The belief that the human condition could be perfected is of great appeal to intellectuals, especially the midwit variety, as they naively see themselves as especially qualified to pronounce judgment when in fact they know next to nothing. In a post religious age people dream that there could somehow be a brought about secular providentialism, a collective rational management of human affairs, that would abolish tragedy and contingency from our lives. Grifters exploit this by offering up all manner of salvationist schemes whose implausibility is ignored because of these fatuous hopes.
True, but I do believe that many people turned to a secular salvationism in part because they could not relinquish the consolation once provided by theodicy.
That may be true, it's very hard to know. I think perhaps the limiting factor was more ability to force one's preferences about perfection on others rather than having other avenues. I note that often the religious are the ones trying to create a perfect Heaven on Earth, as it were. I guess the question comes down to "When did the post religious age start in what areas?"
As with most ways of trying to identify what's at the heart of the progressive/conservative divide, this perfectionism one is suggestive but doesn't feel quite right. In some ways contemporary progressivism is very anti-perfectionist. Accepting open-air drug markets in San Francisco as just a fact of urban life that can't be changed without unacceptable social cost, for example.
Right. Really it's time to retire 'liberal' and 'conservative' as they are no longer apt or useful terms to describe the essence of the core political division.
One thing the postmodernists kind of got right was the basic insight that because intellectuals have to pretend that they are making principled arguments when in fact they are just providing self-interested rationalizations, the kind of attitudes, language, and arguments partisans instinctively favor and use depends a great deal on their power and position.
When former radical revolutionaries get in power and entrenched in their positions, they suddenly switch positions on many matters - especially regarding the importance of tolerating dissent - and start to sound and act 'conservative' in many ways. There are a few areas where Arnold's Three Languages of Politics don't seem to be aging well, and it's due to the transition in the ideological composition of the elites analogous to a state going from competitively purple to Deep Blue.
So, we see progressives being clearly the anti-free-speech faction now, and using 'barbaric' and 'disgust' when discussing the attitudes and policies of Republican voters, and having dropped their formerly knee-jerk reflex presumptive opposition to anything involving federal law enforcement or the national security system. They are more in favor of taxing the rich more, but they have mostly made their peace with capitalism and the existence of big companies and very rich people so long as they are otherwise ideological allies who stay on the correct side of things.
With regards to crime and public disorder, they really do seem to reject the possibility of 'progress' and often sound like "unavoidable tragedy of the human condition that mature adults should learn to stoically accept and not complain about" types, "Sure, some things seem bad, but anything we do to try and change it would only be worse when it comes to justice, with the exception of doubling down on the same kinds of government spending and redistributing we're doing now, which never hurts." It is something of a joke to point out how many progressives are usually front and center in many efforts to stop activity and keep things just the way they are, especially in their own nice, tony neighborhoods
Imo you are conflating specific policy views and preferences with the idea that progressives are sure they know best.
But your example actually buttresses the opposite of your point, rather than argues against it.
Progressives are so confident that their view is correct that they readily jettisoned prior policies against drugs.
Though I concede that this one is not an optimal example.
A better SF example would be progressives deciding that shoplifting not being prosecuted would be a good idea - for exactly your stated rationale that doing so involved “unacceptable social cost”…
Any generalization has exceptions. The question becomes whether the "rule" is still an informative approximation. Can we list enough exceptions? IDK.
Another exception would be perfect abortion bans that don't [adequately] allow for aborting miscarriages, ectopic pregnancies, grossly deformed, other serious threats to health and life of mother, etc.
Texas is far from the only state with problems but let's limit to there. In 2021 or 22, Texas legislated a ban after six weeks with exception for the life of the mother. Except it was vague enough they decided they needed more legislation in 2023 to specifically allow abortion for ectopic and for water break before viability. Still, women are dying because doctors are unwilling to perform abortions on non-viable fetuses while there is still a heartbeat.
"Idaho subsequently amended its law to exempt certain conditions such as an ectopic pregnancy, but it does not have an exception for abortions necessary to prevent serious risks or consequences to women’s health, such as the loss of fertility."
I said LIFE of the mother was the fallacy. NOTHING you wrote contradicts this.
You can dislike the rest of the law. In some cases I would agree with you.
But there is nowhere in the U.S. a law which makes abortion to save the LIFE of the mother illegal. Period.
(And personally I am very glad they do not allow abortions post viability for the vague generic “health” of the mother. Again, this is *not* my endorsement of all provisions of those laws.)
