Differences between revisions 23 and 26 (spanning 3 versions)
Revision 23 as of 2025-04-14 08:19:41
Size: 19428
Comment:
Revision 26 as of 2025-04-15 08:16:37
Size: 21726
Comment:
Deletions are marked like this. Additions are marked like this.
Line 140: Line 140:
 .p233 [[ | ]]
 .p249 [[ | ]]
 .p253 [[ | ]]
 .p254 [[ | ]]
 .p255 [[ | ]]
 .p249 '''What the enlightenment got wrong?''' Bregman laments that Enlightenment philosophers assumed men could be wicked as well as good, and designed society ''as though'' people have a selfish nature. The impression I get is that Bregman assumes (almost?) all people are (or can be) innately good, or at least better than people are with group-imposed constraints. My "lived experience" is that people are innately different, and enough are "bad enough" to make life hell for the small or weak or different. Some of those "bad enough" people don't fit what seems to be Bregman's uniformly-OK model.
 
 .p253 [[ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_Russell | Bertrand Russell ]] became Bregman's hero at age 19
 .p253-4 1959 Russell: "When you are studying any matter or considering any philosophy, ask yourself only what are the fact and what is the truth that the facts bear out. Never let yourself be diverted either by what you wish to believe or by what you think would have beneficent social effects if it were believed, but look only and solely at what are the facts."
 . Uhh ... facts are not labelled as such. Indeed, even "proven scientific facts about physical reality" are tentative, until new (and perhaps exotic) observations modify (and occasionally refute) "facts".
 .p254 Russell calls his approach "The Will to Doubt" ... which is the title of [[ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Henry_Lloyd#The_Will_to_Doubt | Alfred Henry Lloyd's 1907 essay collection, responding to the 1896 [[ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_James | William James ]] essay collection [[ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Will_to_Believe | The Will to Believe ]]
 . I see too much "all or none" thinking. Indeed, treating '''everyone''' as a psychopath or criminal is wrong. Treating everyone as a saint can get you killed or maimed. What is the best approach to a veiled and uncertain world?
 .p255 "... If you go around forever doubting people ..." is silly absolutist non-reasoning. Of COURSE you start out by treating all others as good, while reserving enough ''ability to doubt'' so that you can intelligently modify your prior assumptions and deal with the specific situation that presents itself. You don't have to "carry a big stick", but be able to take away the big stick from a surprisingly hostile other - and wield that stick to get away, if trapped.

http://wiki.keithl.com/Humankind

Humankind

A Hopeful History

Rutger Bergman . 2019 . BeavLib 128 BRE


Humankind (last edited 2025-04-22 07:02:14 by KeithLofstrom)