December 08, 2009
Why all arguments against magic fail This post by Steven den Beste helps explain why it is that some people -- those driven by teleological thinking -- tend to be far more intolerant of disagreement than others.
While I'd love to quote the post in its entirety, I suggest reading it for yourself.
Basically, teleological thinking is a form of magical thinking. People who tend to think that if we all believe in something, it will happen.
If teleologists had a hymn, I'm sure it would be John Lennon's "Imagine." (I've been patient enough to try applying "Imagine" to jihad, and even to angry bicycle riding, but I'm afraid I'm stuck in the ancient paradigm that wishing things away will not make them go away.)
While this sort of magical thinking might seem the epitome of "tolerance" because of the peace and love, Kumbaya, "we can all live together in peace" mindset, in practice it tends to be intolerant in the extreme, because it is predicated on the idea that things will only change if we all think the right way and believe. In the magic, of course.
But what about those who don't believe in the magic? What if your experience has taught you that there are bad people in this world, and that if you aren't ready to defend yourself against them, they will steal from you, or kill you, or even attack your country? The teleological school would hold that to oppose bad people is to become like them, but that allowing them to have their way will somehow cause them to change.
I'll never forget a dinner conversation I had with a woman who lectured me about how war is now obsolete because
the paradigm had changed. That the reason we were at war was because Bush and Cheney and the Neocons just didn't get it. She clearly and devoutly believed that the problem was the people who still believed in the old paradigm. Those who would defend themselves against attackers are thus no better than the attackers.
Now, I am often fascinated to hear what people think, and I have a very gentle demeanor in conversations which is often mistaken for either agreement or susceptibility to conversion. But eventually this woman was not content with my passivity, and started demanding that I tell her what I thought. I tried to be diplomatic, but when I allowed that self defense is a human right, she sensed reluctance to go along with her view of the new paradigm, and became clearly enraged. (I was reminded of another woman who first flirted with me and engaged in animated political conversation only to abruptly walk away when I told her that I belonged to the ACLU and the NRA. End. Of. Conversation.)
Perhaps I am a masochist, but I have subjected myself to numerous dinner lectures by these peace-loving, angry, John Lennon Imaginist-type teleologists, and on another occasion, I was subjected to a severe scolding by a schoolteacher who condemned all forms of self defense as part of the whole problem. Knowing that she was Jewish, I thought I would raise the example of the Jews who fought back in the Warsaw ghetto. This really infuriated her, and she raised her voice to a yell, but she still steadfastly maintained that it was just as wrong for the Jews to defend themselves as it would be for anyone else. It was also clear to her that I was part of the problem, with all my backward "old paradigm" thinking.
It's not easy to "agree to disagree" with people who believe that disagreement is evil. Also, because they are not religious, for them there is no such thing as forgiving people for bad thoughts, or praying for them to change. Little wonder that there are so many people who believe in criminalizing bad thoughts. If thinking will actually magically make things happen or not, then bad thoughts are inherently dangerous, and should be regulated, made illegal, stamped out.
By the way, this magical, teleological thinking is not limited to imagining war or self defense out of existence. I have seen it applied to people facing terminal illnesses, in what I consider a very cruel and callused manner. As my best friend lay dying of AIDS in the mid 1980s, a contingent of magical thinkers descended on him and plied him with the idea that disease is all in the mind, and that he could literally wish himself to wellness. They also brought him some herbs which they said would heal him if only he would take them and "believe" in their healing power. He knew he was going to die, and thought this was all a form of denial, and I think he was right. But the magical thinkers actually blamed him, cluck-clucking like a bunch of Puritanical scolds, and saying things like "If he really wants to get better, all he has to do is change his thinking!" and "If he dies, it will be his karma!" This reminded me of another friend (now in his 80s) who watched his father die of a ruptured appendix which could have been operated, but his devout Christian Scientist family refused surgery and prayed. (Not surprisingly, the man has been an atheist ever since.) Just as my friend's failure to recover from AIDS was considered his fault, no doubt the failure of the ruptured appendix to heal would have been evidence that the family didn't really believe in the power of prayer as they should have. (And naturally, the Pentagon failed to levitate in 1967 because of a lack of devoutness on the part of the part of the magical
levitators!)
In this way, failure of magic, far from disproving the magic, can be made to reinforce it, which makes magical thinking a self-fueling, closed loop. Any failure on its part to work can be blamed not only on the evil arguments against it, but on insufficient devotion on the part of its followers.