To me, there's a huge whiff of anarchy-tyranny to the progressive side that seems to boil down to a kind of radicalism of thought. Either the state is to do nothing and it's everyone for themselves, or the state has complete power to do whatever it sees fit.
Rather than "progressive", it actually strikes me as a perverse sort of folk libertarianism that guides the left.
“…it actually strikes me as a perverse sort of folk libertarianism that guides the left.”
I think 15 years ago you could make this claim with some credibility.
Today leftists are *far* more authoritarian than they are permissive.
Using drugs is indeed one of the few points on your side.
You might try to cite abortion, and you’d be partly right, sure; I guess I’ll give you that one (though of course leftists tried to order anti-abortion counseling facilities to post information about the location of abortion clinics).
On the side of my claim we have:
- against free speech, for censorship of all sorts
- for executive discretion to ignore the rule of law (illegal immigration, canceling student debt, etc.)
- use of government power against political opponents
- DEI/wokeness - the oppressed have the right to fight back using ANY. MEANS. NECESSARY against their oppressors [but ONLY the oppressed, as defined by leftist views of intersectionality]
- public schools can deny information, let alone need assent, from parents on all sorts of things
- but children can’t drink or drive
- but they should be able to have chemical and surgical “gender-affirming ‘care’”
- …and parents who don’t agree to this are monsters who should be jailed, or at minimum have no say whatsoever
- fossil fuels should be banned in the name of global warming. But nuclear should be banned too
-…and “green” energy mandated
- people can be canceled for “misgendering”
- mask mandates, lockdowns, vaccination mandates
-… but favored groups (I.e. African-Americans, politicians themselves) are free to violate them because of George Floyd, or because they are Gavin Newsom
- unions are so important they should be mandated in most places, while “right to work” laws are bad
- rent control is good
- as are anti price-gauging [sic] laws
- cigarettes and nicotine vaping should be banned (even though pot shouldn’t)
- veal and foie gras should be banned
- guns should be banned
- plastic bags and plastic straws should be banned
I could surely find more.
A whole lot more on the authoritarian side of the ledger than the permissive “folk libertarian” side, wouldn’t you say? 😏
On a few issues, Leviathan is completely hands off and professes this shows it is libertarian. It doesn't care what the hot polloi do until it does. When it does, it claims complete authority.
Well, so long as you knowledge that the number of issues it is on that it’s libertarian is tiny, while the number it is authoritarian on is huge, we are in agreement. Because that didn’t come through in your prior comment at all
And I still don’t grok how you can call that “folk libertarianism”.
A progressive would respond that "perfect" is a strawman, that "perfectionist" should be replaced with "meliorist", that of course life is full of uncertainty and opportunities for error, but that doesn't mean we can't learn more and apply the new knowledge to eventually make revolutionary improvements via "small steps toward a much better world," to borrow a phrase. Maybe we can't "perfect" society, but surely we can do better than stubbornly hew to obsolete ancient superstitions, and why should practices and views based in a greater degree of ignorance deserve deference and respect? Yes, occasionally we'll make a mistake and knock down a Chesterton's Fence, but we can learn even more from those experiences and reverse course if we have to and now we'll be -even better off- because -we'll finally know- what purpose the fence served, and anyway, the alternative is paralyzing stagnation. So, just like we can't build a "perfect" aircraft or rocket, we can make vast improvement over decades and centuries, and why shouldn't we know hope to be able to improve the social and human conditions in like manner. Once there was slavery, now it's abolished, and is this not obviously better? Just like we prohibit old, obsolete, unsafe, inefficient designs in favor of newer, better ones, it is occasionally reasonable to pressure pressure to drop the most false, harmful, and corrosive of old, bigoted, antisocial views, prejudices, and practices.
---break---
Substack Formatting Request: I don't have a Substack yet, so I don't know what settings are available. But I've noticed that when some Substacks load - not just Alexander's - one is able to see the whole text of the post in addition to that of all the comments. For In My Tribe, it's only one or the other, and if one wants to review the exact wording, one has to keep a separate tab open. If there's a way to make everything visible all the time, and it's all the same to you and the other readers, I'd like to politely request that change be made.
Arnold - Nice try. You have a couple of little grains of gold in this post, but no vein. I don’t find the perfectionist argument all that powerful upon second read. The Dan Williams’ excerpts are good, especially about misleading information. I’m always impressed with your ability to find good excerpts. The Bullies book looks good. I bought it and will give it a try. Signed up for The Social Instinct discussion.
