this slight problem is that others will read the discussions and find themselves educated, if ever slightly. This particular discussion wasn't an exciting one for me because it's not revisionary. Many people are believers in a supposedly crucial metaphysical aspect of a person: a soul or what have you that can allow you to overcome hardship in a nearly mystical manner. However, few would go so far as to say that this is the only determinant of capability. Due to this, this debate is fruitless for me.

I basically agree with Speed's posts in reference to liberalism in this topic. I will need to comb over the thread more thoroughly to decide what I'd like to add.