IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Another consequence of the Cold War...
The Teabaggers and the Supply-Siders - brought to you by the RAND Corporation - http://opinionator.b...tional-choice/?hp

[...]

After World War II, a third variant [of "individualism"] gained momentum in America. It defined individualism as the making of choices so as to maximize one’s preferences. This differed from “selfish individualism” in that the preferences were not specified: they could be altruistic as well as selfish. It differed from “expressive individualism” in having general algorithms by which choices were made. These made it rational.

This form of individualism did not arise by chance. Alex Abella’s “Soldiers of Reason” (2008) and S. M. Amadae’s “Rationalizing Capitalist Democracy” (2003) trace it to the RAND Corporation, the hyperinfluential Santa Monica, Calif., think tank, where it was born in 1951 as “rational choice theory.” Rational choice theory’s mathematical account of individual choice, originally formulated in terms of voting behavior, made it a point-for-point antidote to the collectivist dialectics of Marxism; and since, in the view of many cold warriors, Marxism was philosophically ascendant worldwide, such an antidote was sorely needed. Functionaries at RAND quickly expanded the theory from a tool of social analysis into a set of universal doctrines that we may call “rational choice philosophy.” Governmental seminars and fellowships spread it to universities across the country, aided by the fact that any alternative to it would by definition be collectivist. During the early Cold War, that was not exactly a good thing to be.

The overall operation was wildly successful. Once established in universities, rational choice philosophy moved smoothly on the backs of their pupils into the “real world” of business and government (aided in the crossing, to be sure, by the novels of another Rand—Ayn). Today, governments and businesses across the globe simply assume that social reality is merely a set of individuals freely making rational choices. Wars have been and are still being fought to bring such freedom to Koreans, Vietnamese, Iraqis, Grenadans, and now Libyans, with more nations surely to come.

[...]


A good read.

Cheers,
Scott.
New Heh.. mechanistic linear-algebra, to animate
robotic, irrationally-consumptive CitizensConsumers, brought to their shopping-cathedrals by mechanistic choice-optimizing über-robots-in-Armanis
(and their spawn: ~6 yos throwing temper tantrums if the Logos on their new pre-pre-school Uniforms, are not sufficiently ... er, uniform?)

Gotta Love..


[. . .]

Rational choice philosophy, to its credit, made clear and distinct claims in philosophy’s three main areas. Ontologically, its emphasis on individual choice required that reality present a set of discrete alternatives among which one could choose: linear “causal chains” which intersected either minimally, trivially, or not at all. Epistemologically, that same emphasis on choice required that at least the early stages of such chains be knowable with something akin to certainty, for if our choice is to be rational we need to know what we are choosing. Knowledge thus became foundationalistic and incremental.



Emphasis {{ugh}} slathered on.. to its CREDIT?!ONE!!!
As-If! our analog Universe were some digital-think 'Product' made to exacting-Homo-Sap design-specs (overseen by cost-accounting-spreadsheet-Drivers) cha cha cha
Let's see the demonology anew:
[© The Murican Shock n'Awe sage of applied-Shrub-WarDecider-ing]

Ya gots yer Unknowns,
yer Known-Unknowns
and yer Unknown-Unknowns

(in that cha cha cha-cubed 'Reality', so conveniently equipped with a TOC) [???]
..a Glossary / and Nomenclature, of course.


AArrrggghhhh..
Words sans referents!
'Ideas' sans REALity-checks!
REALITY-it(self?) redefined to fit a bubble-sort: if'n it ain't in our TOC--and you 'had that thought'?--IT 'ISN'T'
an acceptable 'reality' ay-tall. Got it.

Who needs recursion to flummox the linear 'thinkers' when they divide-by-zero before breakfast?
Does one need many more factoids about 'our roots' to acknowledge intellectual poverty as causal?

Good find. But disgusting :(
Bookmarked though: seems a necessary and sufficient explication of the Pride with which ethics-free bizness droids might explain that this is a boon,
like.. say: pesticide-free fruits and vegetables? And an answer to what a Boolean-managed society would look like. Does look like.


John McCumber is Professor of Germanic Languages at UCLA. He is the author of “Time in the Ditch: American Philosophy and the McCarthy Era” (2001) and, two forthcoming books, “On Philosophy: Notes From a Crisis” and “Time and Philosophy: A History of Continental Thought.”



Methinks Time in the Ditch should be a decent refresher of actual experience of the loyalty-oath hysteria daze.
McCumber rocks: anyone who despises the concept [certainty] as much as I, and displays the appropriate degree of sardonic denouement as in his last paragraph--just has to be a Good Read. :-)
New There's a reason I didn't...
get an advanced degree in philosophy, like I wanted to.

Actually, several.

One being the elaborate houses of cards built on vertical surfaces. The whole theory here is based on the clearly false premise that people are rational. Or at least that there are enough rational people to matter.

Another is language. Too many words for simple ideas.

The "to it's credit" proviso: the theory recognizes that it only applies if reality includes clear choices. Nice refocusing on a debatable minor premise to avoid the definitively false major premise. Kind of like analyzing unicorn populations in the light of the impact of hybrid vehicles on global warming. But not actually valid - if there were such a thing as rational people, the theory would work if those rational people were under the impression they had clear choices.

And the third, I like to eat.
---------------------------------------
I think it's perfectly clear we're in the wrong band.
(Tori Amos)
New :-)
     Another consequence of the Cold War... - (Another Scott) - (3)
         Heh.. mechanistic linear-algebra, to animate - (Ashton) - (2)
             There's a reason I didn't... - (mhuber) - (1)
                 :-) -NT - (Another Scott)

If the people speak and the king doesn't listen, there is something wrong with the king. If the king acts precipitously and the people say nothing, something is wrong with the people.
53 ms