I think you’re going down the wrong road by criticizing the mirrors and windows perspective. The problem here isn’t mirrors and windows; it’s the belief that mirrors and windows should be taught in public schools. Get rid of the public schools. Mirrors and windows are fine. Empathy is good. Tolerance is good. Exchanging places with others is good, so long as the family is ready and willing.
The Bullies book looks good because it’s in favor of mirrors and windows, and in against bullies.
I’m in favor of mirrors and windows and I know you are too. What could be more Smithian than mirrors and windows? That’s his core idea. Exchange. Trade. Whether it be trading goods, or mutual sympathy of sentiments. James Otteson is under appreciated in his concise, readable books on Smith.
Don’t fall for the traps these progressives set for us. They want to paint us as fearful of empathy. No. We need to talk about Adam Smith and Jesus Christ from the perspective of mirrors and windows. Tolerance and respect for all peaceful people.
For my view check out my post on “Why Do Some People Believe Queer Things?”
In a nutshell it says, that bullies don’t want us to enter into an exchange with others. They don’t want us to understand the belief norms of other cultures if those cultures are not in their in-group.
In a follow-up post, I argue that children are not responsible for their beliefs if they have never been taught beliefs counter to their beliefs norms.
In a future post I’ll describe how to discipline a child that doesn’t know any better. This is done through mirrors and windows and standing up to bullies.
This is not complicated stuff. Jesus and Smith have done most of the work already.
A rich book to consider on this topic: _The Perfectibility of Man_ by John Passmore. And there's a condensation/summary in Passmore's article "Perfectibility of Man" in Volume III of the original _Dictionary of the History of Ideas_, which is available here:
In yesterday's podcast, both Joe Rogan and Elon Musk claimed that certain policies of the Democratic Party to which they object, such as the efforts to infringe upon free speech and the medical experiments on children in the name of gender ideology, are not genuinely part of 'the left.' Brett Weinstein said something similar in one of his recent Darkhorse podcasts. The same sentiment is reflected in the slogan 'I didn't leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left me.' As much as I admire what I call 'honest lefties' who are not going along with everything the progressive movement is pushing, I can't help but notice their being in denial that the leftist policies they find objectionable are, in fact, the inevitable result of the progressivism to which they continue to adhere. Even though Joe Rogan is vehemently against the use of puberty blockers and surgical treatments on 'transgender children,' he still expresses support for the freedom of grown men to go around in public wearing skirts (so long as the skirt is long enough to conceal their genitals), thus failing to recognize the possible connection between the latter and the former. They all want to draw lines between the progressive policies they support (eg. Roe v. Wade, gay marriage, legalization of weed, etc.) and those they regard as going too far, effectively saying 'this far, but no further,' but that's not how progressivism ever works. That's why I'm not a progressive.
Most people are very confused about what "left" and "right" mean anymore. Forget about the French Revolution, there has been so much water under the bridge since even the 80's and especially since the collapse of the Soviet Union that anyone relying on impressions developed in or about that time expresses similar kinds of confusion.
The confusion derives from thinking of leftism as something like a traditional organized religion, which it is not. This is a failure to understand the nature of an evolving political strategy and formula - where there is a feedback between positions and power - and thus a failure to discern the difference between what dispositions are core and durable vs what are merely expedient and ephemeral and can be flexibly added or substracted as the situation requires, which can always be done with just a little flick of "Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia."
Here in Evanston, IL, we have a real time hard core experiment in the "progressive" approach to school management. It's not working out. At all. Slogans are not a curriculum and the mirrors being used here are all painted with the word "racist" on top.
Those who think of themselves as providing mirrors and windows for students do not stop to think that they may be providing funhouse mirrors and tinted windows.
My main point of disagreement here is "The conservative would have us treat no one as infallible. The perfectionist would have us treat its tribe’s beliefs as if they were infallible."
Most of conservatives treat either tradition itself or some traditional authority as infallible, they are not more inclined to let people make their own mistakes when making those mistakes means deviating from the traditional way.
The "nobody is infallible" model is one that always struggles, probably partly because it naturally repels the sort of people who tend to seek power and converts.
"you are a perfectionist if you believe that society could be perfect provided that the ideas that are known to be correct are implemented.”
Even as an anti-perfectionist, I think this essay needs a more perfect definition of ‘perfectionist’. “Known to be correct”? The whole society agrees on what is correct? C’mon, Prof. You’re assuming your conclusion.
