Religion says "Love thy neighbour as thyself". 

Social Science identifies the empirical barriers to realizing said religious normativity. So it attempts to define terms very precisely, ("love", "neighbor", "thyself") in order to empirically test whether people are living up to the "Great Commandment".

So for example, it is easy to cherry-pick Bible quotes that reinforce your particular prejudices, that make it impossible to love thy neighbor as thyself. 

I want to suggest is that the relationship between stateless communism and capitalism, is former is social/political realization of when empirical level and normative level of "love thy neighbour" are the same thing. Is statements = Ought statements. Whereas the latter (Capitalism) is at best an indifferent attitude towards one's neighbour (fetishization of self-interest alone/rugged individualism...) and at worst cultivates major outbreaks of "hatreds" to neighbours who are imagined to be "different" than "thyself". 

And I also think that what Class Ideology takes the form of treating "normative statements" like love, as if they were empirical statements under capitalism, which cannot actually realize the critical normative objectives of a "religion of love". So this is what enables people to believe that their hatreds constitutes forms of love, as in domestic violence dynamics (as in the song "He hit me and it felt like a kiss")

 lecture on Globalization / sociology of Globalization 

https://youtu.be/p-TwUMDoFuo

 Lecture on Globalization ( Part 2) 

https://youtu.be/LpOlVbCrHM8

 Lecture on Globalization part 1 

https://youtu.be/tYDHgH_pAc0

Cultural contradiction - Daniel Bell

 Daniel Bell's 1976 "Cultural Contradictions"

Bell begins with a description of consensus between economic, political and cultural forces which are unraveling. The bourgeois economic values of functional and technocratic roles are opposed by cultural values of art and religion, which Bell calls demonic, have resulted in a battleground between the hedonistic middle classes, by which he means conspicuous mass consumers and the working classes armed with concepts of equality and participation have turned adversarial. This situation resonates with Marcuse's economic writings on waste production and waste consumption of useless mass-produced goods and the production of new needs for these markets. Roger Mudd stated in 'The Selling of the Pentagon," 1971, that the middle classes avoided the draft by either going to college or applying for a psychiatric disqualification! 

Bell does not address the nature of the polity. He does not compare different governmental agencies nor depict them in a contest. There is no sense of a conflict between military personnel and bureaucrats; the divided nature of political parties does not implicate the displacement of military veterans by politicians, nor of bureaucrats by military veterans. Bell's unraveled consensus between the economic, the political or parties, and culture has caused the emergence of modernity, or a preoccupation with self-fulfillment, individuality and anti-rationality. The latter referring to instrumental success oriented purposiveness, not apparently to substantive rationality! But, this recourse to modernity does not address the more radical concerns of postmodernity, the sociology of science or technocratic consciousness. Comparing Bell's unraveled consensus to more radical models of social change, namely, ideology, discipline and leadership, indicates that issues of social class discipline, of the relation of party ideology to military and police operations and to the integrity of leaders implies the the problem of cultural contradictions (note not economic contradictions or contradictions in decision-making) is not solved by a new public philosophy.  Bell wants to turns the 'cultural' around to dovetail with political and economic priorities and responsibilities. Thus he is conservative. He does not want to take up the problem of death by government, of government terror. Instead, he has offered a roundabout argument for setting household arrangements and budgets straight, preferably by restricting credit!

"The characteristic style of an industrial society is based on the principles of economics and economizing: least cost, maximization, optimization, and functional rationality. Yet, it is at this point that it comes into sharpest conflict with the cultural trends of the day, for the culture emphasizes anticognitive and anti-intellectual currents which are rooted in a return to instinctual modes. The one emphasizes functional rationality, technocratic decision-making, and meritocratic rewards. The other, apocalyptic moods and anti-rational modes of behavior. It is this disjunction which is the historic crisis of Western society. This cultural contradiction, in the long run, is the deepest challenge to the society." Bell, D. "The Cultural Contradictions of Capital," 1972. The 1976 text is a series of articles emanating from this one.

The basic contradiction is between the social system and the culture. Another way of saying something similar is that there is a contradiction between the Constitution and the the beliefs of the people, e.g. hate and evil. And another way of saying this is that there is a contradiction, an opposition between positivist rationality and substantive rationality, as well as within substantive rationality.

Thinking Indian democracy

Indian freedom struggle is a manifestation of the  misdeeds of British Rule and the quest for justice of millions of Indian.  The struggle for independence was not fought simply for national independence. The establishment of democracy in free India was an important aim of the freedom struggle. It was in view of this goal that is the essence of “constitution of India”. Among all the goals of Indian freedom struggle the establishment of democracy was the most important goal .

 

MacIver once said “Democracy is a form of Government that is never completely achieved … Democracy grows into its being”. It may take a long time before we say, Now India is a democracy in its real sense. Is anything left of that democracy today?  

Democracy means freedom and equality through rule of law. What is happening in India is the radicalization of right wing politics where the rule of law is violated. The voice of dissents is systematically killed. Criticism and Discussion require vigilance on the part of a citizen which in the worlds of J S Mill, is the price of democracy, in other words, Indian has a democracy lacking the spirit of democracy.

 

Judiciary is no more an indicator of a nation's political civilization. With the deep love of right wing political ideology judiciary has given its portative hands of people’s rights. We live in the time of majoritarian democracy. We lack a sense of responsibility particularly the side of the majority with reference to social equality. We can see “dictatorship under the grab of democracy”. Without social and economic equality and the sense of brotherhood that is the essence of Fraternity, Indian democracy may become only a care structure of bureaucratic government without any life in it.  

We are forgetting the teaching of Gandhi and Tagore who taught us 'culture of tolerance and acceptance'. we can see the attack on minorities everywhere. We lack compassion that is the keynote of the sense of fraternity to be fostered in Indian society. Politicization of religion led to the killing of compassion in the root of religion and without compassion there can be no religion. Even Srimad Bhagavata said “ Kamaya duhka taptanam praninam arti nasanam “ means the only desire that lingers in me is to wipe the tears of those that suffer from the anguish of pain .

If Indian democracy has to be the way of life it has to free from the majoritarian rule which is constructing “The other” .That is millions of minorities.

The idea of Local self-government has become insignificant with the Americanisation of Indian democracy. Centralization spells death of democracy, for it means power and initiative are taken away from the people and concentrated at the center. The whole project of decentralization of democracy (73rd and 74th amendments) are unfulfilled . The actualization of Gandhi's dream  is unfulfilled.  Besides this , The rise of  One-party rule  and insignificant opposition are dangerous for the democracy of India .

 

The objective of Independence seems to me incomplete. We can see the degradation of the idea of freedom from communalism, freedom from the unjust system of capitalism. Besides this,  The insignificant land reform , powerless state in terms of privatization , De-socialization of  Principal industries,  WTO effect on policies , in context of neo-liberal development . These are important considerations as far as the impartial  view of the development of democracy is concerned.  

With the rise of media constructed public opinion in terms of fake news and propaganda creates a culture of hate and fear. The narrow growth of cultural nationalism based on fake communitarian belief is to be seen as the emergence of Indian state which is based on the idea of uncommon citizenship. With the rise of the right, the great challenge is to act even to an intellectual without being anti-national.

We can see the differentiation between the discourse of patriotism and the discourse of nationalism.  One is based on love and  peace ,another one is based on fear and anger .Indian struggled for her political independence inspired by her belief in the means  of non-violence, ahimsa and won her freedom with goodwill of all nations. That is why  liberal democracy and cultural  tolerance are the whole mark of Indian democracy. Unity in diversity and diversity in unity are the principles of Indian democracy .

