How Do They Get That Way?

Posted by Herb7734 6 years, 11 months ago to Philosophy
72 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

Have you ever asked yourself why liberals are so wrong minded, even when their beliefs are proven to be irrational and their philosophy demonstrably faulty?I have come to believe that it is built on self-hatred.Perhaps it was instilled in them by their parents, or by the many other soul-crushing events that can happen to a child as they grow into adulthood. some of you will understand because you have gone through it and have had the strength to overcome it and are quite pleased with yourselves.My Granddaughter recommended the poetry of W.H. Auden so, being a poetry lover I picked up a book of his poems.Now, you should understand she graduated from a state college, well known for its liberal attitude as most of them are.I didn't expect much elucidation from this famous ode-maker.I came across a poem called "In Praise Of Limestone"."I 'm a long way from being a shrink, but it brought back all the shrinkish stuff foisted on me during a great tragedy in my life. I've overcome being in a liberal family, in a liberal neighborhood, among liberal relatives which I managed to overcome as I struggled for rationality.Let me quote the part of the poem that got me started on this diatribe.
"I am the solitude that asks and promises nothing;That is how I shall set you free. There is no love;
There are only various envies, all of them sad."

The terrible lonliness of being with yourself.Boo-hoo. It is during the emotional 'teen years where this is particularly foisted onto persons, when they are flooded with hormones, and unidentified feelings. It's no wonder they are attracted to philosophies of emotion , where concern for their fellow man overrides concern for themselves. I have no degree in shrinkology, so you might say I'm merely prattling so much garbage. Maybe so, but that poem excerpt is typical of the left, justifying almost anything because it demands sacrifice, and the people have been conditioned to self-hatred. That's why such poetry is typical of the left. You won't find heroes in their literature, or positive aspirations in their fiction, That's why I don't read any "serious" books of fiction. Only thrillers, Where I can identify with the good guys and hate the bad guys.


