"I stopped making a fool of myself, but something died inside of me - something I'd always sort of liked and admired. In it's place grew a scar - a tough spot but also a sore spot."
Thursday, October 7, 2021
Saturday, November 7, 2020
An Open Society and Its Enemies by Karl Popper
Summary with reference to some notes I made as well as a website that has an outline and some outtakes posted by Rafe Champion.
http://www.the-rathouse.com/OpenSocietyOnLIne/AATheProjectwithIndex.html
Overall it was too long and not very well organized. If forced to summarize in once sentence, I might write.
http://www.the-rathouse.com/OpenSocietyOnLIne/AATheProjectwithIndex.html
Overall it was too long and not very well organized. If forced to summarize in once sentence, I might write.
Democracy has the potential to support an open society where rationalism is allowed to challenge religion/tradition including ongoing critical analysis of our institutions using methodologic nominalism and alternative interpretations of history so that these institutions can enact piecemeal reforms that can be tested rather than reforms aimed at an imaginary utopia that would tempt us with the tyranny of populism or authoritarianism.
Closed society of law or religion is static, some amount of human instinct pulls us toward a closed/tribal society for including or excluding because we sense the lost group spirit of tribalism.
Tribalistic and collectivist societies assign social customs a natural law status. Lacks critical dualism. Refers to human nature or natural as "the good". Individuals unlikely to challenge traditions.
Totalitarianism makes all knowledge political, impedes critical thinking. Communal group think.
Avoids class war by giving ruling class absolute power. Keeps ruling class united.
Cannot tolerate criticism (even of its history) because it challenges the principle of authority itself.
Plato promoted collectivist justice (keep your place in social hierarchy), propagated belief that individualism is not compatible with altruism by promoting using the theory of natural rights and the social contract theory of human society.
Requires critical dualism, aka awareness of distinction between natural laws and man made traditions.
"I may perhaps briefly formulate what seems to me the most important principles of humanitarian and equalitarian ethics."
Minimize suffering, promote tolerance, avoid tyranny.
First, "tolerance towards all who are not intolerant and who do not propagate intolerance. So the moral decisions of others should be treated with respect, as long as such decisions do not conflict with the principle of tolerance."
Second. "The recognition that all moral urgency has its basis in the urgency of suffering or pain. I suggest, for this reason, to replace the utilitarian formula 'Aim at the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number', or briefly, 'Maximize happiness' by the formula 'The least amount of avoidable suffering for all', or briefly, 'Minimize suffering'. Such a simple formula can, I believe, be made one of the fundamental principles (admittedly not the only one) of public policy. (The principle 'Maximize happiness', in contrast, seems to be apt to produce a benevolent dictatorship.) We should realize that from the moral point of view suffering and happiness must not be treated as symmetrical".
Third, "to resist tyranny by safeguarding the other principles by the institutional means of a legislation rather than by the benevolence of persons in power."
Open society supported by ideas of individuality, criticism, and humanitarianism. Require political freedom and human rights.
Open society --> moral universalism.
All knowledge is provisional. Individual critical frame of mind.
Only democracy provides an institutional mechanism for reform and transfer of power nonviolently, provides possibility of reform and possibility of reason, but does not inself provide reason. "And should he live to see the day when the majority vote destroys the democratic institutions, then this sad experience will tell him only that there does not exist a foolproof method of avoiding tyranny. But it need not weaken his decision to fight tyranny, nor will it expose his theory as inconsistent."
Majority rule is no better than any other tyranny if it's power is unlimited. Aka new law passed both house and senate and signed by president but violates supreme court precedent without the court would be parliamentary sovereignty.
Rafe summarized Popper in 7 points:
(1) Democracy cannot be fully characterized as the rule of the majority, although the institution of general elections is most important. For a majority might rule in a tyrannical way. In a democracy, the powers of the rulers must be limited; In a democracy, the rulers—that is to say, the government—can be dismissed by the ruled without bloodshed. Thus if the men in power do not safeguard those institutions which secure to the minority the possibility of working for a peaceful change, then their rule is a tyranny.
(2) We need only distinguish between two forms of government, democracies and tyrannies.
(3) A consistent democratic constitution should exclude only one type of change in the legal system, namely a change which would endanger its democratic character.
