The Reality of Ideals

[Loddfafner]

What inspired this poll was a barroom conversation last night. My opponent was a ranting Randroid. He took me for a stupid skinhead who could not grasp the most elementary concepts of political philosophy that would allow me to recognized the genius of Sarah Palin.

1) Do such concepts as "liberty", "rights", "equality", and "freedom" refer to something real that we must cherish and implement,

2) Are they distractions that disable people with glowing sentiments of idealism long enough to be miss their pockets being picked,

or
3) Are they distractions from the absence of any real truth whatsoever -- in other words simulacra in Baudrillard's sense of poor copies of an idea for which there is no original?

[Birka]

I would vote for Liberty and Freedom. Equality and Rights smell of too much politics to me.

[Lahtari]

I will not answer the poll until I get an idea of between what are you exactly trying to make us choose, but..


1) Do such concepts as "liberty", "rights", "equality", and "freedom" refer to something real that we must cherish and implement,

2) Are they distractions that disable people with glowing sentiments of idealism long enough to be miss their pockets being picked,

3) Are they distractions from the absence of any real truth whatsoever -- in other words simulacra in Baudrillard's sense of poor copies of an idea for which there is no original?

Such concepts are human philosophy, which at least I see as essential principles in building a human society. Without them we can as well join biker gangs and paramilitary organizations and start shooting at each other until there's one Führer bowed by everyone. And I'm not saying this in order to being able to pick anyone's pockets - even if someone else might be.

I really don't get the idea of them being "something original", or "God-given laws" or anything like that - of course they aren't. In nature, everything just happens, and the only laws are that of the fittest and that of physics. Human concepts are always made by humans, for humans.

[Loddfafner]

The dude in the bar (he was a dude kind of guy) took liberty and freedom as both his premises and his conclusions. He was cynical about rights. We did not discuss equality although Hitler was his measure of all things bad. Since Hitler supported universal health care, Obama was just like Hitler. Ayn Rand was his hero and I would see the light if only I would read her work.

I attempted to challenge his assumptions about the nature of the state and of these abstract ideals but as I did not fit into his preset grid (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=949) of political philosophies I may as well have been talking about pine martens (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7027&highlight=marten). I was more concerned with my next beer (a Guinness) and catching up with some old friends and was in no mood for such serious arguments.

[Loki]

What is the reality of concepts like Liberty, Rights, Equality, and Freedom?


My mind is a bit all over the place today, but I'll try. I voted for:

They are noble ideals we should believe in and implement.

I think we as humans have come a very long way. It has taken us many thousands of years to get to some sort of civilized existence. And we have only just achieved a good equilibrium. Only 60-odd years ago, we have endured the most horrific of slaughters in our entire existence as a species. Perhaps our current spell of relative world peace (unless of course you're as unfortunate as to have been born in Baghdad, Kabul or Gaza) is merely an armistice about to come to an abrupt end. Regardless, I think we should very much cherish that which had been achieved, and work to preserve the concepts of Liberty, Rights, Equality and Freedom.

However, I know that to your average politician, these are mere buzz-words that they utter to gain electoral support.

When I look at this from a (much) larger perspective, it becomes less clear. I see human beings as part of an organic infestation that has covered the earth. This parasitic infestation is not going to last forever, anyway. Thankfully.

[Loddfafner]

Whether these basic Enlightenment values, whether you prefer those of liberty or of equality, rights to property or rights to be taken care of, are real or not (as divine or human constructions) they are certainly elusive.

Inequality, the lack of liberty, and the lack of rights, on the other hand are much more solid.

[Loki]

Inequality, the lack of liberty, and the lack of rights, on the other hand are much more solid.

Most humans are a lot better off than they were 100 years ago, though. And modern communication / internet / fast travel have made matters a lot more transparent. It's more difficult for corrupt politicians to get away with it these days. Despite imperfections, I do think we have made progress. Whether this progress is going to cause our downfall, is debatable. Modern life has brought its own curse. Comfort, wealth, freedom are all factors which cause humans to lose their natural vigilance, and will eventually lead to negligence, I fear.

