Justice, with Michael Sandel

[Aimless]

If you're looking for something different from "dog poops on baby", and have gone through all the TED lectures, you might enjoy Justice:

http://www.justiceharvard.org/index....&id=9&Itemid=5

[Aimless]

Been watching this with the missus, and it's a pure pleasure to hear him speak some of the students in the audience make interesting observations as well. Warmly recommended

[Momo]

Urk. Celebrity evangelist internet-based pedagogy?

Yuck!

Don't disrespect the subject by watching some video and then think you know what it's about goshdarnit

Harvard... they'll do anything to affirm themselves. If they can broadcast their lessons free on the net, why can't they open up their ivory towers to one and all without charging 100k dollars per person!

[Aimless]

I read your post but don't understand what it's about

[Momo]

Ask Michael Sandel about it then.

[Draco]

Watched a bit of "Episode 1" and I couldn't stop rolling my eyes. I'd like to call this Michael Sandel person an imbecile, but I'd have to watch a few more videos (which I'm not going to) to properly make that claim.

Firstly, who the hell comes up with such a twisted 'story' as the one that he presented? It was serving multiple purposes, but I think the ultimate purpose was to show everyone that your views/morals cannot be consistent if you opted for going off to the side to kill the one person, yet would not push the overweight man onto the track (or harvest the organs of the lone man in the next scenario he gives). So what's the life lesson learned here? Don't bother with consistency because here's some crazy made up story that shows you just how inconsistent you really are. This guy is really something, one life versus five? And such people are deemed to be "intellectuals" he's as much of an intellectual than I am a sumo-wrestler.

It's this type of "reasoning", advocated by professors/philosophers/politicians/"intellectuals", the "but but, or, what if" that has lead the Western world to the state it is in now.

But here is my answer to his scenario: You don't do a damn thing. You remain on the track that your cart happens to be travelling on, you don't make the turn to willingly kill one person. The cart killing the five people is not your fault, you have not committed and act of wilful murder because you started out on that track without any knowledge of there being a group of people further along. Just as with the overweight man, you don't push him over, and the with the doctor scenario: you don't harvest the organs of the healthy man.

[Momo]

But here is my answer to his scenario: You don't do a damn thing. You remain on the track that your cart happens to be travelling on, you don't make the turn to willingly kill one person. The cart killing the five people is not your fault, you have not committed and act of wilful murder because you started out on that track without any knowledge of there being a group of people further along. Just as with the overweight man, you don't push him over, and the with the doctor scenario: you don't harvest the organs of the healthy man.

I liked reading this because it's the honest answer: and shows forgiveness of self.

But I don't agree it's bad education, or misleading in any way, what he's doing. I think it's just an exercise in perception: to show that for each perception you have, another person will have their own.

[Aimless]

Watched a bit of "Episode 1" and I couldn't stop rolling my eyes. I'd like to call this Michael Sandel person an imbecile, but I'd have to watch a few more videos (which I'm not going to) to properly make that claim.

Firstly, who the hell comes up with such a twisted 'story' as the one that he presented? It was serving multiple purposes, but I think the ultimate purpose was to show everyone that your views/morals cannot be consistent if you opted for going off to the side to kill the one person, yet would not push the overweight man onto the track (or harvest the organs of the lone man in the next scenario he gives). So what's the life lesson learned here? Don't bother with consistency because here's some crazy made up story that shows you just how inconsistent you really are. This guy is really something, one life versus five? And such people are deemed to be "intellectuals" he's as much of an intellectual than I am a sumo-wrestler.

It's this type of "reasoning", advocated by professors/philosophers/politicians/"intellectuals", the "but but, or, what if" that has lead the Western world to the state it is in now.

But here is my answer to his scenario: You don't do a damn thing. You remain on the track that your cart happens to be travelling on, you don't make the turn to willingly kill one person. The cart killing the five people is not your fault, you have not committed and act of wilful murder because you started out on that track without any knowledge of there being a group of people further along. Just as with the overweight man, you don't push him over, and the with the doctor scenario: you don't harvest the organs of the healthy man.

This is exactly why you should see this lecture series. It's an academic course that goes through the twisty and challenging development of Western views on ethics and justice over the past few centuries, held by an extremely competent educator at one of the world's most prestigious schools in the country you admire most of all in this world. I think you should take a step back, take a few deep breaths and think hard about your initial assessment because it is embarrassingly starved of evidence and embarrassingly rich in bigotry. I wouldn't expect a post like yours from a genuine intellectual, although I might expect it from a sumo-wrestler. But I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt because you've demonstrated in the past that you're not a compulsively close-minded angry idiot and because you claim to value rationality above all else.

