A Liberal Decalogue: Russell's Ten Commandments

Amen to that, Micky.  And thanks, Logan, for this thread and the music/philosophical references.  

Snicolette wrote: Logan wrote: I was enjoying this discussion and was sorry to see it peter out. I consider myself to be liberal in terms of being open-minded, free thinking, as opposed to conservative in terms of inflexible, rigid minded thinking, and I value so-called enlightenment values which are associated with liberalism. I am also conservative in the sense in that I do believe in the conservation of that which I value. I think one should be cautious when it comes to certain types of "progress". I'm something of a moral-relativist (I wouldn't describe myself as one), but I tend to believe in the notion that's what is morally best can, does, and will provide the least suffering and the greatest amount of happiness for both humanity and nature generally, and is sustainable. I rather fancy the idea of truth writ large being written in the stars. I see rational altruism as desirable. I do value the self and the individual, but also the community. One doesn't need to be selfless, but one should try not to be selfish (not that I am good at that). Politically, I will find myself in agreement with individuals on particular issues across the spectrum, but I have a definite socialist bent (I've moved more to the centre as I got older, which might be considered a leftist position in the US). With some of my views, some would consider those left-wing, with others right-wing, but I don't hold any of my views as absolute truth. I do care about societal injustices and see systemic inequality which I would like to see alleviated while caring about individual freedoms and the ability for all to maximise their potential. I'm quite individualistic. I care about having societal safety-nets, I think that a government's primary responsibility is to protect its citizens from harm (that "social contract" , the problem can be that protecting from harm can be used to justify different things, but I support what I think of as safety which does not mean that one should inflict harm on others nations and not care about other peoples well-being), and I don't blame people for being disadvantaged or generally in a bad place. Some people are born with more advantage than others, and that tends to perpetuate down the generations. And I'm a determinist. I've always been interested in ideology. I'm ultimately agnostic when it comes to all things, and I like to think that I'm open to both new evidence and different perspectives which might change my perspective, especially provided they seem rational/logical. I think most of us are quite nuanced, complex and individualistic thinkers, and we don't need to hold very opinion that whichever "tribe" we identify with politically seems to hold. It's sad when I see apparent shunning for holding unpopular ideas from whatever group we seem to most identify with. That shuts down communication, and such alienation can have psychological costs, and it's just not a good way to approach "validity". I feel that all ideas should be able to be discussed and debated, even while thinking that not all ideas should be given a soapbox. I like talking and thinking about controversial issues.  I know I'm rambling,and wouldn't expect anyone to read all of this. Liberal can mean various things, and depending on the country it has different connotations. When I belonged to a political issues forum years before joining here, I would get confused by how some of the Conservative Americans would use the term or more how they would misinterpret my intended use of the term, since that's not how it would be used in any of my studies (political science/ history, sociology, or Economics where the focus on the term Liberal was all rather different between courses). That semantic confusion due to our national and cultural identities (I aligned as a socialist) led to much cross-purpose talk. So I would define the term in how I was using it, and go into the history (mostly British history), and then ask them to define it, since the confusion did not lead to productive discussion -- these really were close-minded, dogmatic thinkers with a lot of assumptions and insults on the whole, but I did have some really interesting discussions with some people who considered themselves to be politically conservative and lacked that dogmatism. I never did get quite how certain Americans who used the word liberal as an insult defined the term (subsequently I have researched that).  Even by my standards, this is a very rambling post. On second-thought, it is par for the course coming from me.  So what does liberal and liberal-minded mean to you? I think one can identify as politically conservative while having a liberal mindset and have come across quite a few people who identify as progressives whom I have found downright illiberal (really intolerant and dogmatic -- preachy rather than inquisitive). With the idea of tolerance in liberalism,I do think that tolerance should have its limits, and it can be hard to tolerate the intolerant. For me one of the most important ideas of thinking as a liberal is being open to at least thinking about new ideas, being open to new evidence, and not only being different perspectives but wanting to hear different perspective to better formulate their own.   A liberal thinker should be a flexible thinker.  Bonus question: If liberal is a dirty word to you, why? How do you define the term (it has various connotations, both regional and historical, as well as depending on the discipline), and what associations do you draw from it? I'm quoting this again for those who have not read through the thread because it's important to understand from Russell's, and my and many others, perspective: "The essence of the Liberal outlook lies not in what opinions are held, but in how they are held: instead of being held dogmatically, they are held tentatively, and with a consciousness that new evidence may at any moment lead to their abandonment" (Bertrand Russell). Left Coast American here. To me, liberal and liberal-minded should walk hand in hand, but agree that they often do not.  I, too, admire the enlightment values and try to apply them to my life....As far as "progress," yes, just because we can, does not mean that we should.  Driverless cars!  No faith in that kind of technology.  In fact, I have coined a phrase, "Modern life is a waste of time,"  not in the sense that our personal time is a waste, but so much of our personal time is devoured by technology by it's additional demand and creation of more "work," instead of less, as it should do (at least by my hedonistic reckoning).  Life is too short not be be enjoyed.  Alexa scares the hell out of me.   As I type this on my laptop.   Your paragraph on politics certainly resonates with me and what I think of as my political values. Theism.  My pendulum swings pretty far and wide on this one.  Sometimes I think there absolutely can be no God.  No grand intelligence.  And sometimes, I feel like surely there must be.  Or there must be something.  Something bigger and grander and so freaking artistic that it sends messages to others in the form of inspiration to create absolute beauty from nothing and that it surely has an incredible sense of humour.  Surely it doesn't care what you call it, how and if you worship it, if it is indeed there.   Which makes me digress into afterlife.  Is there?  I don't know.  I can't help but think of some very eerie things that have happened in my lifetime that seem to be from "the other side."  If there is a big crazy Dali guy or woman out there who painted my life and then painted my loved ones (human and animal) out of it, never to meet again, then that would prove it had a very sadistic sense of humour.  And that certainly could be, as well. I used to think that perhaps, whatever you believed in your life would come true for you when you died.  Like Reincarnationists would come back as whatever and those who were Fundamentalist Christians would go to their version of heaven (or hell, for that matter), Atheists would find that there was no God. Etc etc etc (spoken in Yul Brenner's voice). It seems a shame that people who devote such a large part of their lives in religion would have wasted it.   Which makes me think of time.  I think that time goes forwards and backwards and is also present in the here and now.  Right after my husband died, I read Alan Moore's Jerusalem (which he had insistently bought for me the last time we went to our favourite bookstore), one of the main themes is Eternalism.  Accident or signs from the pending afterlife (as I started reading it while he was being hospitalized for a few times before we brought him home to die in peace)? Well, I think I've gone on enough....