(4) In a democracy, the full protection of minorities should not extend to those who violate the law, and especially not to those who incite others to the violent overthrow of the democracy.
(5) A policy of framing institutions to safeguard democracy must always proceed on the assumption that there may be antidemocratic tendencies latent among the ruled as well as among the rulers.
(6) If democracy is destroyed, all rights are destroyed. Even if certain economic advantages enjoyed by the ruled should persist, they would persist only on sufferance.
(7) Democracy provides an invaluable battle-ground for any reasonable reform, since it permits reform without violence. But if the preservation of democracy is not made the first consideration in any particular battle fought out on this battle-ground, then the latent anti-democratic tendencies which are always present may bring about a breakdown of democracy.
All long-term politics are institutional, democratic institutions check and balance power. Institutions are like fortresses, they "cannot improve themselves, that is the task of the citizens and those who criticize democracy on 'moral' grounds fail to distinguish between personal and institutional problems. In the short term we may wish for better leaders, in the long term we need better [impersonal] institutions." Impersonal meaning they limit discretionary decisions of rulers/civil servants.
Tendency toward to discretionary short term decisions by individuals "must greatly increase the irrationality of the system, creating in many the impression that there are hidden powers behind the scenes, and making them susceptible to the conspiracy theory of society with all its consequences—heresy hunts, national, social, and class hostility." -Popper
"One needs a certain detachment to embark on the long-term task of re-designing the 'legal framework'. But governments live from hand to mouth, and discretionary powers belong to this style of living-quite apart from the fact that rulers are inclined to love those powers for their own sake." - Popper
Closed society of law or religion is static, some amount of human instinct pulls us toward a closed/tribal society for including or excluding because we sense the lost group spirit of tribalism.
Tribalistic and collectivist societies assign social customs a natural law status. Lacks critical dualism. Refers to human nature or natural as "the good". Individuals unlikely to challenge traditions.
Totalitarianism makes all knowledge political, impedes critical thinking. Communal group think.
Avoids class war by giving ruling class absolute power. Keeps ruling class united.
Cannot tolerate criticism (even of its history) because it challenges the principle of authority itself.
Plato promoted collectivist justice (keep your place in social hierarchy), propagated belief that individualism is not compatible with altruism by promoting using the theory of natural rights and the social contract theory of human society.
Strain in transition from closed to open society.
Requires critical dualism, aka awareness of distinction between natural laws and man made traditions.
"I may perhaps briefly formulate what seems to me the most important principles of humanitarian and equalitarian ethics."
Minimize suffering, promote tolerance, avoid tyranny.
First, "tolerance towards all who are not intolerant and who do not propagate intolerance. So the moral decisions of others should be treated with respect, as long as such decisions do not conflict with the principle of tolerance."
Second. "The recognition that all moral urgency has its basis in the urgency of suffering or pain. I suggest, for this reason, to replace the utilitarian formula 'Aim at the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number', or briefly, 'Maximize happiness' by the formula 'The least amount of avoidable suffering for all', or briefly, 'Minimize suffering'. Such a simple formula can, I believe, be made one of the fundamental principles (admittedly not the only one) of public policy. (The principle 'Maximize happiness', in contrast, seems to be apt to produce a benevolent dictatorship.) We should realize that from the moral point of view suffering and happiness must not be treated as symmetrical".
Third, "to resist tyranny by safeguarding the other principles by the institutional means of a legislation rather than by the benevolence of persons in power."
Open society supported by ideas of individuality, criticism, and humanitarianism. Require political freedom and human rights.
Open society --> moral universalism.
All knowledge is provisional. Individual critical frame of mind.
Only democracy provides an institutional mechanism for reform and transfer of power nonviolently, provides possibility of reform and possibility of reason, but does not inself provide reason. "And should he live to see the day when the majority vote destroys the democratic institutions, then this sad experience will tell him only that there does not exist a foolproof method of avoiding tyranny. But it need not weaken his decision to fight tyranny, nor will it expose his theory as inconsistent."
Majority rule is no better than any other tyranny if it's power is unlimited. Aka new law passed both house and senate and signed by president but violates supreme court precedent without the court would be parliamentary sovereignty.