[Jarl]

1) Do such concepts as "liberty", "rights", "equality", and "freedom" refer to something real that we must cherish and implement,

I'd say yes, they are real concepts. Though, just like laws, they are dependent on the ethical system. Therefore they have the nature of a means. We must cherish and impement them as far as they comply with our values and help us/others/the society attain perfection within the framework of the ethical system we believe in.

[Ariets]

Egalitarism (equality) is a crime against nature.

[Ulf]

Any fool can make a rule
And any fool will mind it.
Thoreau

They're just ideals, states of being that man can strive for. Sometimes I think animals have more independence than us, thanks to our fellow man's need to dominate. I just desire independence. Independent from the need for my government to really do anything for me. I desire self-sufficiency, that is my ideal state of being.

Rights are just entitlements. They are given and can be taken. Freedom and independence is something everyone has, but through out life lets it be taken from them at times. Equality is the most absurd ideal, conceptual communism, everyone could never be equal...

So what is there? Technically nothing there's no truth to any of those things, it just depends if you wish to be dominated or not and to what extent...

I am buzzed so this is the best I can muster, the words of another...

Is a democracy, such as we know it, the last improvement possible in government? Is it not possible to take a step further towards recognizing and organizing the rights of man? There will never be a really free and enlightened State until the State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all its own power and authority are derived, and treats him accordingly. I please myself with imagining a State at least which can afford to be just to all men, and to treat the individual with respect as a neighbor; which even would not think it inconsistent with its own repose if a few were to live aloof from it, not meddling with it, nor embraced by it, who fulfilled all the duties of neighbors and fellow-men. A State which bore this kind of fruit, and suffered it to drop off as fast as it ripened, would prepare the way for a still more perfect and glorious State, which also I have imagined, but not yet anywhere seen.
Thoreau

[Loki]

Rights are just entitlements. They are given and can be taken.


Like the "right" to bear arms, yes.



Freedom and independence is something everyone has,


Now, yes. But it wasn't always like this. Our ancestors have fought very hard to get it. And now, people don't appreciate what they have and take it for granted.



Equality is the most absurd ideal, conceptual communism, everyone could never be equal...


Tell that to your medieval ancestors. They wouldn't think it's so absurd (unless they were some of the elite ruling class and gentry.

[Ulf]

Like the "right" to bear arms, yes.
Yes I am entitled to a gun. I wish it weren't so, I wish I could just have a weapon without any questions asked. I jumped through their hoops to get my freedom to have this weapon. I am sure my ancestors needed a permit for their swords!



Now, yes. But it wasn't always like this. Our ancestors have fought very hard to get it. And now, people don't appreciate what they have and take it for granted.

Our ancestors fought hard to get it because it was stolen to begin with if you go far enough back, that is when all were technically equal. Some men conspired to dominate over other men by consolidating resources and thus deemed themselves more worthy of something just because they were born. You still had freedom then too, you could just up and leave, go somewhere else, somewhere no one was if you wished it and live there, that is more freedom than now.


Tell that to your medieval ancestors. They wouldn't think it's so absurd (unless they were some of the elite ruling class and gentry.

My medieval ancestors were probably serfs or farmers and they left that shit to come to America where they could have their own say. (Yes I realize it wasn't my medieval ancestors who came, but subsequent generations). We've always been farmers up until my mother's generation. :( Working for ourselves and our community. Something in me wishes that my family hadn't given up that freedom.

Ok, I'll be back later.

[Skandi]

Do such concepts as "liberty", "rights", "equality", and "freedom" refer to something real that we must cherish and implement,

In my opinion none of these things exist and I would not be happy if any of them did in a "pure" form. Total liberty is impossible because one person's liberty will impinge upon another's.

Rights, there are no intrinsic rights, for the same reason as liberty. Also the concept of rights is dreadfully missused by many, to steal from others.

