You’re becoming combative here, we were requested to discuss the OP calmly and focus only the arguments presented, not start criticising the other posters positions.
Also this is in the Politics and Current Affairs section. Not the philosophy of politics section. I do think there is a place for your “meta analysis” here. But I think it requires you to focus on the real time issues being discussed and how it can be applied.
I answered this at the time. I referenced these analysts and political leaders as examples of people who have already taken the deeper political analysis into account. So your suggestion of political bias on their part, is moot.
I’m sure it’s also happening on the other side as well. The Russians will be considering such analysis too. Although in the more difficult circumstances of having to massage Putin’s ego, while advising him.
I don’t need to say why I think X about these analysts, because I know that they are already trained and are specialists in their fields. Note I’m not say what they have concluded, I’m saying I trust that they know what they are doing. I actually know one of these people.
Focus, we were talking about the discriminative semantic value of words to make them “meaningful”. Now if one is to claim that any opinion is rooted into bias and therefore any opinion is biased, then the word “bias” loses its explanatory power since it doesn’t discriminate between biased opinions and non-biased opinions. I also said what to me a bias is and that in order to apply the notion of bias one has to a method to identify systematic errors, so a cognitive failure where there is a clear solution instead of convenient heuristics or mental shortcuts. If there isn’t, the notion of bias can not be applied. And I explained why it’s very problematic to circumscribe political issues in such a way that we can share a method to identify solutions. The political problem is inherently rooted into non-shared views that’s why accusing adversaries of being biased while sparing oneself such accusation begs the question. I’m totally fine with the claim that our political views are influenced by our political preferences, but that’s not enough to accuse others of being morally and psychologically defective while we aren’t. Nor to call such dependence a “cognitive mistake”.
To adjudicate what? Precisely because interests and views must be so reciprocally conditioned (opinions without interest lose relevance, interests without views would be blind), the idea that explanation goes only in one direction from interests to opinions is misleading and that’s a common pattern in lots of lines of political reasoning. That’s is what I don’t find particularly enlightening the argument that political views are ultimately rooted into cognitive mistakes which supposedly follow from selfish private or group interests.
What I was arguing is that such implicit rules are worth investigating in a political analysis. So yes we must be able to understand them and we must be able to explicit them. Like the syntactic rules of ordinary language. We can fail as in any endeavor, so what? That’s still worth pursuing to me.
An ethical analysis, as I understand it, is grounded on normative assumptions (which are often wrapped by armchair psychology). And such normative assumptions often mislead people’s expectations over how things are and what things can be done. So no matter what political views one has, understanding how things are helps having a better grasp on what things can be done wrt one wishes or ought to be the case to cover the gap between desirable and feasible. That’s the best one (no matter what their political views are) can get from an analysis of a political predicament, as I understand it.
Besides, as I said, I do not care if my analysis can be exploited by one part or the other, since I think it is still possible to be ethically partial in defending one political agenda over others and yet understand that all parts involved in the political competition are compelled to converge on some implicit “shared rules” to guide their action that a geopolitical analysis may endeavour to explicit. So it’s not me claiming impartiality, maybe people pushing ethical analysis may make such a claim.
The limits of your understanding of my claims are not limits of my claims. Try to define “power” regardless of resources and provide concrete examples of powerful people, nations, lobbies regardless of resources let’s see if you can. Resources are power enablers: resources can be material (like weapons, money, technology) or immaterial (like information and human skills). But their concentration at the expense of others, precisely creates power leverage. That “resources being plentiful and the scarcity entirely manufactured” is still a statement about scarce resources (if they are plentiful or not I leave it to a political debate, I already admitted that there might be different opinions on that). That politics is about cooperation and find mutual ground for agreement presupposes competing views and interests otherwise we wouldn’t need to find anything and I already admitted “that people are compelled to cooperate and overcome a competitive attitude”.
I’ve done none of those things. I said that the view of humanity as being in a permanent state of competition over resources is one that is primary to key conservative, and neo-liberal thinkers. You can read them if you don’t believe me. No where did I claim you agree with them. I’m pointing out that the view is not universally held, and where it is held, it is held for its utility for conservative economic arguments about capitalism. I’m pointing out that an opinion about these ‘rules’ is still held in the service of some wider ideology.