Now back to the lecture on libertarianism.

[CitizenCain]

Now back to the lecture on libertarianism.

Better call it "lolbertarianism" or you're at risk of being kicked out the arch-progressive alliance and being banished from Scandinavistan.

[Draco]

@Aimless, so explain to me just how much 'evidence' I'd need so that my initial assessment doesn't appear to be so "embarrassingly starved" of it?

I watched 25minutes of episode 1 and the first thing that put me off this Michael Sandel guy was, when he asked someone from the minority view what their reasoning was (so someone who thought that it wasn't ok to go to the side track), the student gave what I thought was a very good response (something about how the reasoning behind going off to the side track could justify genocide and totalitarianism), yet Michael Sandel responded in a condescending manner by repeating the students' view with a different style of wording, which also generated a laugh from everyone else. Nothing like putting down someone elses view, to show them just how silly it is, than to get an entire class to laugh at it. Seriously, and this guy is supposed to be a philosophy professor?

I just watched that part again, and to top it off, Mr Sandel finishes off with "That's a brave answer, thank you" wtf is so 'brave' about it?! Because he went against the popular response? Because he had an opposing view that would be deemed as "oh no, how could you" ??

Another point: I just watched the beginning, since I remembered that there was something off about how Michael Sandel worded this story of his. Watch it again and tell me that you don't notice how he positions the students/audience to have greater sympathy for the 5 workers by using words as "you feel desperate, helpless" yet when the lone worker is introduced on the side track, well it's just one person, it's as if he's about to say "what a relief" who gives a f*.

Oh and another thing that justifies my initial assessment of this idiot is the research I did on him: the fact that he ascribes to some philosophy called "communitarianism" which, according to wikipedia "emphasizes the responsibility of the individual to the community and the social importance of the family unit." Riiight...I won't get into that, but I'll say this: and what's so wrong with the individual emphasising personal responsibility? Just another spin off philosophy from the Left.

If he didn't intertwine his own views in the discussion, I wouldn't have had as much of a problem with him, but the fact that he did, that he did it all in such a way so as to influence the opinions/views of his class, says a lot about him. So now I suggest to you that you take a step back, deep breath, stop talking to me in this intellectually condescending manner, and watch the video again, keeping in mind what I just said.

As for his other videos, a few of the descriptions have put me off them, but anyway I've had enough of listening to left-wing types.

[Aimless]

"Research". You mean scanning wikipedia for evidence confirming your initial bias and rage right? Wikipedia. Worse, you clearly didn't even read the text, let alone whatever Sandel has said about his own views (which are largely irrelevant to his course describing various approaches to ascertaining the rightness of our actions).

Sandel subscribes to a certain version of communitarianism (although he is uncomfortable with the label), and in this vein he is perhaps best known for his critique of John Rawls's A Theory of Justice. Rawls' argument depends on the assumption of the veil of ignorance, which he claims allows us to become "unencumbered selves".

Sandel's view is that we are by nature encumbered to an extent that makes it impossible even in the hypothetical to have such a veil. Some examples of such ties are the ties we make with our families, which we do not make by conscious choice but are born with them already attached. Because they are not consciously applied, these ties are impossible to separate from someone. Sandel believes that only a less-restrictive, looser version of the veil of ignorance can be possible. Rawls's argument, however, depends on the fact that the veil is restrictive enough that we make decisions without knowing who will be affected by these decisions, which of course is impossible if we are already attached to people in the world.

Worst of all, a rational man such as yourself neglected to explore the other side of the problem, the one dedicated to falsifying your own assumptions.

The point raised by that student was not well-reasoned at that particular moment, but he was brave to raise it despite clearly being in the minority and despite not having thought it through completely. His bravery contributed to their common desire to explore these issues. As a comparison you can consider your own bravery in bringing to us a host of inconsistent and incompletely/poorly reasoned arguments in your various spats against various members of this forum. The student's point was that that sort of calculus can be used to justify atrocious things such as genocide. How is that relevant to the present hypothetical in which you have to choose between killing one person or five, with no knowledge of race etc?