And if you think about it, that really is magic.
posted by Eric on 12.08.09 at 11:18 AM
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Comments
Story of my life.
My whole family is like that. They get very angry with me when I have the bad manners to try to talk about the ideas on their merits.
What makes me kinda angry though is that they can say the worst things about me as they refuse to debate honestly.
More than once they've laughed as they say, "He's to the right of Genghis Khan".
It's funny, I didn't think he was a fan of low taxes and limited gov't. We both agree on the importance of a strong military, but we have different uses for it.
The funniest is when my brother says I'm brainwashed and just do what Bush says.
My gay brother.
We used to live together in Portsmouth, NH. Me, him and his boyfriend. I was a member of the gay bar there, "Members Only" or something. I've liked most of his boyfriends better than him. All my friends in 1984 in Portsmouth were gay.
He knows I don't think it's the gov't's job to decide who can marry whom, I'm in favor of legalized abortion (within limits), and don't believe in a god.
And yet, I do what Bush tells me.
How do you respond to that? I've tried reason, I've tried getting angry. Now, I just point and laugh.
They don't like me any more, but at least they leave me the hell alone.
Veeshir · December 8, 2009 11:47 AM
= = = = = = = = = =
The best goof on teleological politics used to be the conservative 1960s button/bumper sticker "Don't let THEM immanentize the eschaton!" Please note, however, the linked post is terrible and teleology as described there is mangled.
Dimitri Rotov · December 8, 2009 12:35 PM
= = = = = = = = = =
There is magical thinking and then there is Magic.
All men dream but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that is was vanity, but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act on their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible.
We actually owe more to engineers than scientists. Sure - scientists discovered the principle of the Electric motor. But engineering is why you have a washing machine.
All the best engineers I know are dreamers. Tempered by practical matters - like making thins work. Showing a profit.
M. Simon · December 8, 2009 1:13 PM
= = = = = = = = = =
Thank you, Eric.
Regarding the teleologists' hymn:
An alternate version of "Imagine" by A Perfect Circle turns Lennon's idiotic meaning on its head.
Lennon meant that the world would be better if there was nothing to die for.
By making the music more dirge-like, the meaning becomes the world would be worse if there was nothing to die for.
You Tube has several versions. Here is one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ktv2C9vnRKU
Bill Lever · December 9, 2009 1:12 AM
= = = = = = = = = =
The simplest argument against utopianists:
The problem with utopia is that you need 100% enlightnede participation. It takes only one self-centered jerk to screw it up for everyone else. Since human nature pretty much guarantees the presence of at least one self-centered jerk, utopias are just not possible. Thus we need to create our societial rules as if there will not be 100% enlightenment in the population. Hence the need for police, armies, etc.
Richard · December 9, 2009 2:01 PM
= = = = = = = = = =
The simplest argument against utopianists:
The problem with utopia is that you need 100% enlightned participation. It takes only one self-centered jerk to screw it up for everyone else. Since human nature pretty much guarantees the presence of at least one self-centered jerk, utopias are just not possible. Thus we need to create our societial rules as if there will not be 100% enlightenment in the population. Hence the need for police, armies, etc.
Richard · December 9, 2009 2:13 PM
= = = = = = = = = =
This is a very common scenario for me. I rarely raise political issues, which are controversial by nature, at social gatherings. Leftists, however, do so all the time, become offended at contradiction, and then refuse to give their interlocutor a respectful hearing and rebuttal.
Instead, they get bent out of shape and excoriate their fellow citizen who does no more than disagree with their views. Their distress is your fault.
Apparently they only brought up politics in order to make sure their opponents are flushed out and shamed. Such children have no business at a gathering of adults.
Taking offense when none is intended is a flourishing skill on the left. It is bullying.
Brett · December 11, 2009 8:02 AM
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
blog nattative and comments all unedited from this link:
http://classicalvalues.com/archives/2009/12/why_all_argumen.html T.E. Lawrence
Why all arguments against magic fail This post by Steven den Beste helps explain why it is that some people -- those driven by teleological thinking -- tend to be far more intolerant of disagreement than others.
Teleologists inherently don't believe in unintended side effects when it comes to implementing their idealistic policies. Obviously it should be possible to provide free health care to everyone without wrecking the economy; it's just how things really should be, so that's how it will be. Where will the money come from? That's the kind of question that materialists ask; teleologists don't concern themselves with such trivial. It'll happen somehow, because it's obviously how it should turn out. To say we shouldn't do it is to be heartless, uncaring -- and those things are more important than mundane claims that it won't work. If you just believe, it will work.
