Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Count Lucanor]

Our motivations are not at issue here. It's not why we crave (unattainable) certainty, it's that we do crave it.

So then "fatal attractions" and "pointless extravagance of intellectual autoeroticism" are irrelevant. I agree. Some people (like me) still would like to have an opinion that is more than one's personal, subjective, visceral, point of view, making it a rational subject of discussion instead of mere exhortation to share one's gut-felt beliefs. Are rational discussions attainable? I'm pretty sure they are.

[Pattern-chaser]

Our motivations are not at issue here. It's not why we crave (unattainable) certainty, it's that we do crave it.

So then "fatal attractions" and "pointless extravagance of intellectual autoeroticism" are irrelevant. I agree.

No, not irrelevant. Those words are me insulting a thing ("Objectivity") that is tempting, even addictive, but ultimately fails to deliver what it promises.

Some people (like me) still would like to have an opinion that is more than one's personal, subjective, visceral, point of view, making it a rational subject of discussion instead of mere exhortation to share one's gut-felt beliefs. Are rational discussions attainable? I'm pretty sure they are.

I think you confuse rationality and certainty. The former is often attainable, if we're careful. The latter is not. We can guess, and express tentative confidence based on our guesses, that are often accurate, but we cannot know for certain.

I understand and accept your wishful thinking; certainty would definitely be useful, if it was attainable, but it is not. I would rather like it if the world I know had room in it for magic, proper magic such as wizards do. But that too is just wishful thinking, and my wish for it is probably not going to make it happen, is it? The same applies to your own wish for certainty; it's a fairy tale quest; unattainable, despite your fervent wishes.

[Count Lucanor]

Our motivations are not at issue here. It's not why we crave (unattainable) certainty, it's that we do crave it.

So then "fatal attractions" and "pointless extravagance of intellectual autoeroticism" are irrelevant. I agree.

No, not irrelevant. Those words are me insulting a thing ("Objectivity") that is tempting, even addictive, but ultimately fails to deliver what it promises.

Some people (like me) still would like to have an opinion that is more than one's personal, subjective, visceral, point of view, making it a rational subject of discussion instead of mere exhortation to share one's gut-felt beliefs. Are rational discussions attainable? I'm pretty sure they are.

I think you confuse rationality and certainty. The former is often attainable, if we're careful. The latter is not. We can guess, and express tentative confidence based on our guesses, that are often accurate, but we cannot know for certain.

I understand and accept your wishful thinking; certainty would definitely be useful, if it was attainable, but it is not. I would rather like it if the world I know had room in it for magic, proper magic such as wizards do. But that too is just wishful thinking, and my wish for it is probably not going to make it happen, is it? The same applies to your own wish for certainty; it's a fairy tale quest; unattainable, despite your fervent wishes.

I don't know from where you got the idea that I "wish for certainty", and by that I'm pretty sure you mean "absolute certainty". Not my words, I talked about objectivity and rational discussions, which put us in a field more stable for consensus and intellectual progress. Is it playing safer than speaking from your gut? Yes, it is.

Now, those who defend epistemological agnosticism could get away with it if they didn't commit the error of contradicting their own stance when asserting that we indeed CAN KNOW one thing for certain: that we cannot know for certain. If I believed you, that statement would be just a guess, wishful thinking, a fairy tale quest, an expression of your tentative confidence. I'll choose to believe you, leaving my own "tentative confidence" doing pretty well.

[GE Morton]

Did you ever read "Island" by Aldous Huxley? It's a great book. He uses the story as a vehicle to lay out his idea of what an ideal society would look like. It was not about GDP or military power, for sure, but about enabling every citizen to experience the most complete and fulfilling life possible. Children were taught logic and science and math, but also (and more importantly) creativity, kindness, empathy and such. I don't want to spill too much if you haven't read it.

Yes. "Greatness" as applied to countries means, "Exemplifies some ideologue's vision of Utopia."

[stevie]

... What is greatness actually with regard to a country? Is it its history, current status, GDP, people, economy, politics, or something else? Or is this merely a word used to discriminate countries and their people? Or is greatness merely an illusion?

I guess it may be pride about and/or affection for one's homeland and its native culture, so no inherent quality of the country.

[chewybrian]

Did you ever read "Island" by Aldous Huxley? It's a great book. He uses the story as a vehicle to lay out his idea of what an ideal society would look like. It was not about GDP or military power, for sure, but about enabling every citizen to experience the most complete and fulfilling life possible. Children were taught logic and science and math, but also (and more importantly) creativity, kindness, empathy and such. I don't want to spill too much if you haven't read it.

Yes. "Greatness" as applied to countries means, "Exemplifies some ideologue's vision of Utopia."