The audience laughed but laughter isn't a bad thing. The best courses are laden with humour, and that humour is unifying. Nevertheless, laughter can be intimidating, and so, as a good educator, he thanked the student and complimented him so as to demonstrate to other students that they should speak their minds because he appreciates their doing so. In future lectures he does in fact go on to tackle the pitfalls of the life calculus. The joke's on the audience.

So I suggest you try to do better than a biased wikipedia scan and a characteristically Draco-rage-laden misinterpretation of the first 25 mins of a 600-minute lecture series. You may also consider rationally assessing your assumptions, such as "this guy is an idiot":

"Hypothesis: this guy is an idiot. Possible supporting evidence: he makes me throw a hissy fit. I [think I] read something on wikipedia that I want to interpret as proof of his idiocy. I am a genius. Possible counter-evidence: he holds a professorship at one of the world's most prestigious institutions (in my favourite country no less) where he gives one of their most popular courses. Hypothesis: I have understood what's going on. Possible supporting evidence: I looked at 25 mins, got angry and scanned wikipedia. Possible counter evidence: I have a well-known tendency to not understand what's going on. I have a very small sample to go from. I have scanned wikipedia. I was angry. Minxie disagrees with me and is embarrassed on my behalf."

And so on and so forth. I think this approach to thinking may do you a great deal of good. In the mean time, don't worry, I can be embarrassed on your behalf until you have the good sense to take over


One of my favourite lectures in the series apart from the discussions on the origin/development of Libertarianism:

[Aimless]

Btw just so to put the maths out there, you have sampled just under four percent (4%) of the course, and in your analysis you fail to take into account sources of error.

[Veldan Rath]

Laughing at the student is NOT humor. It's humiliation.

[Aimless]

Sure, and he wasn't laughing at the student. If he was, I'm sure neither you or Draco would mind, because, let's face it, you aren't pansies and have no respect for pansies

[Aimless]

Btw, I realise that the items I listed under evidence in support of or against those assumptions are condescending. You are welcome to slot in alternative pieces of evidence

[GGT]

Spawnie's philosophical comments are eagerly awaited.

"Kant rejects utilitarianism". He suggests individual dignity demands our respect. Not because we "own" ourselves, but because we are all Rational Beings. Autonomous individuals capable of reason. (Enter stage right: Ayn Rand) We are more than just physical creatures with appetites trying to find pleasure or pain. We are slaves to our human needs and desires, huh, how novel.

For Kant, freedom is the opposite of necessity. (Enter stage left: consumerism and marketing)

Hedonism and narcissism isn't such a freeee concept after all, when it enters modern society. Even when the calculus "works out", it's still using people for motives that may not be based on the "right reasons". ie, consumerism for its own sake.

Companion reading: Erich Fromm

[Draco]

"Research". You mean scanning wikipedia for evidence confirming your initial bias and rage right?Wikipedia. Worse, you clearly didn't even read the text, let alone whatever Sandel has said about his own views (which are largely irrelevant to his course describing various approaches to ascertaining the rightness of our actions).

It's not like he expressed certain views that I agree with, yet I omitted them on purpose so to justify my dislike of him. So no, it isn't right that I scanned wikipedia for evidence to confirm anything. It just so happened that he ascribes to a philosophy that I disagree with.

Worst of all, a rational man such as yourself neglected to explore the other side of the problem, the one dedicated to falsifying your own assumptions.

I'm not here to write an essay length post. Just sharing some of my initial views and impressions of this Sandel person, going by what I saw in the video and the small research I did on the guy. So why are you so offended that I happen to express such dislike for him upfront? I watched half of the first video, wasn't impressed by the topic he brought up, the way he worded it to influence the students' response, the way he re-worded someone elses response so as to bring out laughter from everyone else (which you managed to justify...seriously?) and finally I wasn't impressed with the philosophy that he ascribes to. That's my initial assessment of him, I'm not embarrassed (but if you want to be on my behalf, as you smugly said so, knock yourself out) of it, and if I had the time, I'd probably invest it into watching a few more of these lectures and my opinion of him may change along the way, but for now I'm not even remotely interested to do so. We all make initial assessments/opinions of everything that we come across. Some we may loosely attach ourselves to until we've discovered more, others not so much.

The point raised by that student was not well-reasoned at that particular moment, but he was brave to raise it despite clearly being in the minority and despite not having thought it through completely. His bravery contributed to their common desire to explore these issues. As a comparison you can consider your own bravery in bringing to us a host of inconsistent and incompletely/poorly reasoned arguments in your various spats against various members of this forum.