Of course, it won't work. The materialists are right about that. But when it fails (if it gets tried) the teleologists will blame the negative vibes of all the materialist doubters for the failure. If only they'd come on board and supported it, then it would have come out OK.(Via Glenn Reynolds.)
While I'd love to quote the post in its entirety, I suggest reading it for yourself.
Basically, teleological thinking is a form of magical thinking. People who tend to think that if we all believe in something, it will happen.
It's teleologists who drive around with bumper stickers that say, "Imagine world peace." I can imagine it just fine. I don't expect to see it in my lifetime, though. Why would they want me to imagine it?
It's because teleologists believe that human thought truly affects things. Of course it does; thought precedes action, and actions change history, right? Yeah, but that's not the point. Teleologists believe that thought directly affects things. The mere act of thinking about something and wanting it a lot directly changes reality, even if the thought doesn't get translated into action.An extreme and bizarre form of this was the attempted levitation of the Pentagon in 1967 by activists.
If teleologists had a hymn, I'm sure it would be John Lennon's "Imagine." (I've been patient enough to try applying "Imagine" to jihad, and even to angry bicycle riding, but I'm afraid I'm stuck in the ancient paradigm that wishing things away will not make them go away.)
While this sort of magical thinking might seem the epitome of "tolerance" because of the peace and love, Kumbaya, "we can all live together in peace" mindset, in practice it tends to be intolerant in the extreme, because it is predicated on the idea that things will only change if we all think the right way and believe. In the magic, of course.
But what about those who don't believe in the magic? What if your experience has taught you that there are bad people in this world, and that if you aren't ready to defend yourself against them, they will steal from you, or kill you, or even attack your country? The teleological school would hold that to oppose bad people is to become like them, but that allowing them to have their way will somehow cause them to change.
I'll never forget a dinner conversation I had with a woman who lectured me about how war is now obsolete because
the paradigm had changed. That the reason we were at war was because Bush and Cheney and the Neocons just didn't get it. She clearly and devoutly believed that the problem was the people who still believed in the old paradigm. Those who would defend themselves against attackers are thus no better than the attackers.
Now, I am often fascinated to hear what people think, and I have a very gentle demeanor in conversations which is often mistaken for either agreement or susceptibility to conversion. But eventually this woman was not content with my passivity, and started demanding that I tell her what I thought. I tried to be diplomatic, but when I allowed that self defense is a human right, she sensed reluctance to go along with her view of the new paradigm, and became clearly enraged. (I was reminded of another woman who first flirted with me and engaged in animated political conversation only to abruptly walk away when I told her that I belonged to the ACLU and the NRA. End. Of. Conversation.)
Perhaps I am a masochist, but I have subjected myself to numerous dinner lectures by these peace-loving, angry, John Lennon Imaginist-type teleologists, and on another occasion, I was subjected to a severe scolding by a schoolteacher who condemned all forms of self defense as part of the whole problem. Knowing that she was Jewish, I thought I would raise the example of the Jews who fought back in the Warsaw ghetto. This really infuriated her, and she raised her voice to a yell, but she still steadfastly maintained that it was just as wrong for the Jews to defend themselves as it would be for anyone else. It was also clear to her that I was part of the problem, with all my backward "old paradigm" thinking.
It's not easy to "agree to disagree" with people who believe that disagreement is evil. Also, because they are not religious, for them there is no such thing as forgiving people for bad thoughts, or praying for them to change. Little wonder that there are so many people who believe in criminalizing bad thoughts. If thinking will actually magically make things happen or not, then bad thoughts are inherently dangerous, and should be regulated, made illegal, stamped out.
By the way, this magical, teleological thinking is not limited to imagining war or self defense out of existence. I have seen it applied to people facing terminal illnesses, in what I consider a very cruel and callused manner. As my best friend lay dying of AIDS in the mid 1980s, a contingent of magical thinkers descended on him and plied him with the idea that disease is all in the mind, and that he could literally wish himself to wellness. They also brought him some herbs which they said would heal him if only he would take them and "believe" in their healing power. He knew he was going to die, and thought this was all a form of denial, and I think he was right. But the magical thinkers actually blamed him, cluck-clucking like a bunch of Puritanical scolds, and saying things like "If he really wants to get better, all he has to do is change his thinking!" and "If he dies, it will be his karma!" This reminded me of another friend (now in his 80s) who watched his father die of a ruptured appendix which could have been operated, but his devout Christian Scientist family refused surgery and prayed. (Not surprisingly, the man has been an atheist ever since.) Just as my friend's failure to recover from AIDS was considered his fault, no doubt the failure of the ruptured appendix to heal would have been evidence that the family didn't really believe in the power of prayer as they should have. (And naturally, the Pentagon failed to levitate in 1967 because of a lack of devoutness on the part of the part of the magical
levitators!)
