I think Socrates goes even further into the benefit of being "uneducated" (I don't mean this in the strictest sense). Nobody is arguing that we should not try to get every kid on earth a good education, obviously. But, yes, Wittgenstein really upset academics when he exclaimed (and in my opinion demonstrated) that ALL philosophical "problems" are simply the result of trying to use language inappropriately. This is probably the most wonderfully "blue-collar" argument ever made in philosophy. I don't think he made it that well, but he was the first to make it using a methodology that can be tested and reasoned with...

I'd say the same thing goes for politics. We don't have problems with our "neighbors" until we create them by believing something that makes no sense. Once we let go of our tight grip on the nonsense, we simply help people out. Not due to some deep ideological superiority or because we have finally learned the truth. No. We help out because we aren't fixated on nonsense that feels like it makes sense.

I'm so grateful for the women's movement. It would not have been necessary if folks had stopped thinking they knew something about gender. And this is where my point of view is probably not very conventional and easily slammed: I think that all equal rights movements are failing to the degree that they are explicitly or implicitly merely replacing one content with another. This is hard to show. There are not metrics for my claim, so I don't push it. And I'm not saying we are wrong in saying that women and men are equal; only that the articulation is only a useful and provisional explication of our basic and pre-conceptual decency. And I am saying, gulp, that a fixation on even that noble statement is just as much cause for "concern" as any other fixation.

You can push for basic decency decently. In that case, you utterly reject the notion that a given point of view/person/ideology is "suppose" to be commonly accepted. But if you fight for great causes from within the same basic presumptions of "sin" and blame, I'm very leery of what is considered "success". Anyway, that article I sent you in my previous comments is an example of what gives me hope after reading so much certainty about who is at fault.

Hi Eric. I'm assuming your question is in the context of our current choice: either Obama or Hillary is going up against McCain. Would you be asking this question if Obama had dropped out months ago (or not have run altogether)? I ask only because it makes a difference to me if you are somebody who won't vote for her at all...or only won't vote for her in the current "choice" context.

But I'll assume the later: I'm going for Obama. I have my reasons and I'm comfortable stating them. But as long as a Clinton supporter isn't arguing on science that they are right and as long as he/she is trying their best ground their preference in a description of their needs and tendencies...I'm very happy and hopeful. I just talked to a guy at my car place who is definately voting for McCain. He knows I won't do that even in my worst dream, but we had a very nice conversation.

I think there are plenty of "reasons" to prefer Clinton or Obama, but none are based on Science and none need be articulated as if from the Old Testament. When I look at the absolutely misery taking place on earth at this time, my attention is much more concerned about the underlying presumption of "sin" and "science" that totally shapes these conversations. The content, to me, is simply the fall-out of this more basic, and insidious, tendency. And I in no way am immune to it. As you can read.

Hi Eric. I'm assuming your question is in the context of our current choice: either Obama or Hillary is going up against McCain. Would you be asking this question if Obama had dropped out months ago (or not have run altogether)? I ask only because it makes a difference to me if you are somebody who won't vote for her at all...or only won't vote for her in the current "choice" context.

But I'll assume the later: I'm going for Obama. I have my reasons and I'm comfortable stating them. But as long as a Clinton supporter isn't arguing on science that they are right and as long as he/she is trying their best ground their preference in a description of their needs and tendencies...I'm very happy and hopeful. I just talked to a guy at my car place who is definitely voting for McCain. He knows I won't do that even in my worst dream, but we had a very nice conversation.

I think there are plenty of "reasons" to prefer Clinton or Obama, but none are based on Science and none need be articulated as if from the Old Testament. When I look at the absolutely misery taking place on earth at this time, my attention is much more concerned about the underlying presumption of "sin" and "science" that totally shapes the conversations. The content, to me, is simply the fall out of this more basic, and insidious, tendency.

Now I see that you DID respond to mine. Sorry for the extra post.

The reasons are clear to me why I am voting for Obama. I'm willing to passionately share them with somebody who is interested, but I don't assume that they should be anybody else's reasons. If I am in a conversation with somebody and they say something I don't agree with, I'm happy to say why...but I still don't assume they are suppose to agree.

But I'd be happy to make up the kind of pro-Hillary conversation that I don't mind...