We  can see the missing  discourse of Idea of the nation of  swami vivekananda ,  Mahatma Gandhi and Rabindranath Tagore  that is the idea of Internationalism . History tells us Love based nations make Humanity and vice a versa.But fear based Nations do not make humanity .

 

I hope some day , perhaps in the not very distant future , Mahatma Gandhi , Bhagat singh , Bhim Rao Ambedker , subhash Chandra Bose , Jawaharlal Nehru , Jaya Prakash and Lohiya’s dream  may be fulfilled .

We need a democracy where we should neither be the slaves of capitalism nor fundamentalism. People will be free to express their opinions. Let us replace “my’ with “our” then only we can end capitalism and begin socialism in the context of individual , society and state .

In the concluding remark, I would like to sayy if Indian democracy is really of the people, by the people and for the people , we all are responsible for this state of affairs. I think a nation is sure to die , when the main purpose of it  is hurt. In order to save it's purpose or in order to save the spirit of democracy we, have to inculcate constitutional morality .  we have to be critical towards the government, we have to be aware that we are the masters in democracy, we have the right to question our government for not adhering to certain principles in the constitution of India. We have to acknowledge the fact that eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.

Let there be collective thinking in India and let us all help in the creation of real, working, living, democracy in our country  .

Understanding Reason

    Understanding Reason.

Philosophers are not able to connect religion to morality. Beliefs about god are unrelated to beliefs about what is good. There is no logical connection. The claim that facts lead to conclusions about what is good is called the naturalistic or is-ought fallacy. Reason is only able to address whether a claim that something in factual is true or false, not whether it is good or bad, right or wrong. Secularization arrived during the 17th century (30 Years War) and replaced morality with legality – not that moralists do not still examine motives and conscience. Morality is reduced to feelings, emotional assertions, and failed solutions like majority rules (utilitarianism) and practical reason (deontology). Some emotional expressions are related to legal injunctions and arguably to moral justifications. But, religion has for so long been criticized for its connection to evil (witness the present day fundamentalism of Islamism) that moral claims are merely their own preferences and have no logical connection to human nature or any universal way to live life. Terms like Merry Christmas refer more to one's religious preferences and beliefs in marriage, babies and love but also conceal prejudices historically related to this same religion to which others are sensitive. The concepts that words refer to have changed their meaning during history. Reason is limited and has been acknowledged as limited since Kant to determining what is factual and not to what is good, right, ethical or moral.

There are different degrees of truth: the truth mentioned here as what is out there is not something that you can know in its entirety or totality because the truth out there is truth in terms of everything that exists or can possibly exist. Truth at another level is truth that is actual: you may not observe it happening but you can observe its results or effects. A third kind of truth is empirical: you can know it and observe it and it may be expected of you to tell the truth. You know what that kind of truth is - it is something that is inside of you about something that happened, some event that you know about. But, the notion of truth out there as existing before you can know a bit of it is entirely unconscious or even outside of your awareness.

There is the question of god, gods, or ancestors that pervades our culture - culture as belief system and set of institutions and rituals. The key question is whether the monotheistic god is actually the supreme god. Cultures with several gods, polytheism, or ancestors, acknowledge that each deity is both good and evil, has strengths and weakness, but the monotheistic god has been posited as entirely ideal. Whichever religious belief-system that you are from or address, there is the issue of evil, or death, of unfairness or political instability. When Nietzsche calls us slaves, he must be referring to the attitude towards those laws which do not matter and which make no difference, that is, to the mere cultural beliefs and moods which have made moderns both criminal and/or paranoid.

What exactly is reason - standards of validity, evidence and justification? Self-preservation instinct?

Freud labors over this ad nauseum! For 30 years his basic duality-synthesis is Eros and self-preservation just like Darwin. Starting in 1920, he juxtaposes this opposition which involves several contradictions with the death instinct!

It is not clear then if the basic duality is Eros-Thanatos or self-preservation - Thanatos!

Is this actually reason as reasonable, as reason giving, as related to criteria of validity? Habermas contrasts power and validity and indicates instances where power illegitimately passes for validity. For example, inflicting pain or using anger often pass for reason - imperatives which must be addressed!

Freud, very intelligently, wrote about these puzzles of pain and anger in several articles on masochism. Firstly, he claims everyone is masochistic - it is the normal situation. Bye bye Bentham who posited reason as the distinction and judgment between pleasure and pain! But, not only are humans normally masochistic - taking pleasure in pain, whereas the sadists are perverts, but everyone is a moral masochist which is why laws, customs, traditions and new trends tend to work!

I doubt anyone becomes a sadist - taking pleasure inflicting pain, without spending an inordinate amount of time in the masochistic position. However, pain is an important consideration concerning the nature of man.

Some of Nietzsche’s ideas were adopted by Freud, i.e. ‘id’ and “super-ego!” Freud is good about citing his sources, but Freud was also a scientist and details his literature searches, similar to Aristotle and the standard today.  Freud’s morality is not similar to Nietzsche’s nihilism or will to power, or transvaluation! Freud borrows little from him. Does the id and super-ego, or the unconscious, constitute reason? Structuralists might assert that the structure of our minds as effects of signifiers and under basic oppositional binary alternatives constitutes reason!

Fear is another puzzle. We all fear especially the low grade stressful annoying type, but the Stoic disposition, grin and bear it, stiff upper lip, courage and bravery, etc., are basic characteristics of human cultures. So, “reason” has I think countered the emotions! Alasdair MacIntyre points out that moral rules, and I would add certain laws, are precisely designed as constraints, as "painful" restrictions on pleasure seeking.

So, how is cognition related to the self?

I am wondering about why the term ‘cognition’ or ‘cognitive’ is often misunderstood as a substitute for the self or ego. Cognition comes from ‘cogito’ which Descartes posited as the part of our thinking substance from which body and sensation and feeling are differentiated (this is the key cognitive term). Cognition is the pure rational judging part of mind distinct from subjectivity!

Broughton (in Rieber and Salzinger 1980 "Psychology - Theoretical and Historical Perspectives) explains that not only did Descartes posit the body-mind dualism but also the subject-other dualism. The result is an objectification of subjectivity.

In terms of Eros, self-preservation and Thanatos, which all seem like subjective feelings with perhaps some problem-solving calculations, cognitive reflexivity jettisons subjectivity leaving only the cogito in relation to the world!

Does sympathy, compassion, and/or free will constitute reason?

Voluntarism is about free will, choice, effort, determination, etc. This angle is complicated by the problem of starting conditions: given the inequalities in the world, no amount of effort or determination will dent the social structures under which each is born. Maybe it’s luck but otherwise the social system and history are somewhat reified, progress is slow and relativism never goes away. But we should object to the gouging exploitation!

Biologically, emotions are neuropolitical like judgments. The heart is a pump, the emotions are not there, that is a metaphor!

Ego as in ego instincts or ego interests or ego functions is cognition - the split off part of the mind from the self, subjectivity and spontaneity. The objectivation of the ego, the cogito by cognition when differentiation splits mind into subject and object, suppresses the subject.

The critique of reason, its elaboration and explanation, its contrast with understanding emotions/feelings and beliefs, must take into consideration certain the differentiation of the mind or ego, and the problems of faiths and imagination, but reason will always address the issues of truth in reality and meaning or the significance of experience where standards of validity, evidence and justifications are necessary.

Reason is basically the same thing as discourse, language and communication. But, historically, reason has been narrowed from thinking and imagination in contrast to passion and emotion, down to motivation or cause, as in reason giving, or answering the 'why' question dialogically and reflectively. Today, reason is the basis for interaction that consists of standards of validity, evidence, and justification. Therefore, we can easily see that there is a problem of unreason or irrationality, etc.