“you are a perfectionist if you believe that society could be perfect provided that the ideas that are known to be correct are implemented. You are an anti-perfectionist if you believe that attempts to perfect society will backfire because of our inherent human flaws.”
Not sure that one really needs to subscribe to either view.
Will reciting the weekday amidah including the words:
“You graciously bestow knowledge upon man and teach mortals understanding. Graciously bestow upon us from You, wisdom, understanding and knowledge. Blessed are You L-rd, who graciously bestows knowledge.
Cause us to return, our Father, to Your Torah; draw us near, our King, to Your service; and bring us back to You in whole-hearted repentance. Blessed are You L-rd, who desires penitence.”
So, Godwin realizes that since perpetual improvement is possible, the goal of perfection is not attainable. Yet, this is not cause for surrender: cultivated knowledge through reason shall help us to improve and avoid backfires. Perhaps then a lukewarm perfectionist?
But Godwin also embraces an anti-perfectionist ethos as well. His second principle:
“The most desirable condition of the human species is a state of
society.
The injustice and violence of men in a state of society produced
the demand for government.
Government, as it was forced upon mankind by their vices, so
has it commonly been the creature of their ignorance and
mistake.
Government was intended to suppress injustice, but it offers new
occasions and temptations for the commission of it.
By concentrating the force of the community, it gives occasion to
wild projects of calamity, to oppression, despotism, war and
conquest.
By perpetuating and aggravating the inequality of property, it
fosters many injurious passions, and excites men to the
practice of robbery and fraud.
Government was intended to suppress injustice, but its effect has
been to embody and perpetuate it.”
How to resolve this potential conflict? Godwin suggests something like Substack:
“It follows that the promoting the best interests of mankind eminently depends upon the freedom of social communication. Let us figure to ourselves a number of individuals who, having stored their minds with reading and reflection, are accustomed, in candid and unreserved conversation, to compare their ideas, suggest their doubts, examine their mutual difficulties and cultivate a perspicuous and animated manner of delivering their sentiments. Let us suppose that their intercourse is not confined to the society of each other, but that they are desirous extensively to communicate the truths with which they are acquainted. Let us suppose their illustrations to be not more distinguished by impartiality and demonstrative clearness than by the mildness of their temper, and a spirit of comprehensive benevolence. We shall then have an idea of knowledge as perpetually gaining ground, unaccompanied with peril in the means of its diffusion. Their hearers will be instigated to impart their acquisitions to still other hearers, and the circle of instruction will perpetually increase. Reason will spread, and not a brute and unintelligent sympathy.”
So, perhaps the best interests of humanity are not aligned with either perfectionism or anti-perfectionism, but rather in humble striving.
Be neither a perfectionist nor an anti-perfectionist, but make what contribution you will to the common struggle.
Building a model civilization is an old desire, which in the US goes all the way back to the Puritans. They wanted to create societal norms for and by themselves, free from the corrupting influence of outsiders. Civic participation was encouraged, but once the group set on a course of action or thought, individuals were expected to fall in line.
The belief that the human condition could be perfected is of great appeal to intellectuals, especially the midwit variety, as they naively see themselves as especially qualified to pronounce judgment when in fact they know next to nothing. In a post religious age people dream that there could somehow be a brought about secular providentialism, a collective rational management of human affairs, that would abolish tragedy and contingency from our lives. Grifters exploit this by offering up all manner of salvationist schemes whose implausibility is ignored because of these fatuous hopes.
My only disagreement is the “post religious age” part; this is not a new phenomenon and people have been trying to perfect humanity for ever.
True, but I do believe that many people turned to a secular salvationism in part because they could not relinquish the consolation once provided by theodicy.
That may be true, it's very hard to know. I think perhaps the limiting factor was more ability to force one's preferences about perfection on others rather than having other avenues. I note that often the religious are the ones trying to create a perfect Heaven on Earth, as it were. I guess the question comes down to "When did the post religious age start in what areas?"
As with most ways of trying to identify what's at the heart of the progressive/conservative divide, this perfectionism one is suggestive but doesn't feel quite right. In some ways contemporary progressivism is very anti-perfectionist. Accepting open-air drug markets in San Francisco as just a fact of urban life that can't be changed without unacceptable social cost, for example.
Right. Really it's time to retire 'liberal' and 'conservative' as they are no longer apt or useful terms to describe the essence of the core political division.
