![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
vovatI forgot to mention that the last post I made was actually written yesterday, but I didn't have a chance to post it until earlier today. What follows will be my entry for today (not that I need to have an entry for every day, but I usually try to write one every day I'm online for a significant amount of time).
I've been reading Al Franken's Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them. I like it quite a bit (even if "Weird Al" Yankovic's last name is misspelled in it; I wonder if that will be corrected for the paperback edition), and it got me doing some thinking about politics and related issues. Anyway, I don't write about politics that often, mostly because it's not a field I follow that closely (although I probably should). I have been thinking, however, about how modern Republicans want to give the impression that "liberal" is a bad word. I looked up the word on an online dictionary site, and the first two meanings are "Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry" and "Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded." Now, I don't think every member of the Democratic Party or other politically liberal association is necessarily open-minded and tolerant about everything. But it's a noble thing to aspire to, isn't it? I get the impression, however, that some conservatives not only disapprove of the picture that some of their number paint of liberals (godless, immoral baby-killers who believe in letting criminals run free, or something along those lines), but of the very idea of liberal thought. The most obvious example I can think of is how Rush Limbaugh's fans proudly call themselves "dittoheads," as if saying, "We don't think for ourselves, and we're proud of it!" That people are like that frightens me. Sure, there are situations where I might not think through an issue entirely, and end up agreeing with someone because I like them, or I think they presented their argument well. I certainly TRY to think things through, however, and I would consider a name like "dittohead" to be a serious insult even if it WEREN'T associated with an idiotic blowhard like Limbaugh.
Personally, I tend to associate liberalism and free thought with relative morality. I'm sure plenty of free-thinking liberals disagree with me, and that's fine. I do think, however, that relative morality has kind of a bad rap, as evidenced by the fact that my college philosophy professors dismissed it out of hand, one even referring to relativists as "assholes" (or some word very close to that, anyway). I get the feeling that people like this equate relative morality with amorality, and I don't see it that way at all. Perhaps I'm confusing relativism with something else. I don't have a degree in philosophy, after all. I do consider myself to be a moral person, but I don't think these morals are necessarily absolute. If they are absolute, who defines them? God? That's fine if you're religious, but I'm not. That pretty much means they are decided by society and personal values, and, to me, that means they're going to be different for different people and different societies. That doesn't mean I don't believe in right and wrong, just that, a lot of the time, what's right or wrong depends on the situation, and who's involved in it.
I've been reading Al Franken's Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them. I like it quite a bit (even if "Weird Al" Yankovic's last name is misspelled in it; I wonder if that will be corrected for the paperback edition), and it got me doing some thinking about politics and related issues. Anyway, I don't write about politics that often, mostly because it's not a field I follow that closely (although I probably should). I have been thinking, however, about how modern Republicans want to give the impression that "liberal" is a bad word. I looked up the word on an online dictionary site, and the first two meanings are "Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry" and "Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded." Now, I don't think every member of the Democratic Party or other politically liberal association is necessarily open-minded and tolerant about everything. But it's a noble thing to aspire to, isn't it? I get the impression, however, that some conservatives not only disapprove of the picture that some of their number paint of liberals (godless, immoral baby-killers who believe in letting criminals run free, or something along those lines), but of the very idea of liberal thought. The most obvious example I can think of is how Rush Limbaugh's fans proudly call themselves "dittoheads," as if saying, "We don't think for ourselves, and we're proud of it!" That people are like that frightens me. Sure, there are situations where I might not think through an issue entirely, and end up agreeing with someone because I like them, or I think they presented their argument well. I certainly TRY to think things through, however, and I would consider a name like "dittohead" to be a serious insult even if it WEREN'T associated with an idiotic blowhard like Limbaugh.
Personally, I tend to associate liberalism and free thought with relative morality. I'm sure plenty of free-thinking liberals disagree with me, and that's fine. I do think, however, that relative morality has kind of a bad rap, as evidenced by the fact that my college philosophy professors dismissed it out of hand, one even referring to relativists as "assholes" (or some word very close to that, anyway). I get the feeling that people like this equate relative morality with amorality, and I don't see it that way at all. Perhaps I'm confusing relativism with something else. I don't have a degree in philosophy, after all. I do consider myself to be a moral person, but I don't think these morals are necessarily absolute. If they are absolute, who defines them? God? That's fine if you're religious, but I'm not. That pretty much means they are decided by society and personal values, and, to me, that means they're going to be different for different people and different societies. That doesn't mean I don't believe in right and wrong, just that, a lot of the time, what's right or wrong depends on the situation, and who's involved in it.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-06-30 05:19 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-07-01 02:32 pm (UTC)