Rafe summarized Popper in 7 points:
(1) Democracy cannot be fully characterized as the rule of the majority, although the institution of general elections is most important. For a majority might rule in a tyrannical way. In a democracy, the powers of the rulers must be limited; In a democracy, the rulers—that is to say, the government—can be dismissed by the ruled without bloodshed. Thus if the men in power do not safeguard those institutions which secure to the minority the possibility of working for a peaceful change, then their rule is a tyranny.
(2) We need only distinguish between two forms of government, democracies and tyrannies.
(3) A consistent democratic constitution should exclude only one type of change in the legal system, namely a change which would endanger its democratic character.
(4) In a democracy, the full protection of minorities should not extend to those who violate the law, and especially not to those who incite others to the violent overthrow of the democracy.
(5) A policy of framing institutions to safeguard democracy must always proceed on the assumption that there may be antidemocratic tendencies latent among the ruled as well as among the rulers.
(6) If democracy is destroyed, all rights are destroyed. Even if certain economic advantages enjoyed by the ruled should persist, they would persist only on sufferance.
(7) Democracy provides an invaluable battle-ground for any reasonable reform, since it permits reform without violence. But if the preservation of democracy is not made the first consideration in any particular battle fought out on this battle-ground, then the latent anti-democratic tendencies which are always present may bring about a breakdown of democracy.
All long-term politics are institutional, democratic institutions check and balance power. Institutions are like fortresses, they "cannot improve themselves, that is the task of the citizens and those who criticize democracy on 'moral' grounds fail to distinguish between personal and institutional problems. In the short term we may wish for better leaders, in the long term we need better [impersonal] institutions." Impersonal meaning they limit discretionary decisions of rulers/civil servants.
Tendency toward to discretionary short term decisions by individuals "must greatly increase the irrationality of the system, creating in many the impression that there are hidden powers behind the scenes, and making them susceptible to the conspiracy theory of society with all its consequences—heresy hunts, national, social, and class hostility." -Popper
"One needs a certain detachment to embark on the long-term task of re-designing the 'legal framework'. But governments live from hand to mouth, and discretionary powers belong to this style of living-quite apart from the fact that rulers are inclined to love those powers for their own sake." - Popper
Utopian engineering (aiming for most good, ends are rational so means towards ends therefore rational) much more dangerous than piecemeal engineering (addresses most urgent evils). "It was probably George Orwell who pointed out that for the totalitarians, control of the past is essential to the control of the future and so history has to be re-written, even to the extent of airbrushing out important figures from group photographs when they fall from favour with some later regime. On top of that, criticism of failures on the way to the goal has to be suppressed, otherwise doubt may be cast on the very goals themselves, the people may cease to have confidence in the leadership." - Rafe
"As opposed to a utopia, blueprints for piecemeal engineering are comparatively simple. They are blueprints for single institutions, for health and unemployed insurance, for instance, or arbitration courts, or anti-depression budgeting, or educational reform. If they go wrong, the damage is not very great, and a re-adjustment is not very difficult."
"Popper considered that the Marxist theory of politics was fatally flawed because it did not warn Marxists or socialists to be alert to abuses of power (other than economic power) and the need for institutional checks and balances on all forms of power, even after the revolution ushered in the new utopian era of the classless society." - Rafe
Piecemeal engineering is better, but still suffers from public choice theory and dangers of interventionism (democratic policy biased to favor expressive interest and neglect utilitarian considerations, expressive interest vs instrumental interest).
Personalism vs institutionalism. Pure institutionalism is also impossible because institutions are made up of people and functioning depends on the people involved.
"As opposed to a utopia, blueprints for piecemeal engineering are comparatively simple. They are blueprints for single institutions, for health and unemployed insurance, for instance, or arbitration courts, or anti-depression budgeting, or educational reform. If they go wrong, the damage is not very great, and a re-adjustment is not very difficult."
"Popper considered that the Marxist theory of politics was fatally flawed because it did not warn Marxists or socialists to be alert to abuses of power (other than economic power) and the need for institutional checks and balances on all forms of power, even after the revolution ushered in the new utopian era of the classless society." - Rafe
Piecemeal engineering is better, but still suffers from public choice theory and dangers of interventionism (democratic policy biased to favor expressive interest and neglect utilitarian considerations, expressive interest vs instrumental interest).
Personalism vs institutionalism. Pure institutionalism is also impossible because institutions are made up of people and functioning depends on the people involved.