Equality, Very obviously not, biology has seen to that, not all men are born equal, they never were and they never will be. Even the best attempts at equality (one man one vote) fail, as groups who band together and those with more money and/or ability have more say.

Freedom Again this does not exist, you never have total freedom to do what you want, because that would compromise others.

I'm not saying that I would wish to live anywhere where these values do not exist but they cannot exist in their pure stated form, not if you want a healthy society. Everything in moderation, you should have some liberty and some freedom but not total.

They miss a hugely important concept; duty. Duty is what binds a society together, the underlings have a duty to those above, weather that be taxes or service and those above have a duty to rule well, honestly and provide protection. This is true in ALL forms of government, but rarely seems to happen in the west anyway.

[Germanicus]

Thinking carefully about it you have to agree that we are working for a political ideal that the goverment in office chooses for us, for Britain that is multiculturism.
So on that basis i have chosen no2

1) Do such concepts as "liberty", "rights", "equality", and "freedom" refer to something real that we must cherish and implement,

2) Are they distractions that disable people with glowing sentiments of idealism long enough to be miss their pockets being picked,

or
3) Are they distractions from the absence of any real truth whatsoever -- in other words simulacra in Baudrillard's sense of poor copies of an idea for which there is no original?
__________________

[Psychonaut]

I think that, out of all the ideals you list, that liberty is the one closest to my heart. As an American, I can think of no other societal value that is as paramount as liberty. However, even this is not something that I think is universally applicable or even desirable. I think that ideals such as these (those relating to ethics especially) are only true and useful within an intentionally constructed artificial system (an Innangarðr for you Heathens). Within the walls of our ideational castle we are free to set up whimsical systems of equality, liberty and fraternity that would not be able to survive in "the wilds" of the barbaric outside world (the Útgarðr). Our fault has been not in pursuing liberty as members of our respective nations, but in extending ideas outside the bounds of the Innangarðr into the Útgarðr and attempting to extend these ideals to barbarians (Jötnar if you will).

[SwordoftheVistula]

I think it's important to have ideals and guiding principals to follow, otherwise you just end up following the whim of the 'dude in charge' which in a democracy/republic of course means mob rule.

[lei.talk]

My opponent was a ranting Randroid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randroid#Accusations_of_cultism)...

The dude in the bar (he was a dude kind of guy) took liberty and freedom as both his premises and his conclusions. He was cynical about rights...

I attempted to challenge his assumptions about the nature of the state and of these abstract ideals but..."the dude" has been inappropriately pidgeon-holed:

any true randroid
has memorised his objectivist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand)) catechism (https://web.archive.org/web/20100620145453/http://www.objectivistcenter.org/lso-beta/lsobeta.pdf)
and can respond to any question
without resorting to thought. :swl


https://i.imgur.com/t5P2A2K.png (https://web.archive.org/web/20090104070233/http://amberandchaos.com/?page_id=106)

[Liffrea]

The reality, as I see it, is that they are all relative and never absolutes, human society is naturally hierarchical, which means all it really boils down to is how far you’re prepared to bend. There will always be rich and poor, always be good and bad, always the self centred and ambitious will, more often than not, monopolise power and wealth, such is reality, how far you individually, and the people as a whole, are willing to let the chains be tightened is choice.

Freedom is probably the most important for me, and I would say one of the easiest to achieve once you understand what freedom is, but not necessarily easy to implement, that depends on character. Freedom isn’t living out in the woods on your own doing what you like, it’s not going out late or taking drugs or saying “fuck the system”, it’s a state of mind, it’s your ability to live by your principles, your beliefs, to never be made to go against your own conscience, no matter the consequences, whether that’s death, torture or imprisonment, to never yield when you believe strongly enough in something, that’s freedom. Easy words to write, whether you can accept that price, well you won’t know until your put under pressure.

[Lutiferre]

Liberty, Rights, Equality, and Freedom are simply words, that can be used in a multitude of senses. Far from ideals in themselves. They can be ideals according to how you apply the terms. For instance, we could call it a "liberty", "freedom" and a "right" to ruthlessly kill all your neighbours. But that doesn't make it ideal. Two persons can also be "equally evil or vile", but that doesn't make the "equality" ideal.

