We can no longer ignore the effects of artificial factors on identity, nor can we let artificial factors be seen as invalidating the diversity that they may have, at least partially, "caused"
Martin, this is a wise and broad view of some of the most contentious issues of our day, and I think your perspective has the potential to pull us together across the partisan divides that (I believe) were intentionally planted by powerful elites whose method is to "divide and conquer".
I'd like to add one more dimension to your already-complex analysis, and that is the issue of socialization. Public education is broadly (not universally) considered to be a good. Education can't be separated from telling a story of the people, how we got here, what are appropriate ways to contribute to the commonwealth, what are acceptable behaviors in personal relationships and in public.
One extreme view (Jainism) is that people are born good and they will naturally behave decently toward one another. Rules and socialization toward those rules are at best unnecessary and at worst a framework that dares us to be as selfish as we can get away with. https://3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2023/07/law-versus-justice.html#more-236929
Another extreme (Hobbes) is that it is our nature to be selfish and to act in disregard of the harm we might do to others, and that there can be no civilization, indeed no peace, without laying down laws and training young people to obey them. I would say that this latter is the predominant Western tradition, and that its culmination is the philosophy of Edward Bernays, who believed that public attitudes and even public perceptions of what is true should be managed to make inherently selfish individuals into good citizens. Karl Popper might argue that Bernays was just reiterating the conclusion of Plato’s Republic.
Certainly we are shaped by our education and by the media environment in which we entertain and inform ourselves. What we see in the 21st Century is media managed according to the philosophy that manipulating the public with lies and with fear is virtuous so long as it contributes to a smooth-functioning commonweal. Stated this way, this rationale would have few adherents; but, of course, the Powers that Shouldn’t Be are not telling us what they’re doing, they’re just censoring people who support the wrong political candidate or who cite data that make people doubt the global warming narrative or who relate their personal experience with vaccines that might lead others to “hesitancy”.
So, I would like to add to your list of challenges this one: We as a society must decide how we wish to educate our children and how we communicate in public, so as to lay the foundation for a harmonious society while respecting individual rights and encouraging enough dissent to keep us honest and to allow for scientific and social progress.
I’m an evolutionary biologist, so it’s natural for me to see a precedent for this in natural selection, what David Sloan Wilson calls “multilevel selection”. We are evolved to take care of our own needs and those of our families, and also to care about others more broadly. We are heirs to “biophilia” which crosses species boundaries and inspires us to love life in all its forms.
Excellent writing and compassionate analysis of a core source of todays political polarity. I agree with the “both-and” way of thinking and find my own answers to todays debates to be nuanced as you describe. I follow you on Twitter and you are an inspiration as far as responses presented in a civil spirit of genuine communication. My Irish temper (nature lol) interferes sometimes but when I do pause, I often ask myself, how would Martin respond? Please keep up your good work.
Martin, this is a wise and broad view of some of the most contentious issues of our day, and I think your perspective has the potential to pull us together across the partisan divides that (I believe) were intentionally planted by powerful elites whose method is to "divide and conquer".
I'd like to add one more dimension to your already-complex analysis, and that is the issue of socialization. Public education is broadly (not universally) considered to be a good. Education can't be separated from telling a story of the people, how we got here, what are appropriate ways to contribute to the commonwealth, what are acceptable behaviors in personal relationships and in public.
One extreme view (Jainism) is that people are born good and they will naturally behave decently toward one another. Rules and socialization toward those rules are at best unnecessary and at worst a framework that dares us to be as selfish as we can get away with. https://3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2023/07/law-versus-justice.html#more-236929
Another extreme (Hobbes) is that it is our nature to be selfish and to act in disregard of the harm we might do to others, and that there can be no civilization, indeed no peace, without laying down laws and training young people to obey them. I would say that this latter is the predominant Western tradition, and that its culmination is the philosophy of Edward Bernays, who believed that public attitudes and even public perceptions of what is true should be managed to make inherently selfish individuals into good citizens. Karl Popper might argue that Bernays was just reiterating the conclusion of Plato’s Republic.
Certainly we are shaped by our education and by the media environment in which we entertain and inform ourselves. What we see in the 21st Century is media managed according to the philosophy that manipulating the public with lies and with fear is virtuous so long as it contributes to a smooth-functioning commonweal. Stated this way, this rationale would have few adherents; but, of course, the Powers that Shouldn’t Be are not telling us what they’re doing, they’re just censoring people who support the wrong political candidate or who cite data that make people doubt the global warming narrative or who relate their personal experience with vaccines that might lead others to “hesitancy”.
So, I would like to add to your list of challenges this one: We as a society must decide how we wish to educate our children and how we communicate in public, so as to lay the foundation for a harmonious society while respecting individual rights and encouraging enough dissent to keep us honest and to allow for scientific and social progress.
I’m an evolutionary biologist, so it’s natural for me to see a precedent for this in natural selection, what David Sloan Wilson calls “multilevel selection”. We are evolved to take care of our own needs and those of our families, and also to care about others more broadly. We are heirs to “biophilia” which crosses species boundaries and inspires us to love life in all its forms.
Excellent writing and compassionate analysis of a core source of todays political polarity. I agree with the “both-and” way of thinking and find my own answers to todays debates to be nuanced as you describe. I follow you on Twitter and you are an inspiration as far as responses presented in a civil spirit of genuine communication. My Irish temper (nature lol) interferes sometimes but when I do pause, I often ask myself, how would Martin respond? Please keep up your good work.