Historicism gives undue respect to events in the past and their ability to predict the future. Historical determinism allows such things as "the chosen people". Attempt to put a broader meaning into events and create laws of history in order to predict in a pseudo scientific way. Under its pressure the historicist substitutes the irrational and apparently factual question : 'Which way are we going? What, in essence, is the part that history has destined us to play?'" - Rafe
The meanings of history:
"For example, the interpretation that man steadily progresses is incompatible with the interpretation that he steadily slips back or retrogresses. But the 'point of view' of one who looks on human history as a history of progress is not necessarily incompatible with that of one who looks on it as a history of retrogression; that is to say, we could write a history of human progress towards freedom (containing, for example, the story of the fight against slavery) and another history of human retrogression and oppression."
"The proliferation of narratives and points of view is not an invitation to relativism because all interpretations have to stand up to criticism and historians need to be conscious of their own point of view, to be willing to reconsider it, and to avoid as much as possible giving in to unconscious bias in the selection and interpretation of facts. Of course the selection of evidence is just that, selective, but the point is to use the evidence in a critical and not an uncritical manner. As a public document the historical narrative will have to stand up to criticism from other people who may not be charitably inclined towards the views of the author. Desirable features of the story in addition to its capacity to stand up to criticism will include its fertility, its ability to prompt fresh ideas and elucidate new sources of information, also its topical interest and the way it illuminates the problems of the day." - Rafe
"To sum up, there can be no history of 'the past as it actually did happen'; there can only be historical interpretations, and none of them final; and every generation has a right to frame its own. But not only has it a right to frame its own interpretations, it also has a kind of obligation to do so; for there is indeed a pressing need to be answered. We want to know how our troubles are related to the past, and we want to see the line along which we may progress towards the solution of what we feel, and what we choose, to be our main tasks. It is this need which, if not answered by rational and fair means, produces historicist interpretations (what has history destined us for?).
"There is no history of mankind, there is only an indefinite number of histories of all kinds of aspects of human life. And one of these is the history of political power. This is elevated into the history of the world. But this, I hold, is an offence against every decent conception of mankind. It is hardly better than to treat the history of embezzlement or of robbery or of poisoning as the history of mankind. For the history of power politics is nothing but the history of international crime and mass murder (including, it is true, some of the attempts to suppress them). This history is taught in schools, and some of the greatest criminals are extolled as its heroes.
A universal history of mankind would have to be the story of all men and women "the history of all human hopes, struggles, and sufferings" because nobody is more important than anyone else (a highly egalitarian view!). But that history cannot be written, it is far too rich, all narratives have to be selective and focussed. But with this we arrive at the many histories; and among them, at that history of international crime and mass murder which has been advertised as the history of mankind.
But why has just the history of power been selected, and not, for example, that of religion, or of poetry? There are several reasons. One is that power affects us all, and poetry only a few. Another is that men are inclined to worship power. But there can be no doubt that the worship of power is one of the worst kinds of human idolatries, a relic of the time of the cage, of human servitude. The worship of power is born of fear, an emotion which is rightly despised. A third reason why power politics has been made the core of 'history' is that those in power wanted to be worshipped and could enforce their wishes. Many historians wrote under the supervision of the emperors, the generals and the dictators.
And, indeed, our intellectual as well as our ethical education is corrupt. It is perverted by the admiration of brilliance, of the way things are said, which takes the place of a critical appreciation of the things that are said (and the things that are done). It is perverted by the romantic idea of the splendour of the stage of History on which we are the actors. We are educated to act with an eye to the gallery.
The whole problem of educating man to a sane appreciation of his own importance relative to that of other individuals is thoroughly muddled by these ethics of fame and fate, by a morality which perpetuates an educational system that is still based upon the classics with their romantic view of the history of power and their romantic tribal morality which goes back to Heraclitus; a system whose ultimate basis is the worship of power. Instead of a sober combination of individualism and altruism (to use these labels again)—that is to say, instead of a position like 'What really matters are human individuals, but I do not take this to mean that it is I who matter very much'—a romantic combination of egoism and collectivism is taken for granted. That is to say, the importance of the self, of its emotional life and its 'self-expression', is romantically exaggerated...