What do you mean by “permanent state of competition”? I already admitted that cooperation is also possible between individuals and groups, make no mistake. So why are you bringing this up?
Besides I do not care if this is an explicit premise of “capitalism”. But there is nothing in human history so far and alternative views that seems to question the existence of political competing views. Communism is grounded on the idea of the competition between economic classes, and on the idea that communist theory is competing with capitalist theory.
So what are you talking about?
I also suspect that you feel very strongly support any anti-Western narratives on the Ukraine war. But you think you are more balanced and likely morally superior than I am. So what? That’s irrelevant wrt what I’m arguing. My challenge to you is to explicit assumptions we must agree on to be reciprocally intelligible in a political debate, not just engage in a political battle which by the way confirms what I’m saying by itself.
I believe both and they probably both think pretty much the same thing, remember I’m talking of military analysts. What is at issue here and what the thread is about is Putin’s actions and the mistake he has made, or not.
No. I’m disagreeing with your claim that it is ‘discriminative’ semantic value which makes words meaningful. I gave examples of words which are meaningful despite being common to all humans.
And again, I’m disagreeing with you. We do not need a method of identifying bias to know it will be there. Just as I don’t need to be able to identify the individual atoms in a glass of water to know they will be there. I do not have to identify what your opinion of me is to know you will have one. I don’t need to have a method for identifying thoughts to know you have them.
No one is doing that. The claim is that we all exhibit bias. You’ve literally just spent a paragraph arguing against that exact claim.
You are replying to a quote which literally says it can go either way.
Indeed. I’m talking about whether anyone has such an understanding, or expresses it in threads like these. I’m not disputing the utility of it, should one acquire it.
The ability to cause another to act in your, rather than their, interests.
Ah! So ‘resources’ can be anything. Tell me what’s not a resource then? Don’t forget the “discriminative semantic value of words to make them “meaningful””.
So, our default state is either one of competition or one of cooperation? So why did you bring it up?
Now who’s ascribing beleifs? Where did I say anything about being more balanced and morally superior? My argument all along is that we are all biased, and you know that because you’ve just got through telling me how useless that is.
So you’re claiming all military analysts agree with your assessment of Russia’s objectives and the extent to which they’ve been achieved. That explains a lot.
If, after four years of debate you haven’t even looked into opposing views sufficiently to know they even exist it’s hard to see how your thread is anything other than evangelism.
The notion of “belief”, “opinion” and “desire” to be meaningful must have a discriminative semantic value too: in other words one must be able to provide unquestionable examples of what can be classified as a belief, opinion and desire and what is not.
The word “bias”, as I understand it, qualifies beliefs and must discriminate between biased beliefs and non-biased beliefs.
So if all beliefs are biased then “bias” loses its capacity to discriminate to qualify opinions. Worse than this the opinion that all beliefs are biased is biased. It makes no sense to me. BTW you never defined bias nor gave examples of biased beliefs in politics. So let’s start with that. And then tell me how your definition applies to your political views.
I gave you my definition of “bias” (feel free to provide an alternative) along with additional clarifications, that’s my understanding of that notion, so if you keep repeating it without clarifying if you agree with my definition or not, we can only risk to equivocate one another. BTW how can you know all these things then if you do not have a method to identify these things? When one claims to “know” either they rely on a reliable method to acquire this knowledge by themselves or by others whose knowledge they trust. Still this method of identifying things that are claimed to be known must exist. Besides what is the point of claiming that everyone has their bias even though we are unable to identify them? I never needed to deny the generic claim that we have biases even if we are occasionally (not systematically) unable to identify them. But to get from this to the claim that all our opinions are systematically biased doesn’t make any sense to me by my definition of bias. Nor that all our political views are systematically biased. Nor that political competition is always rooted in systematic biases. Nor that political competition is always rooted in occasional biases.
I didn’t spend a paragraph arguing against the claim that we all exhibit bias. On the contrary I explicitly claimed: “If all you want to say is that whenever we (ordinary people and politicians) bump into our cognitive limits, then we rely on more fallible and habitual mental shortcuts, I can agree with that. And whenever we bump into our moral limits, we all have private interests to pursue, I can agree with that too. I can agree also with the idea that education and intellectual discipline can change these limits, hopefully for a better life for an individual and the community the individual belongs to.”
Still, “we all exhibit bias” is a generic claim which I agree with but I don’t see the point of making it other than supporting a political analysis that is focused on people biases over political issues from allegedly an unbiased point of view. My arguments are skeptical toward such an approach in politics, not because I disagree with the generic claim “we all exhibit bias” but because this can be very misleading in understanding the nature of political competition as such for the reasons I explained: political issues by nature are such that they exceed our individual (or worse, collective) capacity to circumscribe them for a shared methodical solution. And our political preferences or not just something that distorts our cognitive capacities, but also something makes our cognitive findings relevant.
First, your admission comes after I questioned your line of reasoning over opinions biased by interest.
But then you felt like there was an intellectual point you could still score by saying “Leaving us in no better a position to adjudicate.”. Besides, I always try to explicit my polemical target and since you are trying to make objections to my views, first make en effort to understand what they are: “the idea that explanation goes only in one direction from interests to opinions is misleading and that’s a common pattern in lots of lines of political reasoning. That’s is what I don’t find particularly enlightening the argument that political views are ultimately rooted into cognitive mistakes which supposedly follow from selfish private or group interests.”
Now, do you agree with that quote of mine or not? If not, why not? Just don’t forget that “we all exhibit bias” is not an objection to that quote.
Still you should have an idea of what such an understanding must look like to then assess if one has it or not. My point is that such an understanding should go beyond the idea that “political views are ultimately rooted into cognitive mistakes which supposedly follow from selfish private or group interests”.
And what gives the ability to cause another to act in your, rather than their, interests? I didn’t mean for you to offer a definition where the words “resources” is artificially omitted to only beg the question. If you read my clarifications you would understand why your trick doesn’t work. As I explained in my previous comment resources are power enablers, they are what gives the “ability to cause another to act in your, rather than their, interests”. Besides, acting in your rather than in their interests again refers to competing interests.
So again we are still in the perimeter of my definition.
Ah! So ‘resources’ can be anything. Tell me what’s not a resource then? Don’t forget the “discriminative semantic value of words to make them “meaningful””.
[/quote]
In the context of politics, a resource is not not anything, but anything that can be effectively exploited by individuals and groups for leverage and so grant “the ability to cause another to act in your, rather than their, interests”. In a capitalist society, concentration of money is normally a political resource, in a primitive society no. In a war having a big trained and well equipped army is normally a resource, while having an equally large body of non-violent pacifist isn’t. In a Western democracy, access to mass media to popularise one’s political program is a grater political resource than just walking through bars in the neighbourhood.
I don’t mind retorting questions, but trying to answering them straightforwardly first would be more challenging.
Anyways, “our default state is either one of competition or one of cooperation” is not my phrasing. I talked about cooperation to distance myself from the claim about “humanity as being in a permanent state of competition over resources”. I don’t get what that “permanent” is supposed to mean, since margins of cooperation can be pursued and actually achieved in many circumstances, even between historical enemies. But I also insisted on “competition” because it is at the core of my definition and understanding of politics. And “cooperation” often presupposes the notion of “competition”.
You expressed your suspects, right? Well then I can do the same, right? And if you believe that a generic claim like “we are all biased” (you didn’t even care to clarify what you mean by bias) is particularly useful in the political context, still I didn’t read arguments and examples to corroborate it in your answers to me. Looking forward to reading them.
You’re making less and less sense the more you post. I’ll try to draw back out the two main threads and clarify my position.
The claim that we’re all biased
This is just a claim about how brains work to form opinions, it no more needs some people/opinions to be non-biased than the claim “all sensory constructs are interpreted” needs some not to be in order to be meaningful.
Claims of the form “all X are Y” have no logical or semantic issues and are completely normal intelligible claims; if you can’t understand them, the fault is yours.