One thing the postmodernists kind of got right was the basic insight that because intellectuals have to pretend that they are making principled arguments when in fact they are just providing self-interested rationalizations, the kind of attitudes, language, and arguments partisans instinctively favor and use depends a great deal on their power and position.
When former radical revolutionaries get in power and entrenched in their positions, they suddenly switch positions on many matters - especially regarding the importance of tolerating dissent - and start to sound and act 'conservative' in many ways. There are a few areas where Arnold's Three Languages of Politics don't seem to be aging well, and it's due to the transition in the ideological composition of the elites analogous to a state going from competitively purple to Deep Blue.
So, we see progressives being clearly the anti-free-speech faction now, and using 'barbaric' and 'disgust' when discussing the attitudes and policies of Republican voters, and having dropped their formerly knee-jerk reflex presumptive opposition to anything involving federal law enforcement or the national security system. They are more in favor of taxing the rich more, but they have mostly made their peace with capitalism and the existence of big companies and very rich people so long as they are otherwise ideological allies who stay on the correct side of things.
With regards to crime and public disorder, they really do seem to reject the possibility of 'progress' and often sound like "unavoidable tragedy of the human condition that mature adults should learn to stoically accept and not complain about" types, "Sure, some things seem bad, but anything we do to try and change it would only be worse when it comes to justice, with the exception of doubling down on the same kinds of government spending and redistributing we're doing now, which never hurts." It is something of a joke to point out how many progressives are usually front and center in many efforts to stop activity and keep things just the way they are, especially in their own nice, tony neighborhoods
Imo you are conflating specific policy views and preferences with the idea that progressives are sure they know best.
But your example actually buttresses the opposite of your point, rather than argues against it.
Progressives are so confident that their view is correct that they readily jettisoned prior policies against drugs.
Though I concede that this one is not an optimal example.
A better SF example would be progressives deciding that shoplifting not being prosecuted would be a good idea - for exactly your stated rationale that doing so involved “unacceptable social cost”…
Any generalization has exceptions. The question becomes whether the "rule" is still an informative approximation. Can we list enough exceptions? IDK.
Another exception would be perfect abortion bans that don't [adequately] allow for aborting miscarriages, ectopic pregnancies, grossly deformed, other serious threats to health and life of mother, etc.
You were doing fine until you suggested that there are abortion laws that don’t allow abortions due to serious threat to the *life* of the mother.
I defy you to find even a single one in this country. You will not be able to.
Suggesting otherwise, as you have just done, is propagating an utterly false trope.
Not false.
Texas is far from the only state with problems but let's limit to there. In 2021 or 22, Texas legislated a ban after six weeks with exception for the life of the mother. Except it was vague enough they decided they needed more legislation in 2023 to specifically allow abortion for ectopic and for water break before viability. Still, women are dying because doctors are unwilling to perform abortions on non-viable fetuses while there is still a heartbeat.
https://www.texastribune.org/2024/11/03/texas-ob-gyn-letter-abortion-laws/#:~:text=After%20the%20Dobbs%20v.%20Jackson,life%20of%20the%20pregnant%20patient.
Here's a simiilar 60 Minutes piece.
https://www.cbsnews.com/video/unintended-consequences-texas-abortion-laws-60-minutes-video-2024-11-03/
What the heck. Let's add another:
"Idaho subsequently amended its law to exempt certain conditions such as an ectopic pregnancy, but it does not have an exception for abortions necessary to prevent serious risks or consequences to women’s health, such as the loss of fertility."
https://www.ncsl.org/state-legislatures-news/details/supreme-court-punts-idaho-abortion-case-back-to-lower-courts
Your false claim is in fact false.
I said LIFE of the mother was the fallacy. NOTHING you wrote contradicts this.
You can dislike the rest of the law. In some cases I would agree with you.
But there is nowhere in the U.S. a law which makes abortion to save the LIFE of the mother illegal. Period.
(And personally I am very glad they do not allow abortions post viability for the vague generic “health” of the mother. Again, this is *not* my endorsement of all provisions of those laws.)
We disagree.
We can disagree on all sorts of *opinions*.
This is a *fact*.
I defy you to show me a law which makes it illegal to perform an abortion to save the *life* of the mother.
Texas’ law does not do that. Neither does any other state’s.
As Daniel Patrick Moynihan said, you are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.
To claim otherwise is literally (old school definition) to promote fake news.
Great point.