It is ideal to have the freedoms, liberties and rights that rightly belong to you, as opposed to being a slave. It is ideal to enjoy equal rights to those freedoms and liberties, and to be equal in one sense - like, in dignity or worth - but not ideal to be "totally equal" with regards to occupation, interests, role, opinions, etc. Life would be boring if that was so.

One word and social ideal which is less ambiguous is this one: Justice.

[Ulf]

More important than ideals are principles. At the same time we should strive to make our ideals our principles.

:shrug:

[Aemma]

1) Do such concepts as "liberty", "rights", "equality", and "freedom" refer to something real that we must cherish and implement,

2) Are they distractions that disable people with glowing sentiments of idealism long enough to miss their pockets being picked,

or
3) Are they distractions from the absence of any real truth whatsoever -- in other words simulacra in Baudrillard's sense of poor copies of an idea for which there is no original?

Hmm such weighty matters to ponder on such a rainy Monday evening.... :)

As a cursory response I would answer "yes" to each of the above questions inasmuch as "no" can be an equally satisfactory answer. Why? It depends...


Question #1:

Yes: The concepts of "liberty", "rights", "equality" and "freedom" are "real" inasmuch as they are concepts utilised by humans to denote an abstract thought. The poor alchemy from thought to praxis that we humans execute make it such that these concepts are not always easily transformed. Inasmuch as man is driven to think and then act upon thought, to cherish this thought and to then try to implement it is equally a "must". Thought without some form of subsequent logical action is meaningless in this sense.

No: These concepts are only "real" if imbued with meaning and significance by a group of people. Even then subtleties in meaning occur based on all sorts of confounding factors--culture, language, politics to name but a few. They have the potential of being no more real than Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny in fact.

Question #2:

Yes: Staunch idealists can most certainly be (and have been) bamboozled by such concepts. I used to be one of them! :D Sometimes ignorance truly IS bliss. ;)

No: They are the key concepts that fuel the fire of idealism. Without these concepts there is not much left to (political) idealism. Belief in these concepts but more importantly activity in the name of these concepts have made the world run since dot. Take these away and you're left with I'm not too sure what!


Question #3:

Yes: They most certainly can be seen as Baudrillardian simulacra inasmuch as they are but mere symbols used in the diaphanous hyperreality that is Political Thought and Discourse. One cannot help but have to rely on the corollary of each of these terms in order to offer fuller meanings to the terms. Hence we need the negative prefixes to help us out--all the in-, non-, and un-s that language can spare. I think the exercise becomes a bit more challenging when there is no clear antithesis to a concept, no clear antonym if you will.

No: They are not distractions of any real truth. One need only return to question #1, yes to answer this. :)

[SuuT]

[...]
1) Do such concepts as "liberty", "rights", "equality", and "freedom" refer to something real that we must cherish and implement,

2) Are they distractions that disable people with glowing sentiments of idealism long enough to be miss their pockets being picked,

or
3) Are they distractions from the absence of any real truth whatsoever -- in other words simulacra in Baudrillard's sense of poor copies of an idea for which there is no original?

Yes. :D

I suppose some long exegis could be offered-up, but I, myself, don't like to answer in what I see as 'eye level' either/or's or if/then statements (even though what is right in front of us is very important in virtue of its being right there). Lateral Thinking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lateral_thinking), while not answering in a directly practical fasion - insofar as these are practical considerations - enables the continuous poking and proding that Ethics requires to continually refine both itself, as well as our application of hallowed truths as our noblest ideas: even the Ideal, or what we think is Ideal, would become a corpse if left in stasis.

With that said, I think that the act of discussion, and even asking these questions, is infinately more important than any conclusion we might come to about them. These days, all answers appear to me as the epitaph of intellect. And yet, I have an answer:

"The world is Will to Power, and nothing besides! You, yourself, are this Will to Power, and nothing besides!" (Nietzsche).