All Comments

  • Posted by LibertyBelle 6 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I was trying to answer this the other day, but time was running short, and I kind of got cut off. In 8th grade math, when my answer was wrong, I wanted to explain how I got it, so as to know why it was wrong. (It is not that I ever believed that my answer was really right and hers wrong; I was trying to see what mistake I had made, so as to avoid making the same mistake again). I would have liked to go to the board and put my computation up there, so she could point to the mistake, and say, "Here's where you went off the track". But she never would let me. I could understand it if she had said, "We don't have time for that, too many people in the class," but that's not what she said. No, the old b* would interrupt and say, [given name], there are some things you have to take on faith." She also once said something like, "Just as you have faith that there's a good place and a bad place." I let her know that I didn't (at that time I was something of a deist). But the idea of taking something "on faith" in mathematics was especially outrageous to me. She accosted me once in the hallway (I think I was on the way to lunch, but maybe it was just class change), and told me that what got her was that I thought (or seemed to think) that I was right and she was wrong. I think that she was just a power-lusting old b who couldn't stand to be challenged or contradicted. And I believe that _that is perhaps the motivation of some people who become teachers.(And also, maybe some don't want to soil their dainty hands with [gasp] manual labor, but don't want to put out enough effort to, or don't have the intelligence, to become doctors,lawyers, or other scientists, so they take the easier route of becoming teachers.... (Putting such long phrases in italics was an accident).
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 6 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I think that the least they can do is make something up if they don't know the answer.Or if a student comes up with a better answer. Example: A "Social Studies" teacher (When I was in 11th grade) was asked to define socialism. She replied that it was an economic system that cut off the economic ladder at the bottom and the top. In other words, no poor and no rich.I knew that was wrong, but at the time I couldn't tell how. If I was the teacher and didn't know the answer, I'd make one up. Example: Socialism is a way of teaching people to be social. How to throw a good party. Knowing where to get beer kegs by underage 'teens, Etc..
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 6 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I started out my career as a teacher. But I found that administration hadn't a clue as to what goes on in a classroom. Children are as idividual as adults and cannot be kept to a schedule in the certain knowledge that they learned anything.And while I loved the kids, I didn't have the kind of nurturing patience that should be required in a primary school teacher.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by LibertyBelle 6 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    But it isn't only in politics. Authority figures who are unfit for their jobs (such as schoolteachers, when they can't explain the subject and answer the student's question), they get snotty, and start accusing the questioner; and I think they put emotion over reason.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 6 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Plato -- the original mystic.
    He believed that humans were not equipped to perceive true reality. But, he wasn't talking about quantum physics.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 6 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Excellent advice!
    Like Don Corleone said, "Keep your friends close, but keep your enemies closer."
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Stormi 6 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Absolutely Aristotle, part of the big three. Since I majored in Philo. in college, the list includes some I would not care to mention, but apply in the know your enemy category. Humanists, Marxists, etc I have read Mao's Little Red Book and Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals, as well as "Brainwashing in Red China. You have to know what you are up against, then use the philosophers you admire to show why the bad ones are wrong.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 6 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    That is true BUT, since the appeal of socialism is emotional, and the leftists can only accept what is emotionally appealing to them, they couldn’t accept your argument that socialism doesn’t work and dash the hope hope that socialism is just defunct. Therefore, they ignore your rational arguments and say socialism just wasn’t done right that time.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by LibertyBelle 6 years, 11 months ago
    Ayn Rand wrote an article, "The Comprachicos", which was republished as a chapter in The New Left: the Anti-Industrial Revolution, which book I believe has been published yet again (with some additional chapters by other individuals), as The Return of the Primitive.
    Well anyway, "The Comprachicos" described the assault on children's minds in Progressive nursery schools. I never went to a nursery school myself; I also did not go to kindergarten. I started public school in the first grade; but was fortunate enough to have been previously taught phonics at home by my mother. Thus I came out of it able to reason all right.
    If children are kidnapped by the State, and taught that they cannot reason and the facts and everything else are to be determined by majority vote, you are going to have this kind of danger in the country.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 6 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I have a car. It doesn't work. But a major component is missing, so the car won't run.I don't like the company that makes the component.So I give money to the mechanic to get the car to run without the component. The mechanic accepts the money, but he knows the car cannot run without the part that's missing..I doesn't matter how much money you give to the fixer, without that basic part the car will never run.But, the mechanic will never turn down your money. Believing in something won't make it so. It must prove to be right. By now, we have plenty of examples of Capitalism versus Socialism, Communism, Fascism, and Ismism. Capitalism works, all the others don't..Basing a government on any system other than Capitalism is the definition of insanity ala Einstein.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 6 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I meant that what they do preserves the illusiory hope that if only more money or effort were thrown at socialism/ it would finally succeed. They don’t want to think or do anything that would conclusively prove that collectivism in all its forms is just flawed at it core and cannot work
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 6 years, 11 months ago
    The key word in your question IMHO is "overcome".

    I people accept partisan politics is related to Moral Foundations Theory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_f...
    I learned all this from the 2012 book The Righteous Mind.
    That book describes five moral foundations: Care, Fairness, Loyalty, Authority/Respect, and Sanctity/Purity. There is also a "liberty" foundation, that he presents as an exception, but to me it seems the closest thing to valid moral foundation.
    Haidt explains that liberals are mainly focused on Care and Fairness foundations, while conservatives tend to have a balance of all of them.
    What Haidt says rings true to me, BUT while I think these "foundations" made it possible for human kind to organize as groups, we do not have to be beholden to them. Haidt rightly says we start out with emotions based on these foundations, and then we post-hoc rationalize a reason-based argument to get to what our emotions tell us. I agree, BUT we can rise above that.

    It's hard to rise above, esp consistently, and therefore these emotions do drive us to different policy ideas and we (some of us more than others) post-hoc rationalize how logic and reason supposedly led us to those policies.

    The explanation that liberals/conservatives must be just stupid, psychologically damaged, or morally flawed and then patting myself on the back is pure empty calories, and I reject empty calories except for Taco Bell and Mountain Dew.

    You rightly talk about emotionalism being foisted on people at a young age. I think emotionalism and post hoc rationalization are the human default. We have to work to overcome them. It's like of like how religion sees the devil as constantly tempting us. Our nature to come up with narratives about how we and people in our group are the good guys is part of human nature. The foible got people to work together to build cities with people beyond their personal family, and now it's like a devil tempting us that must be resisted in favor of reason.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 6 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    maybe all its supposed to do is keep alive the possibility socialism can be made to work- in which case the continual application of money actually is effective
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 6 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    A common left procedure is to throw more money at something that doesn't work. As if money will fix it.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 6 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Every once in a while, however, he gets a little too horrible for me.We all have our limits I guess, but he sure can think up some horrendous situations.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo