shklar containment thread

"for all our wealth of historical experience, we do not know how to think about victimhood. almost everything one might say would be unfair, self-serving, undignified, untrue, self-deluding, contradictory, or dangerous."

thinkin nietzsche and pity atm, hope she gets to it

the best religion, therefore, with peace in view, is the one into which one is born - the one most established in one's country and the one which one is most used to. this is not an attempt to disregard the enormous faults of existing ideologies and institutions.

is it, rather, the recognition that the alternatives are no better. it is the conservatism of universal disgust, if it is conservatism at all.

for in what sense can one be said to support an existing order of affairs if one cannot think of anything to say on its behalf except that it is there? it is an act of perfect dissociation, but not necessarily a retreat from the public world.

i am pretty fond of "the conservatism of universal disgust" as a phrase, but politically it's disastrous and the perfection one achieves is the pathetic purity of ideological complacency.

the anti-anti-hypocrite stance is well-taken but is dragging

oh my god this whole book is dragging im so bored

in fairness the rest of the chapters after snobbery do seem more interesting

rorty did more to make me sympathetic to anti-cruelty, shklar is so uninspiring

lol i have no patience for moralists like this blegh

hm i wonder if it's simply the fact that these are somewhat outdated/inapplicable/out of fashion to us now. would snobbery be included in today's ordinary vices?

20 more mins... good god hurry and end my misery

lemme create a session rudy

raz was also cool because he called williams a bitch ass hoe

bruh my day is ruined i just looked at projections for how long its gonna take for boomer deaths to take off

what happens when i get gen alpha coworkers

aight we wrapped up the morality of freedom, maybe i try shklar next

libbed out weekend babyy

defi gonna take a break tho, head is full

dude i love that this feels like vibe-philosophizing but with rigor

like for most people there are like sacred things you HAVE to hold onto in order to make their shit work. but hes just like "yea im gonna adopt this principle and here are some reasons why i think it works, but whatever, if we disagree it's unlikely to affect the validity of the argument"

does it make sense to call this book dense but shallow? like we're doing a drive-by of the top concepts and hitting all the points, we're covering a lot of ground, but not developing much. which was intentional and stated up front, but i'm not sure how well it works overall

as in like, here are my stipulated definitions that hang together in a certain way but not going too extremely in depth on any of them. its not *that* far afield from similar works, just a little more intense in degree

i suppose i'd be less perturbed if i shared more of his intuitions

"every moral and every political theory which claims either that it is a complete theory, or even merely that it is complete regarding some issue, contains a principle of equality in this sense.

that is, it contains a closure principle stating that nothing else counts for the justification of moral or political action, or for action over education, etc. closure principles of this kind cannot therefore lend an egalitarian character to a theory."

its funny, as an anti-egalitarian i see the knots he's coming up against and have the impulse to take the exact opposite tack

yes of course, egalitarianism is vacuous!

im being a little flippant, i think hes actually making good ground, and i like that he draws attention to the deficiencies of naive and narrow forms. that being said, i don't think it can mangle itself into something viable

i see raz as largely clarifying men's (!!!) ideas as to the social and moral strifes of their own day

the discussion of the rhetorical uses of equality are good :)

"to the extent that one's ultimate goals tend, as they do, also to be one's most comprehensive goals it follows that in many cases one has no decisive reason for the goals one has which are independent of the face that one has them"

im digging the contextualism in the discussion of social forms

hype hype hype we're talking incommensurability

"to my mind it is an advantage of my argument that it does depend on contingent features of our world" FUCK EM UP

is it legitimate to remove and re-add a track to someones playlist to bump it

*ollie might not be my most frequent companion these days but it sure punches harder than the rest

raz might be my second favorite lib

he had me at incommensurability

microblogging is important because it gets the thoughts out of my head and prevents them from festering

not really sure what the point of @philos.dreary.dev is if i do stuff like this here, but i like that have a dedicated hegel space

i'll get back to you shortly, i have some ground to make up

annoying yt removed the miniplayer button and put in right click. ah well, 'i' keybinding still works

i have so much fun being retarded

playing minecraft with a timber mod and an efficiency 5 axe running through the forest like kirk from hoodwinked