Thank you for sharing that and talking about your personal experiences. It's a beautiful piece to read. I know my response does not do it justice, and I'm not trying to.   There are so many dangers with technology, I'm not thinking about the obvious scary things but things that are seen as beneficial to the great many, there are individual and existential risks. I'm concerned about the rise of AI, and whether we will find ourselves in a Gattaca like world, whether I'll lose my digital photos....

I've pretty much always been ultimately agnostic on the issue of God, but my pendulum has shifted too and still can shift daily. It's a big multi-verse out there, possibly, and I see no reason to discount the possibility even while seeing no reason to fully embrace it. I've had various conceptions of God over the years, and certainly at times I have believed more than at others. The vaguer the conception of God the more likely I can grok that as being likely. I pray to God sometimes, even if I don't really think that anyone is listening or assume that God answers prayers. And I talk to "departed" loved ones (they don't generally respond...) And there have been times when I felt that presence. I would not be comfortable with the really hard atheist stance that claims there is not and cannot be a God.

There may be an afterlife of some sort, we don't even fully understand consciousness, and even our understanding of the universe we have, and everything we think we know for sure, is based on assumptions. The universe could be very different to how we perceive it, or to how we think we perceive it. I've had all sorts of eerie things that have happened to me, which I won't go into now. And when my dad died about a decade ago, I felt very sure that his presence remained. Now one could explain that in various ways, and I'm not saying he was, but the feeling was strong.

I don't know if you've read Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land (I love that story and not just for the word "grok"), but part of what you say is reminding me of that.   Every believer has their own afterlife based on the belief systems. And I do find the idea of Karma appealing.

It's interesting that you mention time, because I have the same intuition. I love to talk to my son about such things (he is 12). In a sense I feel that all times exists as one, it can be cyclical, and our perception of it is limited. If we could travel around time, that would change the way we see things. All that has happened can be going on now and in different nows. I don't know, and I can't describe it now. I tend to think that that more than this moment exists, to put it that way.

I'm glad that you could take your husband home and share that time.

While not exactly religious, though fascinated by religion, I do consider myself to be very spiritual and I've had many wonderful transcendent and numinous experiences. I've had a sense of oneness, I had very strong experience at a temple in Japan, and I've felt this overwhelming love and joy for "creation". The saddest time have also felt deeply spiritual to me and I've taken comfort in something "grander", something that seemed very transcendent.

I'm going to read Alan Moore's Jerusalem.