The existence of a category does not imply it has any members. There is a category ‘all people who have been to Mars’. It has no members since no one has been to Mars. Likewise, there does not need to be any members of the category ‘non-biased beliefs’ for the category to exist.
The purpose is not to claim some high ground of detachment, it is to point out that any from of ‘analysis’ will suffer from the same biases and so likely render its results merely self-confirming rather than enlightening.
In other words you can’t play the “I’m just here to do analysis of terms”. You’re here to convince people of your political views like we all are, you just think you’ve found a more persuasive tool.
Politics is about competition over resources
It either is or it isn’t. You want to claim it is, so your notion that we have to permanently pick sides holds, but when pressed you fall back on “well it can also be about cooperation”, which renders the point moot
It was originally raised to imply a fundamental incompatibility in competing narratives, because resources are ‘scarce’, then (again when pushed) you concede resources can include knowledge, which is not ‘scarce’ in the sense of a limited supply. It is quite possible, in theory, for everyone to have all the knowledge.
If resources can include knowledge, and politics can include cooperation, then it follows that cooperation about the dissemination of knowledge can be a form of politics and need not be competitive because knowledge is infinitely divisible.
As such we are not necessarily fundamentally opposed, we need no ‘pick a side’, an option remains open to us to unite sides.
So, back to the discussion here;
Defining terms isn’t going to get anywhere, the definitions given will just be those that best support whatever political position you want to persuade others of
Explicating the political environment likewise; your preferred explanation will just be the one that best suits your political agenda.
What we could do is be honest about our political agendas and talk about why we think they’re best. The common ground we have (hopefully) is that of rationality, that X, Y, and Z provide reasons to believe A, B, and C.
Not sure about the practical utility of my analysis as much as I’m not sure about the practical utility of any philosophical analysis. There are however some inherent cognitive goals that theoretical analysis can pursue, namely greater clarity, consistency, comprehensiveness, economy, pertinence, explanatory power (to name the first ones that come to mind), than ordinary thoughts. One can just be happy with that like when we enjoy solving puzzles, or else hope that this can better guide our decision making, for ordinary citizens or political leaders.
This approach is not something I invented, there are generations of geopolitical analysts and historians engaging in such analysis until today. And they all have their competing views on the genesis of conflicts, forecasts about their evolution, and recommendations in light of such an understanding. The philosophical task, as I understand it, is however to extrapolate their conceptual framework (consider the notions of “power”, “national security”, “national sovereignty”, “international order”, “human rights”, “coup d’etat”, “NATO provokation”, “political legitimacy”, “imperialism”, “colonialism”, “freedom”, “democracy”, etc.) and try to determine to what extent our political understanding of certain political predicaments and political competition must converge in theory and in practice to become reciprocally intelligible.
For me the most interesting cases to investigate, are the ones where historical and ideological enemies converge on a strategic alliance (Nazis and Soviet Union, theocratic Iran and atheist China, pro-Russian extreme left and right stance even though the two are supposed to be rivals), or when historical and ideological allies or fellows are deeply divided (in the West there anti-Western narratives, in the left and right you can find moderate and extremists).
Again, you didn’t define “bias”. Your claim is “generic”: by “we all are biased” means that all our opinions are systematically biased including the claim “we all are biased”? Does this make sense? If so how do you know that since your knowledge is biased so grounded on a cognitive mistakes?
The claim “all sensory constructs are interpreted” sounds like a tautology, indeed what is the word “interpreted” supposed to add to the meaning of the word “construct”? It’s like saying “all sensory interpretations are interpreted” or “all sensory constructs are constructed”. Anyways, also the notion of interpretation to be meaningful must have a contrastive value: we must be able to distinguish cases of “interpreted” from “non-interpreted” sensory input.
If that’s really hard for you to understand, blame your biases.
Like “all cats are dogs” you mean?