To me, there's a huge whiff of anarchy-tyranny to the progressive side that seems to boil down to a kind of radicalism of thought. Either the state is to do nothing and it's everyone for themselves, or the state has complete power to do whatever it sees fit.
Rather than "progressive", it actually strikes me as a perverse sort of folk libertarianism that guides the left.
“…it actually strikes me as a perverse sort of folk libertarianism that guides the left.”
I think 15 years ago you could make this claim with some credibility.
Today leftists are *far* more authoritarian than they are permissive.
Using drugs is indeed one of the few points on your side.
You might try to cite abortion, and you’d be partly right, sure; I guess I’ll give you that one (though of course leftists tried to order anti-abortion counseling facilities to post information about the location of abortion clinics).
On the side of my claim we have:
- against free speech, for censorship of all sorts
- for executive discretion to ignore the rule of law (illegal immigration, canceling student debt, etc.)
- use of government power against political opponents
- DEI/wokeness - the oppressed have the right to fight back using ANY. MEANS. NECESSARY against their oppressors [but ONLY the oppressed, as defined by leftist views of intersectionality]
- public schools can deny information, let alone need assent, from parents on all sorts of things
- but children can’t drink or drive
- but they should be able to have chemical and surgical “gender-affirming ‘care’”
- …and parents who don’t agree to this are monsters who should be jailed, or at minimum have no say whatsoever
- fossil fuels should be banned in the name of global warming. But nuclear should be banned too
-…and “green” energy mandated
- people can be canceled for “misgendering”
- mask mandates, lockdowns, vaccination mandates
-… but favored groups (I.e. African-Americans, politicians themselves) are free to violate them because of George Floyd, or because they are Gavin Newsom
- unions are so important they should be mandated in most places, while “right to work” laws are bad
- rent control is good
- as are anti price-gauging [sic] laws
- cigarettes and nicotine vaping should be banned (even though pot shouldn’t)
- veal and foie gras should be banned
- guns should be banned
- plastic bags and plastic straws should be banned
I could surely find more.
A whole lot more on the authoritarian side of the ledger than the permissive “folk libertarian” side, wouldn’t you say? 😏
That's what I'm saying. It's all or nothing.
On a few issues, Leviathan is completely hands off and professes this shows it is libertarian. It doesn't care what the hot polloi do until it does. When it does, it claims complete authority.
Well, so long as you knowledge that the number of issues it is on that it’s libertarian is tiny, while the number it is authoritarian on is huge, we are in agreement. Because that didn’t come through in your prior comment at all
And I still don’t grok how you can call that “folk libertarianism”.
A progressive would respond that "perfect" is a strawman, that "perfectionist" should be replaced with "meliorist", that of course life is full of uncertainty and opportunities for error, but that doesn't mean we can't learn more and apply the new knowledge to eventually make revolutionary improvements via "small steps toward a much better world," to borrow a phrase. Maybe we can't "perfect" society, but surely we can do better than stubbornly hew to obsolete ancient superstitions, and why should practices and views based in a greater degree of ignorance deserve deference and respect? Yes, occasionally we'll make a mistake and knock down a Chesterton's Fence, but we can learn even more from those experiences and reverse course if we have to and now we'll be -even better off- because -we'll finally know- what purpose the fence served, and anyway, the alternative is paralyzing stagnation. So, just like we can't build a "perfect" aircraft or rocket, we can make vast improvement over decades and centuries, and why shouldn't we know hope to be able to improve the social and human conditions in like manner. Once there was slavery, now it's abolished, and is this not obviously better? Just like we prohibit old, obsolete, unsafe, inefficient designs in favor of newer, better ones, it is occasionally reasonable to pressure pressure to drop the most false, harmful, and corrosive of old, bigoted, antisocial views, prejudices, and practices.
---break---
Substack Formatting Request: I don't have a Substack yet, so I don't know what settings are available. But I've noticed that when some Substacks load - not just Alexander's - one is able to see the whole text of the post in addition to that of all the comments. For In My Tribe, it's only one or the other, and if one wants to review the exact wording, one has to keep a separate tab open. If there's a way to make everything visible all the time, and it's all the same to you and the other readers, I'd like to politely request that change be made.
Arnold - Nice try. You have a couple of little grains of gold in this post, but no vein. I don’t find the perfectionist argument all that powerful upon second read. The Dan Williams’ excerpts are good, especially about misleading information. I’m always impressed with your ability to find good excerpts. The Bullies book looks good. I bought it and will give it a try. Signed up for The Social Instinct discussion.