In this way, failure of magic, far from disproving the magic, can be made to reinforce it, which makes magical thinking a self-fueling, closed loop. Any failure on its part to work can be blamed not only on the evil arguments against it, but on insufficient devotion on the part of its followers.
And if you think about it, that really is magic.
posted by Eric on 12.08.09 at 11:18 AM
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Comments
Story of my life.
My whole family is like that. They get very angry with me when I have the bad manners to try to talk about the ideas on their merits.
What makes me kinda angry though is that they can say the worst things about me as they refuse to debate honestly.
More than once they've laughed as they say, "He's to the right of Genghis Khan".
It's funny, I didn't think he was a fan of low taxes and limited gov't. We both agree on the importance of a strong military, but we have different uses for it.
The funniest is when my brother says I'm brainwashed and just do what Bush says.
My gay brother.
We used to live together in Portsmouth, NH. Me, him and his boyfriend. I was a member of the gay bar there, "Members Only" or something. I've liked most of his boyfriends better than him. All my friends in 1984 in Portsmouth were gay.
He knows I don't think it's the gov't's job to decide who can marry whom, I'm in favor of legalized abortion (within limits), and don't believe in a god.
And yet, I do what Bush tells me.
How do you respond to that? I've tried reason, I've tried getting angry. Now, I just point and laugh.
They don't like me any more, but at least they leave me the hell alone.
Veeshir · December 8, 2009 11:47 AM
= = = = = = = = = =
The best goof on teleological politics used to be the conservative 1960s button/bumper sticker "Don't let THEM immanentize the eschaton!" Please note, however, the linked post is terrible and teleology as described there is mangled.
Dimitri Rotov · December 8, 2009 12:35 PM
= = = = = = = = = =
There is magical thinking and then there is Magic.
All men dream but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that is was vanity, but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act on their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible.
We actually owe more to engineers than scientists. Sure - scientists discovered the principle of the Electric motor. But engineering is why you have a washing machine.
All the best engineers I know are dreamers. Tempered by practical matters - like making thins work. Showing a profit.
M. Simon · December 8, 2009 1:13 PM
= = = = = = = = = =
Thank you, Eric.
Regarding the teleologists' hymn:
An alternate version of "Imagine" by A Perfect Circle turns Lennon's idiotic meaning on its head.
Lennon meant that the world would be better if there was nothing to die for.
By making the music more dirge-like, the meaning becomes the world would be worse if there was nothing to die for.
You Tube has several versions. Here is one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ktv2C9vnRKU
Bill Lever · December 9, 2009 1:12 AM
= = = = = = = = = =
The simplest argument against utopianists:
The problem with utopia is that you need 100% enlightnede participation. It takes only one self-centered jerk to screw it up for everyone else. Since human nature pretty much guarantees the presence of at least one self-centered jerk, utopias are just not possible. Thus we need to create our societial rules as if there will not be 100% enlightenment in the population. Hence the need for police, armies, etc.
Richard · December 9, 2009 2:01 PM
= = = = = = = = = =
The simplest argument against utopianists:
The problem with utopia is that you need 100% enlightned participation. It takes only one self-centered jerk to screw it up for everyone else. Since human nature pretty much guarantees the presence of at least one self-centered jerk, utopias are just not possible. Thus we need to create our societial rules as if there will not be 100% enlightenment in the population. Hence the need for police, armies, etc.
Richard · December 9, 2009 2:13 PM
= = = = = = = = = =
This is a very common scenario for me. I rarely raise political issues, which are controversial by nature, at social gatherings. Leftists, however, do so all the time, become offended at contradiction, and then refuse to give their interlocutor a respectful hearing and rebuttal.
Instead, they get bent out of shape and excoriate their fellow citizen who does no more than disagree with their views. Their distress is your fault.
Apparently they only brought up politics in order to make sure their opponents are flushed out and shamed. Such children have no business at a gathering of adults.
Taking offense when none is intended is a flourishing skill on the left. It is bullying.
Brett · December 11, 2009 8:02 AM
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
blog nattative and comments all unedited from this link:
http://classicalvalues.com/archives/2009/12/why_all_argumen.html T.E. Lawrence
No comments:
Post a Comment