How about another comparison, where you can consider your immature, subtle spat against me?

The audience laughed but laughter isn't a bad thing. The best courses are laden with humour, and that humour is unifying. Nevertheless, laughter can be intimidating, and so, as a good educator, he thanked the student and complimented him so as to demonstrate to other students that they should speak their minds because he appreciates their doing so. In future lectures he does in fact go on to tackle the pitfalls of the life calculus. The joke's on the audience.

You either missed the point, or just twisting the argument to your tune.

So I suggest you try to do better than a biased wikipedia scan and a characteristically Draco-rage-laden misinterpretation of the first 25 mins of a 600-minute lecture series. You may also consider rationally assessing your assumptions, such as "this guy is an idiot":

That's right, because I don't agree with you, it must be because I've misinterpreted the video.

"Hypothesis: this guy is an idiot. Possible supporting evidence: he makes me throw a hissy fit. I [think I] read something on wikipedia that I want to interpret as proof of his idiocy. I am a genius. Possible counter-evidence: he holds a professorship at one of the world's most prestigious institutions (in my favourite country no less) where he gives one of their most popular courses. Hypothesis: I have understood what's going on. Possible supporting evidence: I looked at 25 mins, got angry and scanned wikipedia. Possible counter evidence: I have a well-known tendency to not understand what's going on. I have a very small sample to go from. I have scanned wikipedia. I was angry. Minxie disagrees with me and is embarrassed on my behalf."

Wow, your condescending nature just keeps on getting better and better! It must be me hey? Because I don't happen to agree with the status quo here, there's gotta be something wrong with me. I like how you present yourself as this understanding type of person, who can consider other peoples position, but in this discussion it's more important to you to present your argument, but also intertwine some condescending comments in it too

And so on and so forth. I think this approach to thinking may do you a great deal of good. In the mean time, don't worry, I can be embarrassed on your behalf until you have the good sense to take over

Oh I just love conversations that descend to one party condescending the other in the most imaginative, intellectual way possible. And then you have the audacity to mock me for presenting myself as a rational person. I expected better from you since I figured you weren't like some other members here, but you're just another classic case. It must feel great to put down people who aren't as knowledgable on certain matters as you, or who simply get ahead of themselves and make a few statements that seem ungrounded. Nevermind trying to entertain the possibility that they may have a point, because the objective here is to put them down. I mean I would have expected more maturity from the likes of you, since you prance around here presenting yourself as some philosophically inclined person, but you're more like some smug teenager laughing at someone elses ignorance. Btw, if your next post follows the same condescending theme, then I'm not going to reply to you.

[Aimless]

Look, you came into this thread with an extremely condescending and judgemental post where you called Sandel an idiot, based on very limited information and very poor analysis... and yet you're now complaining about being met with condescension. Perhaps you can now understand why I addressed you in this manner? It's because you have repeatedly displayed an inability to understand your behaviour until you're subjected to that same behaviour from others. Okay it's also because I was provoked by your post

I have no problems with your ignorance or even your analysis. I know less than most people here and I have a tendency to not think things through. My problem is with your attitude towards your own limited insight. You have to stop attacking others or judging them harshly based on ignorance and poor analysis. You have the option of withholding judgement, and yet you choose to act on what limited knowledge you think you have to condemn someone else. Choose to withhold judgement instead. Before you turn this around with a "no, you!" I'd like to point out that I've actually read more than 4% of your posts here and have made an effort to both challenge and defend your statements. I'll admit it's not easy, esp. in a hostile discussion. I have difficulties with it too, but then at the very least we can strive to not make a discussion unnecessarily hostile.

Re. your confirmation bias. No, you didn't "hide" falsifying evidence. In fact, you didn't even try to find it, and what evidence you have clearly had access to (the internet, the videos) you have managed to not see. Here's an excerpt from the intro to the wiki article on confirmation bias:

Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias or myside bias) is a tendency for people to favor information that confirms their preconceptions or hypotheses regardless of whether the information is true.[Note 1][1] As a result, people gather evidence and recall information from memory selectively, and interpret it in a biased way. The biases appear in particular for emotionally significant issues and for established beliefs. For example, in reading about gun control, people usually prefer sources that affirm their existing attitudes. They also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position. Biased search, interpretation and/or recall have been invoked to explain attitude polarization (when a disagreement becomes more extreme even though the different parties are exposed to the same evidence), belief perseverance (when beliefs persist after the evidence for them is shown to be false), the irrational primacy effect (a stronger weighting for data encountered early in an arbitrary series) and illusory correlation (in which people falsely perceive an association between two events or situations).

