Shared assumptions and shared premises

Quicksearch

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Thursday, October 18. 2007

Shared assumptions and shared premises

It is indeed difficult to discuss subjects when assumptions and premises are not shared. It is difficult to be a nation under those same conditions.

I think it is always necessary to clarify assumptions before discussing any issue.

Steyn: "The common space required for civil debate has shrivelled to a very thin sliver of ground." - �The 'cold civil war' in the US. (thanks, H)

Posted by Bird Dog in Politics at 11:10 | Comments (14) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

What is left over after all the sides have been chosen? Confusion, lack of national cohesion, communities torn asunder by ideology, families in turmoil.

This dichotomy has split us to the core. This is nothing new either. Only this time, at least more so than ever in my short life span, we have nothing to hold it all together. No more cold war, no more American Dream. (present but not acknowledged)

Greed and ignorance has crept high enough up the food chain as to blind all that should have a say, teachers, mayors, businessmen, future leaders. Partly because the boomers have a stranglehold on every ounce of power, pursuing their retirements as the house of cards sways. And partly because we are so distracted, even those who want to be in touch. Believe what you want, nobody is telling the truth.

I think we are ripe for attack under these conditions. And as long as nobody can agree about the scope and manner, the attack will continue and succeed.

#1 Phil on 2007-10-18 12:56 (Reply)

Gee, I thought the American Dream was that government would take care of me.

#1.1 BD on 2007-10-18 13:03 (Reply)

''Believe what you want, nobody is telling the truth.''

Why is that, i wonder?

#1.2 buddy larsen on 2007-10-18 14:15 (Reply)

i still think the question "qui bono?"
(or 'who benefits?') from political polarization
has a good deal of merit.

#2 gumshoe on 2007-10-18 14:17 (Reply)

...could the 'why' be as quotidian as the pulsating hype of content-starved 24 hr cable tv?

#2.1 buddy larsen on 2007-10-18 14:46 (Reply)

buddy -

if it weren't for the Gramsci revelations,
i'd say "sure...it's just media selling eyeballs".

#2.1.1 gumshoe on 2007-10-18 15:51 (Reply)

Steyn piece is superlative. People can't play the game if one side is using a baseball and the other a badminton birdie.

#3 buddy larsen on 2007-10-18 14:49 (Reply)

Games are for unserious people. For obvious players. May they have fun and the rest of us do the real work.

#4 Jack A. on 2007-10-18 16:07 (Reply)

IOW, avoid the baseball and catch the birdie while the rest of us advance on base in real life.

#5 Jack A. on 2007-10-18 16:10 (Reply)

Steyn used the 'ball game' analogy --making the point that America's two political sides have lost sight of the fact that for two sides to engage each other, there has to be at least somewhere a shared premise (as in, we are two football teams who want to stomp crap outta each other--but to do so, we have to have a 'football game'). but he's far better than I at it --it's a great piece.

#6 buddy larsen on 2007-10-18 20:20 (Reply)

(snip)

"Politics requires a minimum of shared assumptions. To compete you have to be playing the same game: you can't thwack the ball back and forth if one of you thinks he's playing baseball and the other fellow thinks he's playing badminton. Likewise, if you want to discuss the best way forward in the war on terror, you can't do that if the guy you're talking to doesn't believe there is a war on terror, only a racket cooked up by the Bushitler and the rest of the Halliburton stooges as a pretext to tear up the constitution.

Americans do not agree on the basic meaning of the last seven years."

(it goes on from there)

#7 buddy larsen on 2007-10-18 20:25 (Reply)

The key is the Left's "by all possible means."

#7.1 BD on 2007-10-18 20:56 (Reply)

--thing is, if that's one side's ethics, then it has to become the other side's, too --unless it would rather lose than go dirty. Gresham's Law, bad drives out good.

#7.1.1 buddy larsen on 2007-10-18 23:19 (Reply)

I read the piece earlier and got it. My throwaway point was not to point, just an aside about gaming and gamers in general.

Back to politics, i think the real problem is that most Repubs see our national interests and situation as real life and the Dems see them as a game. They're playing to win while the Repubs are talking issues and ideology. We're defaulting by not showing up to any field.

Cold civil war, tho, yeah. Some of us are finally getting it.

#7.2 Jack A. on 2007-10-18 21:11 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Thursday, October 18. 2007

Shared assumptions and shared premises