I think you’re going down the wrong road by criticizing the mirrors and windows perspective. The problem here isn’t mirrors and windows; it’s the belief that mirrors and windows should be taught in public schools. Get rid of the public schools. Mirrors and windows are fine. Empathy is good. Tolerance is good. Exchanging places with others is good, so long as the family is ready and willing.
The Bullies book looks good because it’s in favor of mirrors and windows, and in against bullies.
I’m in favor of mirrors and windows and I know you are too. What could be more Smithian than mirrors and windows? That’s his core idea. Exchange. Trade. Whether it be trading goods, or mutual sympathy of sentiments. James Otteson is under appreciated in his concise, readable books on Smith.
Don’t fall for the traps these progressives set for us. They want to paint us as fearful of empathy. No. We need to talk about Adam Smith and Jesus Christ from the perspective of mirrors and windows. Tolerance and respect for all peaceful people.
For my view check out my post on “Why Do Some People Believe Queer Things?”
https://scottgibb.substack.com/p/why-do-some-people-believe-queer
In a nutshell it says, that bullies don’t want us to enter into an exchange with others. They don’t want us to understand the belief norms of other cultures if those cultures are not in their in-group.
In a follow-up post, I argue that children are not responsible for their beliefs if they have never been taught beliefs counter to their beliefs norms.
https://scottgibb.substack.com/p/are-you-responsible-for-your-beliefs
In a future post I’ll describe how to discipline a child that doesn’t know any better. This is done through mirrors and windows and standing up to bullies.
This is not complicated stuff. Jesus and Smith have done most of the work already.
A rich book to consider on this topic: _The Perfectibility of Man_ by John Passmore. And there's a condensation/summary in Passmore's article "Perfectibility of Man" in Volume III of the original _Dictionary of the History of Ideas_, which is available here:
https://xtf.lib.virginia.edu/xtf/view?docId=DicHist/uvaBook/tei/DicHist3.xml;chunk.id=dv3-57;toc.depth=1;toc.id=dv3-57;brand=default
In yesterday's podcast, both Joe Rogan and Elon Musk claimed that certain policies of the Democratic Party to which they object, such as the efforts to infringe upon free speech and the medical experiments on children in the name of gender ideology, are not genuinely part of 'the left.' Brett Weinstein said something similar in one of his recent Darkhorse podcasts. The same sentiment is reflected in the slogan 'I didn't leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left me.' As much as I admire what I call 'honest lefties' who are not going along with everything the progressive movement is pushing, I can't help but notice their being in denial that the leftist policies they find objectionable are, in fact, the inevitable result of the progressivism to which they continue to adhere. Even though Joe Rogan is vehemently against the use of puberty blockers and surgical treatments on 'transgender children,' he still expresses support for the freedom of grown men to go around in public wearing skirts (so long as the skirt is long enough to conceal their genitals), thus failing to recognize the possible connection between the latter and the former. They all want to draw lines between the progressive policies they support (eg. Roe v. Wade, gay marriage, legalization of weed, etc.) and those they regard as going too far, effectively saying 'this far, but no further,' but that's not how progressivism ever works. That's why I'm not a progressive.
Most people are very confused about what "left" and "right" mean anymore. Forget about the French Revolution, there has been so much water under the bridge since even the 80's and especially since the collapse of the Soviet Union that anyone relying on impressions developed in or about that time expresses similar kinds of confusion.
The confusion derives from thinking of leftism as something like a traditional organized religion, which it is not. This is a failure to understand the nature of an evolving political strategy and formula - where there is a feedback between positions and power - and thus a failure to discern the difference between what dispositions are core and durable vs what are merely expedient and ephemeral and can be flexibly added or substracted as the situation requires, which can always be done with just a little flick of "Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia."
Here in Evanston, IL, we have a real time hard core experiment in the "progressive" approach to school management. It's not working out. At all. Slogans are not a curriculum and the mirrors being used here are all painted with the word "racist" on top.
May they just disagree about what's the roles of school.
Those who think of themselves as providing mirrors and windows for students do not stop to think that they may be providing funhouse mirrors and tinted windows.
My main point of disagreement here is "The conservative would have us treat no one as infallible. The perfectionist would have us treat its tribe’s beliefs as if they were infallible."
Most of conservatives treat either tradition itself or some traditional authority as infallible, they are not more inclined to let people make their own mistakes when making those mistakes means deviating from the traditional way.
