Been thinking again of the no-deal threat about Brexit. One problem is lack of democratic oversight--something already hinted at by Rousseau. Rousseau thought representative democracy is a layer too many, and favored direct democracy 1/
Now I know many people have been drawing the opposite conclusion re Brexit, namely: referendums don't work, people don't know what they vote for etc. But I'm not sure that's right. Maybe direct democracy does work provided people get input all the way, whereas now ... 2/
You basically had one vote in June 2016, then elected representatives clearly failed to do their work. Then people, frustrated, voted again in 2017 and then again in 2019, but in none of those votes could they directly influence the Brexit process 3/
So, you might say, well look people could vote again and again. But crucially, none of those votes really gave them opportunity to influence the process. There's an interesting disconnect between Johnson's victory and increasing levels of bregret 4/ whatukthinks.org/eu/questions/i…
So I *think* there is a real sense voters were still trying to influence the Brexit process. This explains the hung parliament in 2017 (discontent w May) and the victory of Johnson (let's just get it over with). Problem is: parliamentary democracy is too blunt an instrument 5/
I think the governing factor is that people just want to get on with their lives. Note, I'm not denying there's a lot of euroscepticism among British voters. Clearly there is.
But few people would willingly step into a no-deal drama esp now w Covid 6/
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I have some thoughts about this piece by Michael Gerson.
Background (disclosure): I'm not American, I live in the US, I'm a Christian, and as an academic, I have lots of non-religious friends.
My perspective on this is as an insider-outsider 1/ washingtonpost.com/opinions/promi…
So, as is generally known Christianity in the US has been declining at a rapid pace. See this Pew forum report (from Oct 2019). Note, the decline is now also notable among Evangelicals. But 2 factors have further accelerated the decline 2/
1. The pandemic. It will have huge effects due to permanent closure of churches, but also solidifying decline in attendance, see e.g., here churchanswers.com/blog/five-type… 3/
Am thinking of Queen's Gambit, Ep 5 where Harry Beltik offers to help Beth Harmon with chess. He admits freely he is not as good as she is, yet still thinks she can learn from him, and she does. This often happens: we learn from our epistemic inferiors. But how? Short thread 1/
A lot of the debate on disagreement focuses on your epistemic peers - people who are in an equally good epistemic position (e.g., in terms of evidence or skill) as you are and you disagree with. Such disagreement counts as higher-order evidence 2/
But what with people who know more than you? Should you always listen to your epistemic superiors? L Zagzebski has an argument to this effect: if A is your epistemic superior in domain D, you should just always defer to A because you're more likely to get it right then 3/
Fascinated by Kropotkin's ethical naturalism. K. argues that we have 2 drives that are at odds (a "double tendency")
* a tendency to community, mutual aid
* a tendency to individual self-realization, freedom
K's key idea is to achieve a synthesis between these 2 in society 1/
Kropotkin did not think that one should give up individuality, personal initiative or freedom to achieve good societal ends. Rather, societies should strive to preserve these while also striving for the welfare of all. 2/
I'm really fascinated by his contributions to evolutionary ethics. Some things he anticipates: a kind of moral foundations theory, with evolved roots of morality being:
* sociality (sympathy)
* justice (wanting equality and justice)
* magnanimity (self-sacrifice) 3/
I heard this morning a really wonderful talk by Havi Carel on pandemic phenomenology. Carel uses the phenomenological approach by Heidegger in particular to help us think about how our being in the world, our being around others has changed so drastically.
Some thoughts 1/
Carel uses LA Paul's concept of transformative experience (TE) to argue that the pandemic has collectively changed us, both who we are and what we know. We've become different people. Also this TE is involuntary, we didn't choose to be in a pandemic 2/
In that respect, being in a pandemic is more akin to the transformative effects of illness (which Carel wrote about e.g., here: google.com/books/edition/…
and less like e.g., choosing to have a child, where you can decide to have that particular TE 3/
Here is my promised thread on the political philosophy of Watership Down (1972), the timeless novel by Richard Adams.
Short summary: to me, this work is a defense of liberalism, bottom-up democracy by consensus where everyone can flourish (cf Dewey), and political authority 1/
Why do we need political authority? One popular answer, defended in this book, is that political authority is needed for collective action. When Fiver foresees the destruction of the warren, a leader is needed to leave the warren and to found a new one, to channel decisions 2/
The best decisions are the decisions that are in the best interest of the group. This is Rousseau's "general will" and with that I do not mean a kind of demagogic "will of the people" where a group imposes its will on everyone, but what's best for everyone 3/
Thinking of William James' critique of Herbert Spencer's theory of psychology and what it can mean for us, especially today. 1/
Paper by James here unav.es/gep/RemarksOnS…
Herbert Spencer (1820 – 1903) was a proponent of social Darwinism and he's noted for the phrase "survival of the fittest". His book The Principles of Psychology (published 1855, before Darwin) aimed to put psychology on the footing of biology, with laws that we could discover 2/
Though the first edition of Spencer's Principles of Psychology was published before Origin of Species (1859), i.e., Darwinian, he was wanted to apply evolutionary principles to psychology - notably Lamarck, and he tried to understand animal psychology as adaptation. 3/