[FRIAM] capitalism vs. individualism

[Steven A Smith]

Dave -

> Previously, I noted: "Asserting that all is interpretation is an
> invitation to engage in a conversation about "meaning" or "reality"
> from a level playing field — i.e. absent any grant of privilege to one
> interpretation over another; and, any expectation that somewhere,
> somehow, even the most consensual and widely shared interpretation
> can, or will, morph into some kind of "fact" or "truth."
It sounds like you think there is such a thing as "a level playing
field"?  Or perhaps you just want us to grant that as either axiomatic
or self-evident?
> Both axiomatic statements and "self-evident truths" (Declaration of
> Independence) are consensual assumptions about an interpretation; an
> agreement that said statements are reasonably "correct" and
> sufficiently shared among ourselves, that we can use them as starting
> points for conversations about "reality" (e.g. constants like e, c,
> and i, or relationships like E= M times Csquared) or the "meaning" of
> something (e.g what it is to be self governing).
I agree that axioms and self-evident truths are consensual
assumptions.   The distinction for me is that while both are
fundamentally utlititarian or pragmatic, the latter carry an emotional
weight.   "self-evident truths" represent a starting point which somehow
reflects something more deeply shared among those who hold them.   I'm
sure that there were British Loyalists (including or acutely so, wealthy
property owners who benefited significantly under British rule) who did
NOT "hold these truths" and either fled the revolution or adopted the
pretense of sharing and remained in place trying to "game" the new
system forming around them.    The most fundamental example of this
would be the majority of the "founding fathers" who could out of one
side of their mouths (or inkwells) utter "all men are created equal"
whilst presuming to *own* men (and women and children) as chattel
property.  Similarly the question of women's property rights, voting
rights, coverture, etc.  this issue dovetails with the incomplete thread
with Glen on the topic of "what means ownership".  
> Conversations, so begun, can weave a tapestry of interpretation that
> can be wonderfully useful, deeply enriching, psychologically
> comforting, socially beneficial, technologically advancing, etc.
>
> Problems, inevitable it seems, arise when it is forgotten that both
> the axioms and the tapestry remain interpretations — interpretations
> shared only by some, not all; interpretations, not fact, not truth.

I'm not sure how you mean that axioms are interpretations.   I agree
that they are consensual assumptions (has this discussion just become
circular?), though the former (axioms) might seem to be more arbitrary
than the latter.  On the other hand, common examples of axiomatic
systems such as planar (aka Euclidean) geometry also carry a strong
overtone of being "self-evident".

Perhaps it is my formal training in mathematics coming before extensive
exposure to philosophy and metaphysics, but I'm not sure what it means
to have a discussion of interpretations which are not somehow grounded
in assumptions (such as axioms).   I don't disagree that making those
assumptions *explicit* is critical to any such conversation being
interesting much less productive.

In the domain of our current polarized political scene, much is taken
for granted but not made explicit.   Characteristic disagreements
between left and right include issues as fundamental as "right to life"
(e.g. abortion v. death penalty) and "personal rights" (e.g. abortion v
gun ownership).   It is *very* rare in my experience to be able to have
reasoned discussions about either issue with *either side*.   In these
examples, I am sympathetic with the idea that what is at issue is
"interpretation" of "what is life?", "wherefrom derives a right?"


- Steve
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20191118/eb138b11/attachment.html>