Kant's 'Critique of Pure Reason' was a response to several strands of thought in the 18th Century. Hume's prioritization of passion or emotion over reason, reason as the slave of the passions, led to Hume's infamous Dangerous Dilemma where Reason's doubt-inducing mode destroys Hume's own final outcome of reason - that one should assent to reason's final decision. Reason however, for Hume, is essentially probable reason which leads to the problem of low probability reasons!

Kant responds to Hume's skepticism with a somewhat complicated argument that involves the nature of consciousness more than anything else, but Kant settles on the relevance of evidence which can broadly include argument, demonstration, perception, and other logical elements but essentially defends the Enlightenment's scientific thrust.

Kant drastically restricts the human imagination to thinking that is logical and evident-based, thus he is one of the first to disrupt metaphysical systems of thought, namely religions and scientific thinking that is not based on evidence. Not to take any credit away from Voltaire, Spinoza and other Enlightenment thinkers like D'Alambert, the importance of proof as in mathematics and astronomy was an arguable point in the faith versus reason arguments of the 16th to 18th Centuries which saw the Reformation and the 3 major Democratic Revolutions: England, USA, and France.

Kant's reason however is separated from his ethics - the Critique of Practical Reason and the Categorical Imperative which can be loosely compared to the ancient Golden Rule. Although a pragmatic trend, what works, can be traced to Kant, so can a destructive reason, a reason of manipulation and domination, which can be traced back to the realpolitik of Machiavelli.

In the 20th century, several leftists attempted to analyze the history of reason because reason in their minds had been corrupted. Even if we equate reason with truth, truth is not necessarily ethical or moral as observed easily in the 30 Years War, the Napoleonic Wars, WWI, and the Holocaust. This problem of truth and reason can be found in Lukacs 'Destruction of Reason,' Adorno's 'Negative Dialectics,' Marcuse's 'Reason and Revolution,' and in Gramsci's 'Prison Notebooks' in the concept hegemony. These notions of reason detected a split in reason between an excluding and repressing reason and a constituting reason that constructs objects and others! Notice that 'constituting reason' is an abstraction that refers to the construction of the object as in scientific object, or as in another person or group!

All of these ideas grew out of Marxism where Marx identified reason as a function of the mode of production or the position of the worker in the division of labor where reason operated not as a facilitating social mode of communication, but as exploitation, alienation, and appropriation. These ideas were further elaborated by Sartre where reason's negativity was no longer limited to the workplace but overwhelmed all social interaction where the other person was an obstacle, an object to be strategically manipulated. Strategic reason can be found elucidated in Jurgen Habermas's work, particularly, 'Theory of Communicative Action.

Habermas presents reason as communicative, as a practice of communication that differentiates interaction as communicative or as strategic, and he describes how to make this differentiation. Communicative Reason abides by 3 elements: truthfulness, normativity, and sincerity, whereas Strategic Reason is concealing and manipulative.

Reason, however, is today more complicated by several factors since Kant: Freud uncovered each person's unconsciousness or repressed experience which influences the person's behavior and expressions, particularly their level of anger or neurosis. Also, Freud made several important distinctions which deepens the definition of reason from linguistic interaction or f2f or discourse, to interpretation and reflection. Reason is therefore once removed from direct perception and reality into a reflective awareness. Also, Freud indicated that the distinction between perception and thinking, that is, conscious awareness and subconsciousness, is complex so that evidence is not simply observable. Today, we recognize evidence as statistical reality and therefore as somewhat of a nonconscious entity, that is, we are no longer immediately aware of reality and therefore intersubjectivity, measurement, and certain standards of judgment, or procedures, are necessary to evaluate events and behaviors.

The danger now is totalization: any claim that totalizes one's knowledge or understanding is criticisable and fallible. Recognition of this limitation harks back to Kant's Critique, but more importantly, is an inclusive and plural definition which recognizes intersubjectivity, statistical reality, and error.