A series of experiments in the 1960s suggested that people are biased towards confirming their existing beliefs. Later work explained these results in terms of a tendency to test ideas in a one-sided way, focusing on one possibility and ignoring alternatives. In combination with other effects, this strategy can bias the conclusions that are reached. Explanations for the observed biases include wishful thinking and the limited human capacity to process information. Another proposal is that people show confirmation bias because they are pragmatically assessing the costs of being wrong, rather than investigating in a neutral, scientific way.

Confirmation biases contribute to overconfidence in personal beliefs and can maintain or strengthen beliefs in the face of contrary evidence. Hence they can lead to poor decisions, especially in organizational, scientific, military, political and social contexts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

Read the whole article and the ones it links to, it's very good reading. And stop judging others based on extremely limited info.

[Khendraja'aro]

Draco, if you want to be a right-wing version of me then you still have a loong way to go, young grasshopper.

But don't give up hope! One day you may even surpass me and evolve into Cain!

[Aimless]

post of the week

[Aimless]

Btw, for the interested reader:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communi...mmunitarianism

Philosophical communitarianism considers classical liberalism to be ontologically and epistemologically incoherent, and opposes it on those grounds. Unlike classical liberalism, which construes communities as originating from the voluntary acts of pre-community individuals, it emphasizes the role of the community in defining and shaping individuals. Communitarians believe that the value of community is not sufficiently recognized in liberal theories of justice.

Philosophical communitarianism

Communitarianism in philosophy, like other schools of thought in contemporary political philosophy[citation needed], can be defined by its response to John Rawls' A Theory of Justice. Communitarians criticize the image Rawls presents of humans as atomistic individuals.

Communitarians claim values and beliefs are formed in public space, in which debate takes place. Both linguistic and non-linguistic traditions are communicated to children and form the backdrop against which individuals formulate and understand beliefs. The dependence of the individual upon community members is typically meant as descriptive. It does not mean that individuals should accept majority beliefs. Rather, if an individual rejects a majority belief, such as the historic belief that slavery is acceptable, he or she will do so for reasons that make sense within the community (for example, the Judeo-Christian conception of the imago Dei, or reasons deriving from secular Enlightenment humanism) rather than simply any reason at all. In this sense, the rejection of a single majority belief relies on other majority beliefs.

The following authors have communitarian tendencies in the philosophical sense, but have all taken pains to distance themselves from the political ideology known as communitarianism, which is discussed further below:

Alasdair MacIntyre – After Virtue
Michael Sandel – Liberalism and the Limits of Justice
Charles Taylor – Sources of the Self
Michael Walzer – Spheres of Justice
Christos Yannaras – A Greek philosopher and theologian whose ideas tend to view communitarianism from a theological and ontological perspective.

In depth: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/communitarianism/

[Aimless]

Second-favourite ep, not least due to the audience participation

[Draco]

Look, you came into this thread with an extremely condescending and judgemental post where you called Sandel an idiot, based on very limited information and very poor analysis... and yet you're now complaining about being met with condescension. Perhaps you can now understand why I addressed you in this manner?

Unless you're Michael Sandel himself, some close relative/friend/partner, then no. Ok I partly do, but it still wasn't warranted.

I have no problems with your ignorance or even your analysis. I know less than most people here and I have a tendency to not think things through. My problem is with your attitude towards your own limited insight. You have to stop attacking others or judging them harshly based on ignorance and poor analysis. You have the option of withholding judgement, and yet you choose to act on what limited knowledge you think you have to condemn someone else. Choose to withhold judgement instead.

Ok, you are right about this. I know I get ahead of myself sometimes, and it's partly due to the fact that I have had this somewhat recent 'realisation' or 'epiphany' (well within the last 2-3 years) concerning my own life-philosophy, political views and such. It's an interesting thing to have a complete change in mind set, to realise that what you were taught in high school (ie, left wing dogma) really means nothing and that it was all a waste, that common views held by society are really not true/valid, that this world isn't as free as many like to make it out to be, and so on. So when I read/hear/see something that reminds me of the left-wing styled education that I had, where the material is being presented to an audience of young minds, I can't help but to get angsty. Seeing the state the world is in these days, how politicians win based on how much free stuff they can give out (and then end up rewarding irresponsible companies), I'll make every stand against the philosophy that has contributed to it all.