Edited by Logan - February 10 2019 at 16:18

Logan wrote: Thank you for sharing that and talking about your personal experiences. It's a beautiful piece to read. I know my response does not do it justice, and I'm not trying to.   There are so many dangers with technology, I'm not thinking about the obvious scary things but things that are seen as beneficial to the great many, there are individual and existential risks. I'm concerned about the rise of AI, and whether we will find ourselves in a Gattaca like world, whether I'll lose my digital photos.... I've pretty much always been ultimately agnostic on the issue of God, but my pendulum has shifted too and still can shift daily. It's a big multi-verse out there, possibly, and I see no reason to discount the possibility even while seeing no reason to fully embrace it. I've had various conceptions of God over the years, and certainly at times I have believed more than at others. The vaguer the conception of God the more likely I can grok that as being likely. I pray to God sometimes, even if I don't really think that anyone is listening or assume that God answers prayers. And I talk to "departed" loved ones (they don't generally respond...) And there have been times when I felt that presence. I would not be comfortable with the really hard atheist stance that claims there is not and cannot be a God. There may be an afterlife of some sort, we don't even fully understand consciousness, and even our understanding of the universe we have, and everything we think we know for sure, is based on assumptions. The universe could be very different to how we perceive it, or to how we think we perceive it. I've had all sorts of eerie things that have happened to me, which I won't go into now. And when my dad died about a decade ago, I felt very sure that his presence remained. Now one could explain that in various ways, and I'm not saying he was, but the feeling was strong. I don't know if you've read Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land (I love that story and not just for the word "grok"), but part of what you say is reminding me of that.   Every believer has their own afterlife based on the belief systems. And I do find the idea of Karma appealing. It's interesting that you mention time, because I have the same intuition. I love to talk to my son about such things (he is 12). In a sense I feel that all times exists as one, it can be cyclical, and our perception of it is limited. If we could travel around time, that would change the way we see things. All that has happened can be going on now and in different nows. I don't know, and I can't describe it now. I tend to think that that more than this moment exists, to put it that way. I'm glad that you could take your husband home and share that time. While not exactly religious, though fascinated by religion, I do consider myself to be very spiritual and I've had many wonderful transcendent and numinous experiences. I've had a sense of oneness, I had very strong experience at a temple in Japan, and I've felt this overwhelming love and joy for "creation". The saddest time have also felt deeply spiritual to me and I've taken comfort in something "grander", something that seemed very transcendent. I'm going to read Alan Moore's Jerusalem.

jamesbaldwin wrote: In America, a politician, or even an intellectual, a writer, an artist, may define himself as a socialist without this damaging him?

James, having not lived in the US, I'm not really sure, but I imagine it depends on where you live in the US as well as your vocation. I do think, and know, that there is space for socialists within the intellectual/ academic/ artist community within the US, and there have been many successful ones. For a politician I think it would be harder to be a socialist (as well as an open atheist, I use the term merely meaning without theistic belief). Bernie Sanders has done well and has made clear his socialist leanings. Plenty of filmmakers have let their socialism be known. In academia, especially in Sociology, I would be very surprised if there aren't many open socialists working as both tenured and non-tenured professors. There is a strong history of socialism in the US, and while one still finds pinkophobia I think socialism, having lost some traction, is gaining steam in the US. It's not quite the McCarthy era.

Incidentally, British Bertrand Russell, mathematician, logician, historian and philosopher extraordinaire, was both an aristrocrat and a socialist.

On a personal note, I had a fling with communism here while in school, and my Sociology professor as well as various students were at me to try joining up with their Marxist-Leninist group. I went to some meetings, but I found the anger, the dogma and militancy very off-putting. I still like various communist ideals. I guess my favourite communist has been Robert Wyatt (of course he is English) and I doubt that his politics would go down well with the Ted Nugent crowd.

Perhaps some Americans will have more insight into your query. EDIT: I see a Greg has replied to it.

Edited by Logan - February 10 2019 at 18:54

Snicolette wrote: I am touched that I reached you in my writing.   AI is very worrisome to me...read enough SciFi and we've all been forewarned, right?   The idea of the multiverse is an attractive one for me, as well.  Why not?  And yes, there is a certainly a time after someone dies that we feel them very strongly.  Our dog, I swear, saw Tom's "spirit" leave his body about 20 minutes after he died (I may have posted that elsewhere around these parts), his son, who was here with me, witnessed Ribsey's reaction as well.   Stranger In A Strange Land is one of my all-time favourite tales, I wonder if that is where I kind of got the idea from, it's been a long time since I read it, but I keep it in my library.   I always talked with my son (now 25) as well about such things.  We liked to walk around old cemeteries and talk about the people who were there, learning about local history by reading the inscriptions, etc, when he was young(er).  I can imagine that your 12 year old is very bright, these are great things to think about and ponder, really, so much the essence of life and living. I also have experienced those elevated moments from time to time.  Never to be forgotten. I think you will enjoy Jerusalem.  It's a big, long book (1266 pages), be ready for a long long ride.  Think of it as a trilogy and it won't be so daunting.  One thing that was fascinating to me that this author, who came from graphic novels and visual arts was so literate.  And his descriptions of actual painting techniques etc were so wonderfully done...It is many stories within a story, as are all of our lives in this world.  Sometimes it's not pretty.  But I found it incredibly powerful.