It is under the influence of such romantic ideas that individualism is still identified with egoism, as it was by Plato, and altruism with collectivism (i.e. with the substitution of group egoism for the individualist egoism). But this bars the way even to a clear formulation of the main problem, the problem of how to obtain a sane appreciation of one's own importance in relation to other individuals.
History has no meaning, I contend. But this contention does not imply that all we can do about it is to look aghast at the history of political power, or that we must look at it as a cruel joke. For we can interpret it, with an eye to those problems of power politics whose solution we choose to attempt in our time. We can interpret the history of power politics from the point of view of our fight for the open society, for a rule of reason, for justice, freedom, equality, and for the control of international crime. Although history has no ends, we can impose these ends of ours upon it; and although history has no meaning, we can give it a meaning."
- Popper
And maybe ask the questions 'What are we to choose as our most urgent problems, how did they arise, and along what roads may we proceed to solve them?'
Methodological essentialism vs nominalism. Nominalism aims at describing how a thing behavies. Essentialism "claims that true belief (knowledge) results from either (a) an intuitive grasp of the essence of things, or (b) clarification or explication of the concept of the (various) things." Rafe
Rationalism includes empiricism and intellectualism. It is "roughly, an attitude that seeks to solve as many problems as possible by an appeal to reason, i.e. to clear thought and experience, rather than by an appeal to emotions and passions.
It may be better to explain rationalism in terms of practical attitudes or behaviour. We could then say that rationalism is an attitude of readiness to listen to critical arguments and to learn from experience (of various points of view). It is fundamentally an attitude of admitting that 'I may be wrong and you may be right, and by an effort, we may get nearer to the truth.' It is an attitude which does not lightly give up hope that by such means as argument and careful observation, people may reach some kind of agreement on many problems of importance; and that, even where their demands and their interests clash, it is often possible to argue about the various demands and proposals, and to reach — perhaps by arbitration — a compromise which, because of its equity, is acceptable. to most, if not to all…" -Popper
Also emphasized judging argument rather than person arguing. Anyone can be a source of information and ideas regardless of level of agreement between us. "Rational unity of mankind".
Irrationalism:
"I do not overlook the fact that there are irrationalists who love mankind, and that not all forms of irrationalism engender criminality. But I hold that he who teaches that not reason but love should rule opens the way for those who rule by hate. Those who do not see this connection at once, who believe in a direct rule of emotional love, should consider that love as such certainly does not promote impartiality. And it cannot do away with conflict either. It is our duty to help those who need our help; but it cannot be our duty to make others happy, since this does not depend on us, and since it would only too often mean intruding on the privacy of those towards whom we have such amiable intentions. The political demand for piecemeal (as opposed to Utopian) methods corresponds to the decision that the fight against suffering must be considered a duty, while the right to care for the happiness of others must be considered a privilege confined to the close circle of their friends." - Popper
The meanings of history:
"For example, the interpretation that man steadily progresses is incompatible with the interpretation that he steadily slips back or retrogresses. But the 'point of view' of one who looks on human history as a history of progress is not necessarily incompatible with that of one who looks on it as a history of retrogression; that is to say, we could write a history of human progress towards freedom (containing, for example, the story of the fight against slavery) and another history of human retrogression and oppression."
"The proliferation of narratives and points of view is not an invitation to relativism because all interpretations have to stand up to criticism and historians need to be conscious of their own point of view, to be willing to reconsider it, and to avoid as much as possible giving in to unconscious bias in the selection and interpretation of facts. Of course the selection of evidence is just that, selective, but the point is to use the evidence in a critical and not an uncritical manner. As a public document the historical narrative will have to stand up to criticism from other people who may not be charitably inclined towards the views of the author. Desirable features of the story in addition to its capacity to stand up to criticism will include its fertility, its ability to prompt fresh ideas and elucidate new sources of information, also its topical interest and the way it illuminates the problems of the day." - Rafe
"To sum up, there can be no history of 'the past as it actually did happen'; there can only be historical interpretations, and none of them final; and every generation has a right to frame its own. But not only has it a right to frame its own interpretations, it also has a kind of obligation to do so; for there is indeed a pressing need to be answered. We want to know how our troubles are related to the past, and we want to see the line along which we may progress towards the solution of what we feel, and what we choose, to be our main tasks. It is this need which, if not answered by rational and fair means, produces historicist interpretations (what has history destined us for?).