I've realised just how important it is to make a stand against such reasoning, even if it's just on a small forum as this one, but the whole point is to continue to remind myself that these so called intellectuals do not have the answers, and that they do not have the solutions when they advocate for a system that takes away the individual as the core of it all.

As for the confirmation bias part, you're right, I did exhibit that trait in my previous posts. But like I said, I was only making an initial assessment based on what I saw and read at the time, I didn't look into anything else because I didn't see the point of it when I found out that Michael Sandel adheres to "communitarianism." Btw, I did read what you pasted about the philosophy, and I'm sure that you'd agree that once you find out the philosophy one adheres to, you gain a better insight into their thinking and views.

But don't give up hope! One day you may even surpass me and evolve into Cain!

You say that as if it's a bad thing (evolving into Cain). At least he doesn't think that he has the right to say what people can do with their property/body/life etc.

[Khendraja'aro]

You say that as if it's a bad thing (evolving into Cain). At least he doesn't think that he has the right to say what people can do with their property/body/life etc.

Oh, but he does! He thinks he has the right to say that people can do whatever they want.

Sorry, please try again.

[Aimless]

Er, Draco, you traded one brand of dogmatism for another, I'm not sure why you think this was a good thing!

Re. his insights and views, the point is that he's presenting several different schools of philosophical thought. Your reaction is akin to being mad at a physics teacher for teaching Newtonian mechanics, or at Wikipedia for, er, being Wikipedia. Wrt its relevance, it's even less relevant than eg. those of your views and statements that got you in hot water in a recent discussion about judging people. You remember, where you were criticised for your views and you protested that just because you believe something doesn't mean that you're imposing those beliefs on others and that you're not a despicable person etc?

As for taking a stand, it may be a good idea to choose your battles wisely and to not see battles where there are none. See GGT's endless rants about the GOP and bankers as an example of what can go wrong. I myself have spent much of my time and energy "taking a stand" against any and all examples of right wing conservative idiocy/evil I've seen/imagined seeing, and what I've learned from that is that "taking a stand" is an extremely effective way to make yourself very stupid. It's almost part of the definition of "taking a stand".

Re. evolving into Cain, given that Cain seems to strongly oppose several of your beliefs/values/attitudes, evolving into Cain would mean distancing yourself from your present self. Considering how fanatically adherent you are to your present self perhaps you don't really want to evolve into Cain unless there's something very fishy underlying your behaviour


This one was good too:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostile_media_effect



Finally, I am a close relative/friend/partner etc. to Michael Sandel so shame on you. You thought your long and close friendship with that student who got laughed at made you unique, huh? Pff

[Draco]

Er, Draco, you traded one brand of dogmatism for another, I'm not sure why you think this was a good thing!

No I didn't.

Re. his insights and views, the point is that he's presenting several different schools of philosophical thought.

I get that, yet like I already explained, he still worded the story to his bias, re-worded a students response that was borderline mockery and then called him 'brave'.

Your reaction is akin to being mad at a physics teacher for teaching Newtonian mechanics, or at Wikipedia for, er, being Wikipedia.

No it isn't. Classical mechanics is 'set in stone', there's only that and nothing else when it comes to describing the physical world. Topics on philosophy, politics and the likes are a completely different type of discussion as you should know. There's no debate or question as to the validity of classical mechanics (until you get to the atomic level, but that's where quantum mechanics comes into play), the likes of socialism, classical liberalism, etc, is another story. So, er, my reaction isn't akin to that.

Wrt its relevance, it's even less relevant than eg. those of your views and statements that got you in hot water in a recent discussion about judging people. You remember, where you were criticised for your views and you protested that just because you believe something doesn't mean that you're imposing those beliefs on others and that you're not a despicable person etc?

Yeah I remember that, how a few people were forcibly trying to make me admit that what I was really saying was other than what I just said, fun times But why you elaborated on that (or even mentioned it), I can only imagine.

As for taking a stand, it may be a good idea to choose your battles wisely and to not see battles where there are none. See GGT's endless rants about the GOP and bankers as an example of what can go wrong. I myself have spent much of my time and energy "taking a stand" against any and all examples of right wing conservative idiocy/evil I've seen/imagined seeing, and what I've learned from that is that "taking a stand" is an extremely effective way to make yourself very stupid. It's almost part of the definition of "taking a stand".