I’m not talking about the extension of a concept, but about its intension. The claim that “‘all people who have been to Mars’” presupposes an understanding when the words “people”, “to be in”, and “Mars” apply: for example “people” refers to a certain biological creature and not to others, “to be in” refers to a spacial relation as opposed to “to be outside something”, “Mars” refers to a specific planet and not others. So again, if an opinion is biased, I want to know why is that, and what would make an opinion non-biased. If “biased” refers to a type of “cognitive mistake” then I’d like to know what would be its “cognitive rectification”, and if there is nothing to cognitively rectify then there is no cognitive mistake.
How do you know that they will suffer of the “same” biases? How do you detect “biases”? How do you understand if one is more or less biased? Oh, so “enligheting” means non “self-confirming” to you? In other words, enlightening are all beliefs that do not confirm your beliefs? And I am the one who doesn’t make sense?
That’s your bias I guess. Prove me wrong. Out of curiosity, what evidence would you need to believe that I’m not here to convince others of my political views (which I haven’t exposed yet)?
I don’t fall back. I still insist on defending a definition of politics I provided for which you wish to provide compelling alternatives which you haven’t. Indeed, the kind of cooperation I’m referring to is the one that overcomes the problem of competing interests and views, so it presupposes competition. I’m not referring to the cooperation that instinctively bees show in their social life or the kind of cooperation that doesn’t rise from competing interests. That’s all I care about pointing at.
“Knowledge” is a very scarce resource of course for many reasons: 1) lack of education and cognitive limits
also Astorre pointed that out (by the way if knowledge wasn’t a scarce resource why are we all biased?) 2) Intellectual division of labor (e.g. the knowledge available to “domain-specific expertise” is not universally shared, and knowledge production is more collective than individual than it ever was due to integration of more and more complex technology and wider scientific research programs) 3) Since knowledge as a scarce resource can be exploited for political leverage knowledge asymmetries need to be managed and often even preserved.
‘Bias’ is a normal word in English. You didn’t define ‘define’. I don’t expect to have to define every word I use. If you’re struggling, use a dictionary.
Your claim is “generic”: by “we all are biased” means that all our opinions are systematically biased including the claim “we all are biased”? Does this make sense?
Yes, perfectly. Being biased is not the same as being wrong, and being uncertain doesn’t prevent us from proceeding based on our beliefs. So it’s perfectly rational to go on with the belief that all beliefs are biased, assuming it’s nonetheless correct until shown otherwise.
If so how do you know that since your knowledge is biased so grounded on a cognitive mistakes?
I don’t. See above. Do you have some evidence to bear on the matter?
Like “all cats are dogs” you mean?
Yes. A perfectly intelligible claim. One that happens to be incorrect. As I said, claims of the form “all X are Y” are perfectly intelligible. “All cats are mammals” for example.
The claim that “‘all people who have been to Mars’” presupposes an understanding when the words “people”, “to be in”, and “Mars” apply:
Again, if you’re having trouble with English, consult a dictionary.
“enligheting” means non “self-confirming” to you? In other words, enlightening are all beliefs that do not confirm your beliefs?
Once more, if you don’t know what ‘enlightening’ means, consult a dictionary.
That’s your bias I guess.
You’re getting there…
Out of curiosity, what evidence would you need to believe that I’m not here to convince others of my political views (which I haven’t exposed yet)?
A view which doesn’t favour any particular political agenda. If, given a range of expert opinion, you consistently select those which confirm a particular political agenda even though contradictory opinions exist, I assume that’s the intention. Likewise if given two equally plausible theories about political power, you consistently choose the one which best serves a particular political ideology I assume that’s the reason.
As I said at the outset, you are not qualified to adjudicate between experts. So you choose to believe one set or the other. That choice cannot be made by weighing the evidence (you don’t have the knowledge to do that), so it is made by preference.
“Knowledge” is a very scarce resource of course for many reasons…
I wrote “‘scarce’ in the sense of a limited supply”. Knowledge is infinitely divisible. It never runs out. Everyone can have full knowledge of everything without having to diminish the total supply.
As such we do not need to compete over resources if resources includes knowledge.
First of all, I’d like to say how grateful I am for the opportunity to reach this point in the dialogue.
Your last comment conveyed your honest approach to the topic under investigation, and I’d like to emphasize that I respect honesty. My ultimate honesty lies in my bias. My bias lies in the fact that I am the aggrieved party in this conflict (I won’t go into details about how).
