Here's an article about Jean Baudrillard’s concept of the hyperreal, some harbingers of hyperreality, and how the prevalence of simulacra fits into progressive history.
I don't know if this has anything to do with this text. I admit I haven't read it. But for the title, I have recently written a text in which I compare two perspectives: pragmatic-existentialist and ritualistic-traditionalist, to explain why ''liberals'' advocate the inclusion of trans athletes in official sports competitions and the qualitative relativization of the arts, and ''conservatives'' the opposite.
Basically, for ''liberals'', since everything is a social or cultural construction, then it is perfectly possible to change the rites or rules. But for the ''conservatives'', rites are sacred and cannot be changed.
They believe ''theater'' is real and needs to be respected, while ''liberals'' know it's a theater, so they wouldn't have a problem making certain inclusive demands of historically marginalized groups.
Or in the case of the relativization of the arts, of including all types of activities that can be recognized as ''artistic'', if what defines art is not its form but its expression.
A paradox: despite ''conservatives'' favoring the preservation of cultural rites and/or rules, they tend to treat culture as mere entertainment, disregarding that the arts, first and foremost, are human self-expression, including reflection and social criticism.
I think the progressive motivation for allowing trans athletes to compete with members of their adopted gender is pretty clear. It's not just a case of being politically correct in tolerating people's choices. Conservatism reduces to social Darwinism, so what matter to the conservatives are the natural facts in question, not our choices which can take us beyond nature. Conservatives worship nature because nature fosters sadomasochistic power dynamics, and conservatives have authoritarian personalities.
By contrast, liberals are just humanists who view personhood as something that emerged progressively from the wilderness. If trans athletes want to compete in a certain way, and they can do so without harming others, they should be allowed to do so, according to liberals. The question is whether these athletes are in fact harming their competitors, and making the competitions less fair.
But it also seems evident that conservatives believe that rituals and rules must be respected, while liberals, precisely because they have transcended this Darwinian level to an existentialist level, believe that there is no problem with including trans athletes.
And this also applies to the qualitative relativization of the arts. In which the most important thing is personal satisfaction and not respecting the rules of something that is culturally constructed and can be changed, which is a simulation of reality.
However, the nature of trans people is not being respected here, of gender dysphoria.
Now, about unfairness in the sport, this can get quite complex, since there is no equality of conditions in practically any sport. In almost all of them,some athletes are much more privileged, because they were born in rich country or even because they have a natural talent.
I don't know if conservatives are stricter about rule-following. Implicitly, they worship the laws of nature (the sources of natural rights), but those aren't rules. And societal rules can be changed rather than slavishly obeyed. There are plenty of euphemisms here. Conservatives say they're stricter because they believe in "law and order," but that's about authoritarianism (submission and dominance), not just respect for rules. When the rules don't suit them, conservatives are fine with cheating rather than accepting their loss.
I also don't think all liberals are existentially authentic just because they reject the conservative's social Darwinism. There are various middle possibilities.
''the laws of nature (the sources of natural rights), but those aren't rules''
They consider it as laws.
''Conservatives say they're stricter because they believe in "law and order," but that's about authoritarianism (submission and dominance), not just respect for rules''
What they regard as laws.
''When the rules don't suit them, conservatives are fine with cheating rather than accepting their loss.''
Of course, but especially since they don't regard them as such.
''I also don't think all liberals are existentially authentic just because they reject the conservative's social Darwinism. There are various middle possibilities.''
I am not referring to centrists when I speak of liberals and conservatives...
My biggest flaw here was to say ''conservatives'' or ''liberals'' as if referring to all of both groups. Of course, there are variations in trends and behaviors between them, within each group. But I'm referring to the most common characteristics, which define and differentiate them.
I don't know if this has anything to do with this text. I admit I haven't read it.
ReplyDeleteBut for the title, I have recently written a text in which I compare two perspectives: pragmatic-existentialist and ritualistic-traditionalist, to explain why ''liberals'' advocate the inclusion of trans athletes in official sports competitions and the qualitative relativization of the arts, and ''conservatives'' the opposite.
Basically, for ''liberals'', since everything is a social or cultural construction, then it is perfectly possible to change the rites or rules. But for the ''conservatives'', rites are sacred and cannot be changed.
They believe ''theater'' is real and needs to be respected, while ''liberals'' know it's a theater, so they wouldn't have a problem making certain inclusive demands of historically marginalized groups.
Or in the case of the relativization of the arts, of including all types of activities that can be recognized as ''artistic'', if what defines art is not its form but its expression.
A paradox: despite ''conservatives'' favoring the preservation of cultural rites and/or rules, they tend to treat culture as mere entertainment, disregarding that the arts, first and foremost, are human self-expression, including reflection and social criticism.
I think the progressive motivation for allowing trans athletes to compete with members of their adopted gender is pretty clear. It's not just a case of being politically correct in tolerating people's choices. Conservatism reduces to social Darwinism, so what matter to the conservatives are the natural facts in question, not our choices which can take us beyond nature. Conservatives worship nature because nature fosters sadomasochistic power dynamics, and conservatives have authoritarian personalities.
DeleteBy contrast, liberals are just humanists who view personhood as something that emerged progressively from the wilderness. If trans athletes want to compete in a certain way, and they can do so without harming others, they should be allowed to do so, according to liberals. The question is whether these athletes are in fact harming their competitors, and making the competitions less fair.
But it also seems evident that conservatives believe that rituals and rules must be respected, while liberals, precisely because they have transcended this Darwinian level to an existentialist level, believe that there is no problem with including trans athletes.
DeleteAnd this also applies to the qualitative relativization of the arts. In which the most important thing is personal satisfaction and not respecting the rules of something that is culturally constructed and can be changed, which is a simulation of reality.
However, the nature of trans people is not being respected here, of gender dysphoria.
Now, about unfairness in the sport, this can get quite complex, since there is no equality of conditions in practically any sport. In almost all of them,some athletes are much more privileged, because they were born in rich country or even because they have a natural talent.
I don't know if conservatives are stricter about rule-following. Implicitly, they worship the laws of nature (the sources of natural rights), but those aren't rules. And societal rules can be changed rather than slavishly obeyed. There are plenty of euphemisms here. Conservatives say they're stricter because they believe in "law and order," but that's about authoritarianism (submission and dominance), not just respect for rules. When the rules don't suit them, conservatives are fine with cheating rather than accepting their loss.
DeleteI also don't think all liberals are existentially authentic just because they reject the conservative's social Darwinism. There are various middle possibilities.
''the laws of nature (the sources of natural rights), but those aren't rules''
DeleteThey consider it as laws.
''Conservatives say they're stricter because they believe in "law and order," but that's about authoritarianism (submission and dominance), not just respect for rules''
What they regard as laws.
''When the rules don't suit them, conservatives are fine with cheating rather than accepting their loss.''
Of course, but especially since they don't regard them as such.
''I also don't think all liberals are existentially authentic just because they reject the conservative's social Darwinism. There are various middle possibilities.''
I am not referring to centrists when I speak of liberals and conservatives...
My biggest flaw here was to say ''conservatives'' or ''liberals'' as if referring to all of both groups. Of course, there are variations in trends and behaviors between them, within each group. But I'm referring to the most common characteristics, which define and differentiate them.
Delete