Positive Liberty

Humanism
41

Like I said we are having two different conversations.

Like I said we are having different conversations.

I’m not blind to other’s challenges and barriers. &
I appreciate how devilishly difficult, to down right impossible, lives and circumstances can be.
Don’t judge me.

Still, all that’s quite a different story, from the striving to dig down to the basic fundamentals.

At some point I thought I could tie “her story/struggle/conundrum” back to some of Berlin’s words and try to explain myself, but than ain’t happening.

42

The judgment, as you call it, that I make is that you aren’t in dialog, that you respond with “it’s about the body/brain” to every topic, that you ask a question and I answer it with my opinion and you claim my opinion is a judgment on you.

It’s not two conversations, it’s two people. Why you expect one answer, one interpretation, to come out of that, is beyond me.

The “tie” is that she heard it and it opened her mind. That is it. That’s all. You don’t have to figure out how that connection happened. But, if you wanted to, it might be interesting. I had never heard of Berlin, but there he is out on the web, and still being talked about at one of the most famous universities in the world. It might be interesting to know about him. That’s it. No one is requiring anything else of you. No one is judging you if this story doesn’t connect to your story or isn’t what you call a “basic fundamental” and no one is saying you don’t appreciate the struggles of others.

43

You’re starting to sound … .

Okay. That’s all.

For you - for me Berlin, from reading around his Stanford write up, is the same old, same old philosophical obsolescence, that I summarize with “self-absorbed & self-serving” that helped set the stage for today’s self-destructive humanity and it’s general disconnect from Earth’s physical realities these days.

And that’s a conversation you aren’t interested in.

Okay. That’s all.

44

It’s not that I’m not interested in it, just not on every thread. Particularly ones that I start. There are two conversations on this thread because I opened it, then you started the second conversation. Then you complained because I didn’t switch to your conversation.

45

Isaiah Berlin

First published Tue Oct 26, 2004; substantive revision Sat Feb 12, 2022

Isaiah Berlin (1909–97) was a naturalised British philosopher, historian of ideas, political theorist, educator, public intellectual and moralist, and essayist. He was renowned for his conversational brilliance, his defence of liberalism and pluralism, his opposition to political extremism and intellectual fanaticism, and his accessible, coruscating writings on people and ideas. His essay Two Concepts of Liberty (1958) contributed to a revival of interest in political theory in the English-speaking world, and remains one of the most influential and widely discussed texts in that field: admirers and critics agree that Berlin’s distinction between positive and negative liberty remains, for better or worse, a basic starting point for discussions of the meaning and value of political freedom. …

I took a few minutes to reread his “Life” - okay be mad at me, and yes I’m a bit of jerk and my easy dismissal wasn’t being particularly fair to Isaiah himself, being a bit melodramatic myself. Mia Culpa.

The thing is, I’m looking at the the entire edifice of academic philosophy and it’s taken on an entirely different darker specter, in light of the reality of current human behavior (I know, it’s said it is all the same as it ever was - but we’ve become the gods over Earth, think about it, it isn’t one F’n bit like it ever was! He says as his hand slams into the table.)

What I’m looking at the collective and the individuals are a kin to statistics, because it’s the entire edifice I’ve judged, for better or worse.
It’s the recognition of all the flaws, arrogance dismissals and self-serving idealistic over-simplification and over generalizations that have formed the core of our thinking.

Not recognizing the difference between “supposing” and what’s actually unfolding in the physical reality that created us. All the while ignoring the very real divide and distinction between our minds and biology, physical reality. As if it were trivial, like you’re always telling me.

Well, it isn’t trivial, it’s as fundamental and important to thoroughly understand as it gets.

Had we that appreciation our entire human suite of priorities and desires, and attitude towards Earth systems would be profoundly different, and nurturing towards the full gamut of environmental Earth bound realities, healthy water, air, land, food would be priorities, rather than ‘externalities’ to be ignored. etc., etc.,

I like you Lausten, but you’re full of old world bromides, and the thing is, an entire frightening, new struggle filled reality is unfolding. We in America have been well insulated, but the cancer will catch up to us. And I for one am not going to be blind or silent to it and how we did this to ourselves. It’s determined, I am and will remain a witness, for better or worse.

46

Thanks. That’s never easy

No thanks

47

I don’t remember saying anything was trivial.

This sounds like, ‘if humans had been more self aware through history then we wouldn’t have the problems we have now’.

48

Case in point,

Thinking and consciousness are not the same thing.

The New York Declaration on Animal Consciousness

Which animals have the capacity for conscious experience? While much uncertainty remains, some points of wide agreement have emerged.

First, there is strong scientific support for attributions of conscious experience to other mammals and to birds.

Second, the empirical evidence indicates at least a realistic possibility of conscious experience in all vertebrates (including reptiles, amphibians, and fishes) and many invertebrates (including, at minimum, cephalopod mollusks, decapod crustaceans, and insects).

Third, when there is a realistic possibility of conscious experience in an animal, it is irresponsible to ignore that possibility in decisions affecting that animal. We should consider welfare risks and use the evidence to inform our responses to these risks.

There’s definitely that, and it’s been especially true for the past couple centuries.

1 Like
49

So it’s nit picking now?

50

It isn’t about nit picking, it’s about buried human-self-absorbed nature, that’s underlying that quip.

It’s like science: fish are cold blooded autotomy, until science bestowed “thinking” or “consciousness” upon them.
Rather than openly recognizing how much we are playing catch up. Same sort of thing as with the one-time common knowledge among doctors/scientists that newborn infants were blank slates - even though every attentive mother knew differently. (But who wanted to listen to a woman) These days science has been doing a lot of catching up - thanks to women scientists I might add.

It’s grating (yeah, yeah, just like I’m grating to you) but it’s a distinction worth insisting on.
Appreciating the Human Mind ~ Physical Reality with all its cascading implications. The getting outside of one’s own Ego long enough to gain a visceral appreciation for the biological/evolutionary/physical reality we exist within.
.
.
,

51

  1. I think you know that I know the difference between thinking and consciousness.

  2. If every scientific experiment is going to be met by you saying we should have known that, or mothers knew that or fishermen knew it, then you are going to be very busy.

Either way. Lighten up.