"There is no history of mankind, there is only an indefinite number of histories of all kinds of aspects of human life. And one of these is the history of political power. This is elevated into the history of the world. But this, I hold, is an offence against every decent conception of mankind. It is hardly better than to treat the history of embezzlement or of robbery or of poisoning as the history of mankind. For the history of power politics is nothing but the history of international crime and mass murder (including, it is true, some of the attempts to suppress them). This history is taught in schools, and some of the greatest criminals are extolled as its heroes.
A universal history of mankind would have to be the story of all men and women "the history of all human hopes, struggles, and sufferings" because nobody is more important than anyone else (a highly egalitarian view!). But that history cannot be written, it is far too rich, all narratives have to be selective and focussed. But with this we arrive at the many histories; and among them, at that history of international crime and mass murder which has been advertised as the history of mankind.
But why has just the history of power been selected, and not, for example, that of religion, or of poetry? There are several reasons. One is that power affects us all, and poetry only a few. Another is that men are inclined to worship power. But there can be no doubt that the worship of power is one of the worst kinds of human idolatries, a relic of the time of the cage, of human servitude. The worship of power is born of fear, an emotion which is rightly despised. A third reason why power politics has been made the core of 'history' is that those in power wanted to be worshipped and could enforce their wishes. Many historians wrote under the supervision of the emperors, the generals and the dictators.
And, indeed, our intellectual as well as our ethical education is corrupt. It is perverted by the admiration of brilliance, of the way things are said, which takes the place of a critical appreciation of the things that are said (and the things that are done). It is perverted by the romantic idea of the splendour of the stage of History on which we are the actors. We are educated to act with an eye to the gallery.
The whole problem of educating man to a sane appreciation of his own importance relative to that of other individuals is thoroughly muddled by these ethics of fame and fate, by a morality which perpetuates an educational system that is still based upon the classics with their romantic view of the history of power and their romantic tribal morality which goes back to Heraclitus; a system whose ultimate basis is the worship of power. Instead of a sober combination of individualism and altruism (to use these labels again)—that is to say, instead of a position like 'What really matters are human individuals, but I do not take this to mean that it is I who matter very much'—a romantic combination of egoism and collectivism is taken for granted. That is to say, the importance of the self, of its emotional life and its 'self-expression', is romantically exaggerated...
It is under the influence of such romantic ideas that individualism is still identified with egoism, as it was by Plato, and altruism with collectivism (i.e. with the substitution of group egoism for the individualist egoism). But this bars the way even to a clear formulation of the main problem, the problem of how to obtain a sane appreciation of one's own importance in relation to other individuals.
History has no meaning, I contend. But this contention does not imply that all we can do about it is to look aghast at the history of political power, or that we must look at it as a cruel joke. For we can interpret it, with an eye to those problems of power politics whose solution we choose to attempt in our time. We can interpret the history of power politics from the point of view of our fight for the open society, for a rule of reason, for justice, freedom, equality, and for the control of international crime. Although history has no ends, we can impose these ends of ours upon it; and although history has no meaning, we can give it a meaning."
- Popper
And maybe ask the questions 'What are we to choose as our most urgent problems, how did they arise, and along what roads may we proceed to solve them?'
Methodological essentialism vs nominalism. Nominalism aims at describing how a thing behavies. Essentialism "claims that true belief (knowledge) results from either (a) an intuitive grasp of the essence of things, or (b) clarification or explication of the concept of the (various) things." Rafe
Rationalism includes empiricism and intellectualism. It is "roughly, an attitude that seeks to solve as many problems as possible by an appeal to reason, i.e. to clear thought and experience, rather than by an appeal to emotions and passions.
It may be better to explain rationalism in terms of practical attitudes or behaviour. We could then say that rationalism is an attitude of readiness to listen to critical arguments and to learn from experience (of various points of view). It is fundamentally an attitude of admitting that 'I may be wrong and you may be right, and by an effort, we may get nearer to the truth.' It is an attitude which does not lightly give up hope that by such means as argument and careful observation, people may reach some kind of agreement on many problems of importance; and that, even where their demands and their interests clash, it is often possible to argue about the various demands and proposals, and to reach — perhaps by arbitration — a compromise which, because of its equity, is acceptable. to most, if not to all…" -Popper
Also emphasized judging argument rather than person arguing. Anyone can be a source of information and ideas regardless of level of agreement between us. "Rational unity of mankind".