I love novels where I learn about something, such as art restoration in The Sixteen Pleasures or about book-binding in Arturo Pérez-Reverte's The Club Duams (a novel I highly enjoyed). I'm sure that I will enjoy Jersualem.

By the way, I learn so much from my kids (with my daughter, her thing is art and my son is more mathematics, sciences and languages oriented). Speaking of technology, my son does learn far more from using his iPad than he does at school -- certainly when it comes to science, mathematics, and learning new languages and scripts -- he's in French immersion. He's very interested in many things, and understands many concepts and knows the terminology far better than I do. Being young, he does still have a mind like a sponge and can retain information much better than I can.

That's very interesting with your son, and I think it's important to do such things as taking one's child to graveyards when young so that they can also learn that death is natural, and to get a sense of that history of the place and the people. I rather like IN England how the graveyards are nestled into the communities and in the church yards (it feels more natural and less industrial). Hopefully the child being exposed to such things doesn't turn into Harold from Harold and Maude.

Logan wrote:   I love novels where I learn about something, such as art restoration in The Sixteen Pleasures or about book-binding in Arturo Pérez-Reverte's The Club Duams (a novel I highly enjoyed). I'm sure that I will enjoy Jersualem. By the way, I learn so much from my kids (with my daughter, her thing is art and my son is more mathematics, sciences and languages oriented). Speaking of technology, my son does learn far more from using his iPad than he does at school -- certainly when it comes to science, mathematics, and learning new languages and scripts -- he's in French immersion. He's very interested in many things, and understands many concepts and knows the terminology far better than I do. Being young, he does still have a mind like a sponge and can retain information much better than I can. That's very interesting with your son, and I think it's important to do such things as taking one's child to graveyards when young so that they can also learn that death is natural, and to get a sense of that history of the place and the people. I rather like IN England how the graveyards are nestled into the communities and in the church yards (it feels more natural and less industrial). Hopefully the child being exposed to such things doesn't turn into Harold from Harold and Maude.

The Dark Elf wrote: I contend Cat Steven's soundtrack in "Harold and Maude" is the best by a single performer ever. Particularly since the songs themselves are so germane to the dialogue of the film. But I digress....

It is just beautiful.  And I know that part of the world, so it is even more poignant.  

Logan wrote: jamesbaldwin wrote: In America, a politician, or even an intellectual, a writer, an artist, may define himself as a socialist without this damaging him? James, having not lived in the US, I'm not really sure, but I imagine it depends on where you live in the US as well as your vocation. I do think, and know, that there is space for socialists within the intellectual/ academic/ artist community within the US, and there have been many successful ones. For a politician I think it would be harder to be a socialist (as well as an open atheist, I use the term merely meaning without theistic belief). Bernie Sanders has done well and has made clear his socialist leanings. Plenty of filmmakers have let their socialism be known. In academia, especially in Sociology, I would be very surprised if there aren't many open socialists working as both tenured and non-tenured professors. There is a strong history of socialism in the US, and while one still finds pinkophobia I think socialism, having lost some traction, is gaining steam in the US. It's not quite the McCarthy era. Incidentally, British Bertrand Russell, mathematician, logician, historian and philosopher extraordinaire, was both an aristrocrat and a socialist. On a personal note, I had a fling with communism here while in school, and my Sociology professor as well as various students were at me to try joining up with their Marxist-Leninist group. I went to some meetings, but I found the anger, the dogma and militancy very off-putting. I still like various communist ideals. I guess my favourite communist has been Robert Wyatt (of course he is English) and I doubt that his politics would go down well with the Ted Nugent crowd. Perhaps some Americans will have more insight into your query. EDIT: I see a Greg has replied to it.

^^ posting on my phone which makes writing a little harder. I didn’t think it was a random question, James, and I should have said “For those that don’t know, Bertrand Russell was both a socialist and an aristocrat” instead of incidentally since I meant it it for the general audience who may not be very familiar with Russell. I thought you would know with Russell, but I didn’t want to assume and had remembered that I talked about socialism.

Erich Fromm has been a favourite of mine.

I still identify with socialism, and like principles, but the older I get the less I would want to label myself.   I am socialist-leaning. There has been a lot of anti-socialist propaganda in the United States, and a lot of misunderstandings about what it means. I’ve had some interesting and frustrating conversations at this site with people about it and others when it came to communism, Marxism, socialism, liberalism, atheism and some other isms.   There are political costs, and surely other costs, in openly calling oneself a Socialist in the US.   A great many people with very strong opinions on these issues have not really researched these things, and even they did try to, their biases might well prevent them from having a more balanced perspective and nuanced view (and it could cause cognitive dissonance in various people).. I bet many would ratherr be in the closet when it comes to such things.