Well... knowing that our beliefs are based on our experiences and sorroundings, how can you be exclusively "socialist" or "captialist" knowing that one side is just as right as the other. Their beliefs are simply based on the environment they were raised in which caused them to think this way...
Who says both sides are just as right? There's excesses, pros and cons to both, but to go so far as to say that they're "just as right" is a bit much. I find it hard to believe that a philosophy that seeks to place political power in the hands of people is just as "right" as one that seeks to centralize it in the hands of the few.
I think that psychologists are able to have political views. They just know about how the human mind works and have an idea of why people may do the things they do. But if they believe that a specific political party or movement would be best for the development and well-being of people, then I imagine they would side with that.
I find it hard to believe that a philosophy that seeks to place political power in the hands of people is just as "right" as one that seeks to centralize it in the hands of the few.
Well...thats what I mean. According to the way you've grown up, your way of thinking favors socialism. But if you talk to someone who's been raised as a capitalist in a capitalist family/country, your concepts of placing power in the hands of the people would seem completely crazy. In your mind, you think you're right. But in their mind, they would also think they were right.
hmm.. a psychologist studies how the brain works and human behavior.. politicians assert their views and persuade people to support them.. this persuasion that we talk of.. is also a study on how to induce the behavior you want by understanding how the brain works in respect to human behavior.. then aren't politicians (to some extent) psychologists themselves that advocate their beliefs so that they will be supported?
so i also don't see the conflict between psychologists and politicians.. essentially.. they could very well be the same person..
Just because it was the way a person was raised doesn't make it "right" for everyone. I've read about kids who are raised in the southern USA to be extremely racist... while psychologists can help us to understand why the kids think that way, and if they will ever be able to think otherwise, it doesn't make it "right" because we can understand it.
I guess your question is more of what makes something "right": because a person believes it is true, or because it is good for a large number of people?
Well...thats what I mean. According to the way you've grown up, your way of thinking favors socialism. But if you talk to someone who's been raised as a capitalist in a capitalist family/country, your concepts of placing power in the hands of the people would seem completely crazy. In your mind, you think you're right. But in their mind, they would also think they were right.
I know they think I'm crazy, but when we sit down and have a debate, I run cricles around them. I can prove the logic and sense in what I say, I can make netural obseevers see what I mean and make them understand why one is better than the other.
The question isn't so much do I think I'm right, but can I prove it to be so. Can I begin to approach objective truths though my political philosophy, or as Malakaii put it: "I guess your question is more of what makes something "right": because a person believes it is true, or because it is good for a large number of people?"
I think it's clearly the latter. If we keep in mind minority rights, and all that, it's quite clear that we govern on the basis of the best for the most. Which is why, as I said, capitalism is the antithesis of good governance.
Being a good debater wouldn't make your beliefs correct or right. Furthermore, since motivational and informational influences both play a part in belief formation, whether specific beliefs may be considered objectively true or false has little (or nothing) to do with the subjective reasons for believing.
Being a good debater wouldn't make your beliefs correct or right. Furthermore, since motivational and informational influences both play a part in belief formation, whether specific beliefs may be considered objectively true or false has little (or nothing) to do with the subjective reasons for believing.
Why are you so afraid of calling a spade a spade? I know what you're getting at, but you'll find very quickly that the life of the lofty and etheral philosopher is surprisingly hollow. That which matters, that which informs even your belief in the fact that there no right or wrong, is based on the physical realities of the world. And ultimately, it is they that determine right and wrong in the socio-politica sense.
If you truly want to equate all things, go ahead. But you'd be hard pressed to make a convincing argument for it, one at least that goes beyong anything other than non-commital philosophical musings.
Comments
so i also don't see the conflict between psychologists and politicians.. essentially.. they could very well be the same person..
I guess your question is more of what makes something "right": because a person believes it is true, or because it is good for a large number of people?
The question isn't so much do I think I'm right, but can I prove it to be so. Can I begin to approach objective truths though my political philosophy, or as Malakaii put it: "I guess your question is more of what makes something "right": because a person believes it is true, or because it is good for a large number of people?"
I think it's clearly the latter. If we keep in mind minority rights, and all that, it's quite clear that we govern on the basis of the best for the most. Which is why, as I said, capitalism is the antithesis of good governance.
If you truly want to equate all things, go ahead. But you'd be hard pressed to make a convincing argument for it, one at least that goes beyong anything other than non-commital philosophical musings.