I saw someone on here the other day say that the Founders are dead so who cares what they thought.
What are your opinions on the Founders' ideas and what we should be doing with them (if anything at all)?
I saw someone on here the other day say that the Founders are dead so who cares what they thought.
That might've been me, except that I said they were misogynistic slave-owners (ie, products of their time) so who cares what they thought.
Which was a rhetorical question, by the way, because I know who cares: lots of people.
But I don't.
The constitution is of no more interest or relevance to me than the bible.
Ancient documents written by savages, who wouldn't have considered me- or the black family next door- human, or deserving of the same rights they so generously afforded themselves.
I said that yesterday :mrgreen:
However my opinion on the matter is just that. They are dead and they had ideas that were good and appropriate for the society they found themselves in. Today things a different and that means we should have ideas that are appropriate for today. However, they did get many things right, in my view, so in reference to this poll, I think I will land on the idea that we need to build off what they did for two reasons.
1. Some aspects of human nature do not change regardless of technology and the constitution does a fairly good job in recognizing that, but their theories are not complete, and since we know a lot more about psychology and brain mechanics these days, I would like to see some of the assumptions about human nature that are placed in the constitution updated to our present level of knowledge about humanity and what that means for our necessary rights.
2. You cannot simply transform the constitution without massive legal, governmental, and other authority problems. So for the sake of a peaceful social order, it would be better to expand and update.
A lame attempt to sweep a complex political and ethical philosophy under the rug with soundbites and empty platitudes.
Sorry, but it's going to take more than two paragraphs on an internet forum to adequately address the entirety of the Founders' theories and philosophies.
I tend to post summaries of my thoughts due to the medium and my own laziness. If you have a concern or question about my thoughts, feel free to ask and I will be happy to have a discussion and expand on it. Just try to be specific since this tends to be a deep subject.
The founding fathers to a certain extent are worms in horseradish (the world is horseradish).
The founding fathers to another extent manifested Enlightenment philosophy into a government.
The founding fathers to a final extent are portrayed as men of their time (with much props to the ladies in their lives) who created a strong and stable system of government. One based on the idea of middle-class rule.
I think we should leave it as that and not interpret the founding father's ideology and philosophy to be more correct than ideologies and philosophies of today's fathers.
The legal documents that they wrote (i.e. the constitution, bill of rights, declaration of independence, etc.) provide a framework for our government, but beyond that their opinions/thoughts/etc. are meaningless to the world of today. Once they no longer held official government positions (or at the very least once they were dead), their opinions on how the constitution/etc. should be interpreted ceased to be relevant.
You said, "Their theories are incomplete."
1. Which theories are you talking about, specifically? Could you cite them?
2. Why are they incomplete?
You also bring up our advanced knowledge of neuroscience, as if this renders their incites into basic human nature obsolete. Why would an increased understanding of our neural makeup render their incites into basic human nature obsolete?
You see, I have a problem with people who assume increased technology automatically translates into increased intelligence or perceptiveness. Humans are pretty simple creatures at the end of the day. We like to marvel at our own so-called knowledge, but we're really just a bunch of intelligent primates; fundamentally, we're no different than the first humans.
So if I sign a contract for a loan then the banker who signed dies, I shouldn't have to pay the bank?
Actually, if the dead man's opinions were written down, the judge should find much interest in them to decide on some perceived ambiguity.No, but if there were some ambiguity in the contract, then it would be up to a judge today to rule on it, the opinion of the man who drafted the contract would be irrelevant, just as the opinions of the founding fathers on how the documents they wrote should be interpreted are irrelevant.
I'm not saying we should ignore the constitution, I'm saying that when it comes to interpreting it, the opinions of people alive today matter and the opinions of people who died 200 years ago don't.
Ok. The good old natural law discussion that I seem to have over and over (and over and over and over and over and over, its getting a bit tiring really, but I will go through it again)
Natural law as usually stated: Man without the influence of society seeks to own himself (life), his surroundings (property), and exercise his will (liberty, pursuit of happiness). Ok. I will focus on one of the aspects of the problems I have with this theory since the others have not been brought up.
Will (liberty).
1. Our will is not completely free. We know this. For example, if this was not true, we would not have disciplines like behavioral psychology. A market expression of this discipline would be advertising. It is pretty easy to influence human behavior to get what you want and it is easy to be influenced. Because of this flaw in our brains, our will becomes less free. Also we have to contend with our animal instincts for things like hunger, need for socialization, etc.
Because of this problem, we can easily be at the mercy of sophisticated and immoral people. Natural law does not formally recognize this issue and I cannot find where it was even considered back in the 1700s since it seems to be a relatively recent phenomenon (propaganda being around 100 years old).
2. Discontent. People tend to be happier when they are around others who have similar economic means as them. Poor people are happiest when they are around other poor people. Tribal societies have been shown to be less happy as they find out that there are other societies with far greater amounts of technology and wealth. This discontent can harm the social fabric and create unrest. Now we can argue all day about the morality of this phenomenon, but the fact is that it happens and it will continue to happen. But it was not something that was understood very well in the late 1700s. Natural law does not account for this because of its strong stance towards property.
I agree, we have not evolved that much from the first humans but we understand ourselves a lot better.
No, but if there were some ambiguity in the contract, then it would be up to a judge today to rule on it, the opinion of the man who drafted the contract would be irrelevant, just as the opinions of the founding fathers on how the documents they wrote should be interpreted are irrelevant.
I'm not saying we should ignore the constitution, I'm saying that when it comes to interpreting it, the opinions of people alive today matter and the opinions of people who died 200 years ago don't.