And it was precisely this circumstance (and not mere curiosity) that prompted me to ask myself practical questions. These are precisely practical questions, because the answers I formulate will influence my decisions, which affect my life and the lives of my family. Also, on both sides of the conflict are people quite close to me—ordinary people, whose fates also cause me concern.
I’ll try to be brutally honest (at least to the extent I understand it).
So, having defined my priorities, I quickly discarded any emotionally charged categories (aggressor, enemy at the border, coup d’état, violation of international law). I also immediately discarded any attempts to derive pure definitions of these concepts, since any emotionally charged category influences the direction and course of my own thoughts.
Next. The development of the plot lines in the fifth season of this series directly affects me (as I noted above), which means my first question is: how soon will all this end? My second question is: in what version will all this end?
To answer these practical questions, trying to answer “what constitutes a coup d’état” or “how does US imperialism differ from Russian imperialism” is not so much impractical as harmful. Of course, I can understand those who pose questions this way and can afford to do so, while remaining safe.
The next practical question, which follows for me from the previous ones, is: “What can I do myself to hasten the end?” The answer “revolt, gather supporters” is impractical: in that case, my fate will be tragic. But what can I do? Actually, a lot. First, “pull the plug” from myself. This means getting rid of any information that inflames any emotions in me. This makes me inaccessible to any propaganda, and any politician on either side loses a potential follower, weakening their position (albeit to a very small degree). Second, I can share my approach with others, which will create even more uncontrollable units. In this sense, the strategy is this: if a politician brainwashes the smallest possible number of people, this will clearly hasten the end and prevent any conflicts.
At the same time, I notice that even here, among intellectuals, a “presumption” about what is happening dominates. Therefore, my practical approach is not so practical after all. However, at least on a personal level, it yielded some results, and I’m writing this now, not buried as a hero.
From here, I’d like to suggest you formulate what you’re developing into more practical things and simpler formulations, so that it not only “entertains the mind” but also helps solve real problems.
No.
I don’t know where you got that from.
I’ll give you my position again. Military analysts are specialists, with far more information and intelligence than we have. So we’re not in a position to comment.
If we want to know Russia’s objectives all we need to do is listen to Putin’s speeches.
What I’m asking about in this thread is about Putin’s actions, whether he has made a mistake and how he’s going to account for it to the Russian people. It’s not really about politics, or military strategy. Although there are implications in those areas.
What? Where did I get the idea you think all military analysts think the same thing from? It’ll probably be the bit where you said
they probably both think pretty much the same thing
… Call me old-fashioned, but saying “they probably both think pretty much the same thing”, does put one somewhat of the mind thay you think they both think the same thing.
Military analysts are specialists, with far more information and intelligence than we have. So we’re not in a position to comment.
Great, we agree on that. The problem is, you have commented. Copiously. You open with…
to put it frankly if any goals can be identified, they have not been achieved, or if they have, it was at great cost to the Russian people and their reputation in the world.
… which is exactly the type of assessment over which there is disagreement among experts (the ones who apparently all think the same thing)
If we want to know Russia’s objectives all we need to do is listen to Putin’s speeches.
Which ones? The ones where he says he’s freeing Ukraine from Nazis? No, those are just propaganda? The ones where he says he’s securing borders against NATO advance? No, those are just stirring up dissent in a hybrid war against Western nations. … And so on. You ‘listen’ to the speeches that confirm your pre-existing beliefs and discard those that conflict with them as ‘propaganda’, or ‘rhetoric’.
You don’t “listen to Putin’s speeches” to learn his intention. You decide what you think his intention is, then filter Putin’s speeches to leave only those that confirm your agenda.
What I’m asking about in this thread is about Putin’s actions, whether he has made a mistake…
OK.
and how he’s going to account for it to the Russian people.
Account for what? The mistake you’re apparently still in the process of ‘asking’ if he’s even made?
Unnecessarily argumentative. I could write a long post explaining it, but you would just argue each point. It’s pointless. I’ll reply when you write something I’m happy to engage with.