Irrationalism:
"I do not overlook the fact that there are irrationalists who love mankind, and that not all forms of irrationalism engender criminality. But I hold that he who teaches that not reason but love should rule opens the way for those who rule by hate. Those who do not see this connection at once, who believe in a direct rule of emotional love, should consider that love as such certainly does not promote impartiality. And it cannot do away with conflict either. It is our duty to help those who need our help; but it cannot be our duty to make others happy, since this does not depend on us, and since it would only too often mean intruding on the privacy of those towards whom we have such amiable intentions. The political demand for piecemeal (as opposed to Utopian) methods corresponds to the decision that the fight against suffering must be considered a duty, while the right to care for the happiness of others must be considered a privilege confined to the close circle of their friends." - Popper
Thursday, February 13, 2020
Thursday, September 5, 2019
Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad
Read this once in high school. Listened to the rest while driving across Ohio, still didn't quite resonate with me...
Thursday, June 29, 2017
"Narrative Medicine: A model for empathy, reflection, profession, and trust" by Rita Charon
Narrative medicine as a framework for clinical work that can apply the concept of narrative and all existing knowledge about the narrative in order to provide skills, methods, and texts to "imbue the facts and objects of health and illness with their consequences and meanings for individual patients and physicians".
Narrative knowledge finds meaning and significance in stories through cognitive, symbolic, and affective means.
- particular understandings about one situation by one participant or observer
- illuminates the 'universally true' by revealing the particular.
- inter-subjective domains of human knowledge and activity
- teller and listener
- meaning is apprehended collaboratively, it's all about the "inter-subjective domain"
Complements logicoscientific knowledge.
- detached and replaceable observer comprehends replicable and generalizable knowledge.
- illuminates the 'universally true' by transcending the particular
Narrative competence = ability to acknowledge, absorb, interpret, and act on the stories of others. Sounds very similar to the definition of compassion.
Some of the central narrative situations:
1. physician and patient
- "to find the words to contain the disorder and its attendant worries gives shape to and control over the chaos of illness"
- "acts of witnessing"
2. physician and self: reflection in practice
- calibrating the physician, attunement to engagement and compassion.
- identification of my own emotional responses to patients
- make sense of my own life journey
- written pieces shared with patients
3. physician and colleagues
- "Only when physicians have the narrative skills to recognize medicine's ideals, swear to on another to be governed by them, and hold one another accountable to them" can they live up to society's expectations of the ideal physician.
4. physician and society
- healthcare reform depends upon grave and daring conversations about meaning, values, and courage.
5. physician and their family
6. patient and patient's family
7 patient and patient's self
- what is wrong with me? why did this happen to me? what will become of me?
8 patient and other patients
9 patient society
Can the narrative bridge the divide between physicians and their selves, patients, colleagues, and society?
Monday, June 26, 2017
Six Amendments by John Paul Stevens
Addition to the constitution's supremacy clause.
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges and other public officials in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
Gerrymandering
"Districts represented by members of Congress, or by members of any state legislative body, shall be compact and composed of contiguous territory. The state shall have the burden of justifying any departures from this requirement by reference to neutral criteria such as natural, political, or historic boundaries or demographic changes. The interest in enhancing or preserving the political power of the party in control of the state government is not such a neutral criterion."
Campaign Finance
"Neither the First Amendment nor any other provision of this Constitution shall be construed to prohibit the Congress or any state from imposing reasonable limits on the amount of money that candidates for public office, or their supporters, may spend in election campaigns."
Sovereign Immunity
"Neither the Tenth Amendment, the Eleventh Amendment, nor any other provision of this Constitution, shall be construed to provide any state, state agency, or state officer with an immunity from liability for violating any act of Congress, or any provision of this Constitution."
Addition to 8th amendment
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments such as the death penalty inflicted."
Second amendment add 5 words
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the Militia, shall not be infringed."
Sunday, May 1, 2016
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo by Stieg Larsson
What a page turner! I listened to this while driving across the country and almost didn't want to stop to eat or get gas or anything because it was so suspenseful. Saw what you will about whether or not it qualifies as literature, but it certainly made me think about sexual abuse, human trafficking, and the role of police in new ways that I may not have ever thought about if I had not read this series.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)