I don't care if you or anyone else reading this thinks that I've made myself out to be 'very stupid'. I'm not going to hold back on saying what I think because of such a silly reason as "I might end up looking stupid". That's the worst type of mentality you can get yourself into, "don't say what's on your mind, because you might end up looking stupid..oh the horror" in any case, at the end of the discussion/debate, each parties can go away having learned something.

I remember once when I was 14 or 15, in the Unreal 2 forum that I use to post in. Someone mentioned something about the Holocaust, and I simply asked what it was because I honestly didn't know what it was back then. Nobody on the forum actually told me what it was because everyone in that topic ended up laughing at me. Because you know, not knowing something is such a funny thing, and even funnier when you admit it. You seem to like posting wikipedia links that are obviously directed at me, to describe my 'behaviour' or 'response', but it's too bad I can't find a similar link that would describe the likes of yours, and others here (such as Khendrajaro), the type of response that I got in the Unreal 2 forum where I was laughed at because I didn't now what the Holocaust was. You seem to know human behaviour quite well then, maybe such a description already exists? A lot of people are quick to jump on someone, to point and laugh at them, mock them, whatever, when they show some obvious ignorance, yet they still make a stand for themselves. Why is that?

Re. evolving into Cain, given that Cain seems to strongly oppose several of your beliefs/values/attitudes, evolving into Cain would mean distancing yourself from your present self. Considering how fanatically adherent you are to your present self perhaps you don't really want to evolve into Cain unless there's something very fishy underlying your behaviour

We agree on political matters (from what I've read of his posts).

Finally, I am a close relative/friend/partner etc. to Michael Sandel so shame on you. You thought your long and close friendship with that student who got laughed at made you unique, huh? Pff

Yeah it did make me unique

[Khendraja'aro]

Classical mechanics is 'set in stone', there's only that and nothing else when it comes to describing the physical world.

Erm. There's also Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity, both of which rather heavily collide with Classical Mechanics.

Not to mention that all three of them are only models and, as such, are and always will be flawed to some degree.

[Draco]

Erm, that's why I mentioned quantum mechanics in the same paragraph.....now where's Aimless to come galloping in with his host of wikipedia links to describe what you just did as selectively quoting me, confirmation bias, blah blah blah.

[Aimless]

No I didn't.

Yes, you did.

I get that, yet like I already explained, he still worded the story to his bias, re-worded a students response that was borderline mockery and then called him 'brave'.

No, this is your personal madness you're projecting onto the situation. Note also that throughout the lecture series students remain eager to challenge and defend both the views of the philosophers he discusses, his own views, and their fellow students'.

No it isn't. Classical mechanics is 'set in stone', there's only that and nothing else when it comes to describing the physical world. Topics on philosophy, politics and the likes are a completely different type of discussion as you should know. There's no debate or question as to the validity of classical mechanics (until you get to the atomic level, but that's where quantum mechanics comes into play), the likes of socialism, classical liberalism, etc, is another story. So, er, my reaction isn't akin to that.

My point is that it's retarded to get mad at a teacher for teaching basic material relevant to understanding and appreciating our present knowledge.

Yeah I remember that, how a few people were forcibly trying to make me admit that what I was really saying was other than what I just said, fun times But why you elaborated on that (or even mentioned it), I can only imagine.

Wait, you can't see how it's at all relevant to bring that up after you've objected to/dismissed Sandel and his account of various schools of thought in moral philosophy on the grounds that he adheres to Communitarianism, a label you didn't even understand at the time and one from which he actively distances himself?

I don't care if you or anyone else reading this thinks that I've made myself out to be 'very stupid'. I'm not going to hold back on saying what I think because of such a silly reason as "I might end up looking stupid". That's the worst type of mentality you can get yourself into, "don't say what's on your mind, because you might end up looking stupid..oh the horror" in any case, at the end of the discussion/debate, each parties can go away having learned something.