I'm not sure where you're getting this. Of course the Founders understood that people were subject to the influence of others; again, this is just basic human psychology, something they accounted for in their writings. For instance, Thomas Jefferson said:
Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day.
As you can plainly see, Thomas Jefferson understood quite well that people are subject to the ill influence of sophisticated and immoral people. This is just one example of literally thousands that I could show you, demonstrating the Founder' ability to perceive exactly what you say they cannot.
Perhaps you should, I dunno, sit down and read them at length, instead of trying to encapsulate the culmination of hundreds of years of political and ethical philosophy into these convenient soundbites. I'm not trying to be rude, but you don't seem to understand their "theories" very well.
Also, where in the world did you get the idea that "propaganda" (which is nothing more than the deliberate 'propagation' of information or ideology) is only a 100 years old!? For as long as ideas have existed, humans have sought to propagate them; this is certainly not a recent phenomenon.
Oh, you're railing against private property now. I can see where this is going...
We understand the mechanisms better, but we certainly don't understand "ourselves" any better than the Founders or even the ancient Chinese did.
I am sorry, but the mechanisms for propaganda are by far more sophisticated than a mere newspaper from the 1700s. :lol:
Today we have advertisers who are hooking people to MRI machines to study their effectiveness and while industries that are dedicated to deception, not some editor of some broad sheet. It is a huge difference.
Sure, there was some problem back than. But it is nothing like it is today.
What do you foresee?
I disagree. We are our mechanisms. The more we understand how we work, the more can undermine ourselves.
You think the people who ACTUALLY WROTE the legal document in question should be disregarded when trying to interpret its meaning?
Do you have any idea how absurd that sounds?
I suppose we should just throw our past into the dustbin, eh? Look towards the glorious future of "progress" and "change", right?
You liberals, man. You really creep me out sometimes...
But that's not what you said. You said "propaganda" was only 100 years old. Obviously, you have no clue what you're talking about, as it has existed for as long as ideas themselves.
Furthermore, you ignored the fact that your premise was totally wrong. The Founders obviously DID understand that people were subject to the influence of sophisticated and immoral people.
It's plainly obvious that you haven't read nearly enough of their writings to presume to know whether or not their "theories" are "incomplete".
Funny, because advertisements have little to no effect on me; in fact, I absolutely hate most commercials and advertisements. Why don't these amazing techniques have any effect on me?
Again, you are resorting to ridiculously over-simplified platitudes to make your case. Comparing the relative effectiveness of "propaganda" from two different time periods is going to require a lot more leg work than two measly sentences.
A bunch of socialist BS. Talk about outdated...
Are you honestly trying to say that Buddha or Socrates or Benjamin Franklin didn't understand themselves as well as you do? HA!
Yes, I do. If they wanted it to be interpreted in a particular way, they should have written the document so that it could be interpreted in ONLY that way.
Doesn't sound at all absurd to me. Certainly no more so than the idea that the opinions of men who've been dead for 200 years should count for more in how we run our country than the opinions of people alive today who actually have to live here.
I didn't say that.
Your views creep me out just as much.
Actually, if the dead man's opinions were written down, the judge should find much interest in them to decide on some perceived ambiguity.
What is ambiguous in the Constitution? It is clear and well-written.
Yes and I stand by that. Propaganda as a political tool is about 100 years old I think.
This does not mean some editor of some newspaper didn't tailor articles to their view on things. Those are two completely different animals. Jefferson was addressing one, but not the other.
One is an applied discipline while the other is just editing or writing with a viewpoint.
If you believe that than I doubt you understand the nature of advertising. I very much doubt that it has not affected your prejudices one way or another.
Dude, seriously, I am not going to write a 50 page master's thesis in a forum. I believe this website is best utilized with short writings and I will continue to use it that way. I do not care if you do not think I am giving this subject matter the respect it deserves because I am giving it the respect I think it deserves and I am doing the writing.
I am not a socialist. I think the market economy is a very useful thing for society.
No I am not. I am saying that science trumps philosophy.
You are absolutely one-percent wrong.
And what are you basing this on, exactly? Your extensive knowledge of editing techniques during post-Revolutionary America? You've already demonstrated your ignorance of basic political history (propaganda is only 100 years old) as well as a limited understanding of the Founders' writings. Why should I take your assessments seriously when they're just ill-conceived and largely unsubstantiated?
You really think modern marketing is more effective at swaying people than the political rhetoric of the Founders or Karl Marx? Who would YOU be more swayed by? Socrates or the Progressive Lady?
Last time I checked, Americans weren't overthrowing the government in the name of Burger King or Walmart...
You act like the advertisers have some psychological stranglehold over me; I can assure you that they don't.
I never asked you to write a 50 page thesis, but if you're going to comment on matters of great complexity, don't expect me to sit here and nod my head like a moron just because you typed out a few sentences.
Well, you obviously have some issue with private property. Feel free to elaborate on it.
Science doesn't trump philosophy when the topic IS philosophy.
And despite not having access to MRIs and modern technology, Socrates and Buddha still had a profound understanding of human nature and personal fulfillment. I doubt very much that any modern person could match the depth of their wisdom and understanding simply because they had access to scientific literature.
Wish I could continue the conversation but it looks like I have some family obligations and I will probably forget most of this by the time I get back. So I will concede the point to you by nature of forfeit.
I had to do it to LaMidRighter too, but I thought this stupid thing would start an hour ago, but anyway, have fun.
:2wave:
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?