Comments on: How George Lakoff Backfired

By: Andrew Hickey

Andrew Hickey — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 14:30:25 +0000

I’d agree with this for the most part. While I disagree with you about some things, I find you a lot less aggravating to read than many of those I disagree with, because you’ve actually *thought* about your positions. I also think that logical, rational thought – *along with constant reference back to reality to make sure you haven’t made an incorrect assumption somewhere* – is the only sound basis for coming to a conclusion about… well, anything, really, that isn’t purely a matter of taste.

The problem is, there *are* a number of people out there (just look at the comments sections of, say, Have Your Say, the Mail website and Liberal Conspiracy) who do not respond to rational arguments (in fact I think everyone does that at times, but there are a substantial number of people – what proportion of the population I would hesitate to say, and I sincerely hope not a huge one, but I can’t be sure – who make a positive virtue out of pig-headed ignorance and refusal to understand the simplest logical connection between two statements).

One hopes that that is something that can be changed, but if not, is it possible to enact actual change with those people fighting it?

By: Stu

Stu — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 10:05:07 +0000

I'd go further. To decide things based on ideologies is a stupid thing to do. You don't have to accept philosophies wholesale, it's not a problem to be inconsistant, as long as you've thought it through properly

By: Joe Otten

Joe Otten — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 08:56:34 +0000

Great post Charlotte. You have reminded me to write down a few thoughts I have been sitting on, on the role of emotion in political discourse. joeotten.blogspot.com/2009/04/emote-with-me.html

By: Niklas Smith

Niklas Smith — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 07:45:01 +0000

What did stick though was probably the most important political revelation of my life: conservatives aren’t evil people. They believe what they believe and think what they think because they believe wholeheartedly that they are doing the Right Thing, that they are acting from a moral position. True, but what the liberal objection to conservatism is that they then try to enforce their moral values on people by law (or reward them through the tax system). What they don't seem to realise is that morality is entirely reliant on good intentions. You can act ethically towards other people in order to pursue selfish interests, like the companies that have jumped on the CSR bandwagon to get themselves a good image. Morality is about a way of living. People get no moral benefit from (for example) being forced to get married if they want to live with someone; any moral benefit from marriage can only come about when it is a free choice. The related problem is that conservatives assume that one standard of morality must apply to everyone. To this I can only answer: read Mill's On Liberty. My point is that good intentions aren't enough to make good politics.

By: Costigan Quist

Costigan Quist — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 06:59:23 +0000

But surely right and left wing supporters would also say they’re philosophies are based on reason and rationality.

Might it be that, because liberalism is the one that chimes most with you at an emotional level and, because it feels right, you’re able to rationalise it? You see it as rational and the others as not.

(Good post though – the 3am thing’s working for you, presumably when you take a break from developing your killer iPhone app).