RoR: Forum

There isn't a reference to David Broder in this article. Where is his piece?

Btw, it's "pedal to the metal."

Sam

Post 1

Friday, March 11, 2011 - 11:11pm

It's David Brooks, and he is a philosophical idiot for writing this:

This body of research suggests the French enlightenment view of human nature, which emphasized individualism and reason, was wrong. The British enlightenment, which emphasized social sentiments, was more accurate about who we are. It suggests we are not divided creatures. We don�t only progress as reason dominates the passions. We also thrive as we educate our emotions.

Why is there so much philosophical bankruptcy among talking heads in our culture? Was there a time when pundits were smarter than this? This kind of garbage (above) is terribly stupid and to tell the truth, embarrassing.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 3/11, 11:15pm)

Post 2

Saturday, March 12, 2011 - 5:00am

Oooops. Outrage induced wetbitrot over the Brooks/Broder gaff, and sloppiness on my part...

As well, my fingers forever insist on typing either 'petal to the metal' or 'pedal to the medal' ... no idea why.

From the pages of the NYTimes, so opinion pieces of this tone are to be expected.

But, Jesus.

Post 3

Saturday, March 12, 2011 - 9:07am

Brooks is not far off about Cartesian dualism and its effects. Change "reason" to "rationalism" in the quote above and I'll buy it.

Post 4

Saturday, March 12, 2011 - 2:12pm

Peter,

Brooks is not far off about Cartesian dualism and its effects. Change "reason" to "rationalism" in the quote above and I'll buy it.

Really? Did you realize what it really is that you were asking? In my view, you could have just said "Change altruism to selfishness and I'll buy it." Change "bad" to "good" and I'll buy it. Change "wrong" to "right" and I'll buy it. It's a cardinal example of equivocation to equate reason with rationalism. A cardinal example.

I'm of the opinion that you were being unreasonably generous to have gone ahead and to have interpreted Brooks in that manner.

Ed

p.s. Keep in mind that Brooks also said this in the essay:

We had a financial regime based on the notion that bankers are rational creatures who wouldn�t do anything stupid en masse.

The insinuation here is dishonest. Bankers would not have made the loans needed to result in $600 Billion in over-investment in housing -- if it was truly a free market. They would not have made those same, potentially-bankrupting decisions if it were left up to them. Indeed, the political left has railed against them for their very rationality in the past (because they preferred not to make tons of sub-prime loans).

Second, emotion is not opposed to reason; our emotions assign value to things and are the basis of reason.

The third point is wrong. Beyond instincts shared with animals (quick withdrawal of a limb in pain), it is reason (integration) that is the underlying basis for our felt emotions, not the reverse. Take students. They get pre-test anxiety because of what they think about with respect to the test and its consequences in their life later, rather than having pre-test anxiety "automatically". This is just existentialism, where unexplained emotions are used as the basis of reason.

Finally, we are not individuals who form relationships. We are social animals, deeply interpenetrated with one another, who emerge out of relationships.

This is social engineering/social metaphysics. What about when we dissolve relationships? Are we individuals who dissolve relationships, or are we "social animals" who somehow begin to emerge out of our dissolved relationships? No answer?

Blank out?

Ed

p.s. My personal mode of operation is to never trust a guy ... never ... who says that its wrong to emphasize individualism and reason in human affairs.

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 3/12, 4:29pm)

Post 5

Saturday, March 12, 2011 - 6:54pm

Your main point is just the one I made: "reason" was the wrong word. Changing the wrong word to the right one can often turn a falsehood into a truth. (On reconsideration, "individualism" is another wrong word; the French rationalist tradition has never been individualistic.)

I was commenting only on a single statement, not on the rest of the piece.

You both (Bartlett and Thompson) have been taken in by Brooks. He is not a conservative at all, but rather the Kevin Phillips of our day, achieving media stardom by calling himself a conservative while telling statists just what they want to hear. They can then say "even conservatives belive...(insert idea that the NYT likes but no conservative does)..." I follow the National Review and American Spectator sites regularly, and nobody there thinks well of Brooks, as at least some of them would if he were a conservative.

Post 6

Saturday, March 12, 2011 - 8:54pm

Thanks for clearing that up, Peter.

Ed

p.s. Don't you get a sense that the folks over at National Review are rabid pack of collectivist NeoCons -- or instead, would you say that you are at least currently "taken in" by them?

:-)

I know that that -- rabid, collectivist NeoCons -- used to be the case when I decided to (to borrow from Spencer) hold them in contempt prior to (thorough) investigation.

:-)

Post 7

Sunday, March 13, 2011 - 7:31am

Some are, some aren't. One has to read NRO critically, and I like to think that I do.

Post 8

Monday, March 14, 2011 - 2:53pm

You both (Bartlett and Thompson) have been taken in by Brooks. He is not a conservative at all...

I'm guessing my placing the word "conservative" in quotes was too subtle by half.

Post 9

Tuesday, March 15, 2011 - 6:58am