The "nobody is infallible" model is one that always struggles, probably partly because it naturally repels the sort of people who tend to seek power and converts.
"you are a perfectionist if you believe that society could be perfect provided that the ideas that are known to be correct are implemented.”
Even as an anti-perfectionist, I think this essay needs a more perfect definition of ‘perfectionist’. “Known to be correct”? The whole society agrees on what is correct? C’mon, Prof. You’re assuming your conclusion.
“you are a perfectionist if you believe that society could be perfect provided that the ideas that are known to be correct are implemented. You are an anti-perfectionist if you believe that attempts to perfect society will backfire because of our inherent human flaws.”
Not sure that one really needs to subscribe to either view.
Tell us, is the practice of tikkun (https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/tikkun-olam-repairing-the-world/ ) perfectionist or anti-perfectionist?
Will reciting the weekday amidah including the words:
“You graciously bestow knowledge upon man and teach mortals understanding. Graciously bestow upon us from You, wisdom, understanding and knowledge. Blessed are You L-rd, who graciously bestows knowledge.
Cause us to return, our Father, to Your Torah; draw us near, our King, to Your service; and bring us back to You in whole-hearted repentance. Blessed are You L-rd, who desires penitence.”
(https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/867674/jewish/Translation.htm )
necessarily backfire?
Perhaps like Merle Kling, the anti-perfectionist John Passmore (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Passmore ) observed “It will by now be clear that the question ‘Are men perfectible?’ does not admit of any easy straightforward answer. The reply, often merely obstructive, is for once justified: ‘It all depends on what you mean . . .’” (https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/passmore-the-perfectibility-of-man )
Contra Passmore, this need not contradict the great William Godwin whose 7th principle states:
“Reason depends for its clearness and strength upon the cultiva-
tion of knowledge.
The extent of our progress in the cultivation of knowledge is
unlimited.
Hence it follows,
1. That human inventions, and the modes of social existence, are
susceptible of perpetual improvement.
2. That institutions calculated to give perpetuity to any particular
mode of thinking, or condition of existence, are pernicious.”
(http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/godwin/PJfrontpiece.html )
So, Godwin realizes that since perpetual improvement is possible, the goal of perfection is not attainable. Yet, this is not cause for surrender: cultivated knowledge through reason shall help us to improve and avoid backfires. Perhaps then a lukewarm perfectionist?
But Godwin also embraces an anti-perfectionist ethos as well. His second principle:
“The most desirable condition of the human species is a state of
society.
The injustice and violence of men in a state of society produced
the demand for government.
Government, as it was forced upon mankind by their vices, so
has it commonly been the creature of their ignorance and
mistake.
Government was intended to suppress injustice, but it offers new
occasions and temptations for the commission of it.
By concentrating the force of the community, it gives occasion to
wild projects of calamity, to oppression, despotism, war and
conquest.
By perpetuating and aggravating the inequality of property, it
fosters many injurious passions, and excites men to the
practice of robbery and fraud.
Government was intended to suppress injustice, but its effect has
been to embody and perpetuate it.”
How to resolve this potential conflict? Godwin suggests something like Substack:
“It follows that the promoting the best interests of mankind eminently depends upon the freedom of social communication. Let us figure to ourselves a number of individuals who, having stored their minds with reading and reflection, are accustomed, in candid and unreserved conversation, to compare their ideas, suggest their doubts, examine their mutual difficulties and cultivate a perspicuous and animated manner of delivering their sentiments. Let us suppose that their intercourse is not confined to the society of each other, but that they are desirous extensively to communicate the truths with which they are acquainted. Let us suppose their illustrations to be not more distinguished by impartiality and demonstrative clearness than by the mildness of their temper, and a spirit of comprehensive benevolence. We shall then have an idea of knowledge as perpetually gaining ground, unaccompanied with peril in the means of its diffusion. Their hearers will be instigated to impart their acquisitions to still other hearers, and the circle of instruction will perpetually increase. Reason will spread, and not a brute and unintelligent sympathy.”
So, perhaps the best interests of humanity are not aligned with either perfectionism or anti-perfectionism, but rather in humble striving.
Be neither a perfectionist nor an anti-perfectionist, but make what contribution you will to the common struggle.
Building a model civilization is an old desire, which in the US goes all the way back to the Puritans. They wanted to create societal norms for and by themselves, free from the corrupting influence of outsiders. Civic participation was encouraged, but once the group set on a course of action or thought, individuals were expected to fall in line.