You've completely misunderstood what I said. I didn't say it was a bad thing because you (or I, in case you missed the reference to my own behaviour) might end up "looking stupid". I said it was a bad idea because it makes you stupid. It's an approach that encourages polarization into extreme dogmatic positions and makes the participants vulnerable to the sort of cognitive biases I mentioned earlier. You become less capable of developing your knowledge and your analysis. You ignore relevant information and you interpret whatever you don't ignore in extremely limited and flawed ways. In the end, the parties don't go away having learned something. They go away merely having strengthened their preconceptions, such as their mistaken belief that their opponent is an idiot and a miscreant, and that everything that person believes is totally wrong. Sure, I suppose you can call that "learning"

I remember once when I was 14 or 15, in the Unreal 2 forum that I use to post in. Someone mentioned something about the Holocaust, and I simply asked what it was because I honestly didn't know what it was back then. Nobody on the forum actually told me what it was because everyone in that topic ended up laughing at me. Because you know, not knowing something is such a funny thing, and even funnier when you admit it. You seem to like posting wikipedia links that are obviously directed at me, to describe my 'behaviour' or 'response', but it's too bad I can't find a similar link that would describe the likes of yours, and others here (such as Khendrajaro), the type of response that I got in the Unreal 2 forum where I was laughed at because I didn't now what the Holocaust was. You seem to know human behaviour quite well then, maybe such a description already exists? A lot of people are quick to jump on someone, to point and laugh at them, mock them, whatever, when they show some obvious ignorance, yet they still make a stand for themselves. Why is that?

I have no idea about the Unreal 2 forums, from what I remember many of them were jerks and some that weren't jerks found a better home on CC (irony ). But there's been a lot of discussion on why people are more inclined to act like jerks when in groups and when on anonymous online forums. I hope you can appreciate the difference between asking "what's the holocaust?" and coming into this thread acting like a total douchebag after having seen 4% of a course and failing to properly assess even that 4%. If you came here and asked what the holocaust was then we might link you to wikipedia. If you instead came here and acted like an angry bigoted jerk based on your ignorance of the holocaust you'd probably get a far more hostile response. The lesson there is to not be a jerk and possibly to be wary of people who play U2.

We agree on political matters (from what I've read of his posts).

Are you now saying it's possible/recommended to compartmentalise different aspects of one's views, beliefs etc? Unless one is a communitarian of course. Whatever that is.

Yeah it did make me unique

Look, I posted a link to a very good lecture series because I value it and wanted to share this resource with this forum. You came in here acting like a total asshole, and spat on that. That's like spitting on me, and congratulations on having become a full member of the U2 forums btw. When I tried to make you appreciate how much it sucks to have some condescending assface spit on your views, you said you didn't understand what I was doing because I'm not in any way close to Sandel. I am of course closer to Sandel than you are to that student you mentioned earlier. What baffles me is your continued lack of understanding even after I actually told you why you got the response you got:

It's because you have repeatedly displayed an inability to understand your behaviour until you're subjected to that same behaviour from others. Okay it's also because I was provoked by your post

You claimed that it wasn't warranted. Was your initial aggression and condescension warranted? Keep in mind that I've read your every single post in this thread and most of your posts on this forum, whereas you'd sampled 4% of an entire course and approached those 4% with a far more closed mind. So if we're talking about what's warranted or not, your aggression and condescension was far less warranted than mine. That's not to say I think it's good to be condescending and aggressive. I don't. But being condescending and aggressive is an effective way to make someone understand why they shouldn't be aggressive and condescending. There's a small chance that you'll understand why punching someone in the face is a shitty thing to do if someone punches you in the face.

I say this even as I realise that your response to assholish behaviour from the U2-forum members was to become like them, your response to whatever failings you imagine your friends and peers have was to become even worse than they are, etc. So maybe this is an approach that doesn't work on you, and the lesson you'll take home from being punched in the face is, "I should punch people in the face." That's the wrong lesson to take home mate. Stop punching people in the face ffs.

[Khendraja'aro]

Erm, that's why I mentioned quantum mechanics in the same paragraph.....now where's Aimless to come galloping in with his host of wikipedia links to describe what you just did as selectively quoting me, confirmation bias, blah blah blah.

Yes, you mentioned that and it was still wrong. You don't need to get down to the "atomic level" in order to experience Quantum Mechanics.

Laser: Quantum Mechanics.
Rainbows: Quantum Mechanics.
3D cinema: Quantum Mechanics.
The computer you're using: A hell of a lot of Quantum Mechanics.

Let's not forget the other direction, General Relativity:
GPS: Relativistic.
Astronomy: Relativistic

Additionally, you stated that absolutely and that's a very wrong thing to do when it comes to scientific matters. There's nothing "set in stone".