Greatness is measured only in dollars. We get it. You said it a thousand times. It's basically all you have to say.

[Pattern-chaser]

I don't know from where you got the idea that I "wish for certainty", and by that I'm pretty sure you mean "absolute certainty".

Not my words, I talked about objectivity...

...which, as you know, is a word that covers a multitude of 'sins'. If you meant something mild and meaningless, like 'pretty much unbiased', or 'more or less impartial', you should've said so!

[Sushan]

How can we say a country is great? What is greatness actually with regard to a country? Is it its history, current status, GDP, people, economy, politics, or something else? Or is this merely a word used to discriminate countries and their people? Or is greatness merely an illusion?

In the positive sense of "that's great!" - intended as praise - I am struggling to think of a single great country, past or present.

But "great" might also mean "powerful", and there, there is no lack of prospective candidates. But not one of those candidates approaches the positivity of "that's great!", I'm afraid.

So it depends on how we mean the word "great".

That is the thing. When this question was raised by the author, 'what makes America great?', I had the similar question, what is actually meant by 'greatness of a country'? There are powerful countries, rich countries, 'great to live-in' countries, but no collective definition for a country being great.

[Sushan]

What is greatness actually with regard to a country? Is it its history, current status, GDP, people, economy, politics, or something else? Or is this merely a word used to discriminate countries and their people? Or is greatness merely an illusion?

Is it . . .? Yes, everything. Great is a general adjective to compliment. Is it a word to discriminate? Someone hunting for demon would say that. Is it an illusion? To say that is a delusion to escape from facing reality.

If its a general complement, those who disagree can say not great. Complements are used not only to complement, but to discriminate as well. We do not say great to everyone or everything, and that means the ones that are not mentioned are not so great, and that is a piece of discrimination.

[Sushan]

How can we say a country is great? What is greatness actually with regard to a country? Is it its history, current status, GDP, people, economy, politics, or something else? Or is this merely a word used to discriminate countries and their people? Or is greatness merely an illusion?

In the positive sense of "that's great!" - intended as praise - I am struggling to think of a single great country, past or present.

But "great" might also mean "powerful", and there, there is no lack of prospective candidates. But not one of those candidates approaches the positivity of "that's great!", I'm afraid.

So it depends on how we mean the word "great".

Did you ever read "Island" by Aldous Huxley? It's a great book. He uses the story as a vehicle to lay out his idea of what an ideal society would look like. It was not about GDP or military power, for sure, but about enabling every citizen to experience the most complete and fulfilling life possible. Children were taught logic and science and math, but also (and more importantly) creativity, kindness, empathy and such. I don't want to spill too much if you haven't read it.

Thank you for mentioning the book, and I this is I must try it. But the problem with such ideas is that they are not norms in the mundane world, but are thoughts and suggestions of a single person. And that may or may not be accepted by others as being great. For those who already experience a prosperous life such a wonderful society may not be a necessity, and their needs can be far more bigger than that, but may not be great in the view of the others.

[Sushan]

This topic is about the June 2022 Philosophy Book of the Month, What Makes America Great by Bob Dowell



This author has tried to show what has made, and currently making America great. Despite America's greatness (or not) is a separate topic to discuss, this book gives rise to a much bigger question.

How can we say a country is great? What is greatness actually with regard to a country? Is it its history, current status, GDP, people, economy, politics, or something else? Or is this merely a word used to discriminate countries and their people? Or is greatness merely an illusion?

I haven't read that book, but I think I have a fair knowledge of what is about based on reviews. Most likely I will never read it, unless I wanted to vomit.

Talking about "greatness" of a country seems pointless, if not for propaganda purposes or other attempts to play with political ideologies for proselytizing. The appeal to history (and also religion in Dowell's narrative) makes it particularly fitted to these purposes, trying to sell the idea of a "manifest destiny".

If an objective criteria had to be defined for declaring "greatness", I would ask that it focused on current measurable conditions as indicators that a standard of greatness is met.

I agree. The author has tried to show that America has been great in the past, and he describes its history and religious background to prove his point. In sociology many formulas are formed to measure various social factors. I think such an objective formula, as you suggested, is better to consider ongoing facts and to decide whether a country is great or not.

[Sushan]

The question only matters when you actively choose the country to live in. If you don't have a choice or do not want to make a choice, then the question is irrelevant.

I move where I am treated best.

I make all my money online. So, there is no requirement for me to be physically present anywhere in particular.

First of all, I do not agree to stay in countries where the government interferes in any way between man and woman, or parents and children.

Most countries outside the West don't do that. So, approximately 80% of the world's surface satisfies this requirement.

Secondly, I do not want to pay income tax or social security levies. In practice, I never have to do that outside the West.

Of course, I also prefer places that have functioning utilities, such as electricity, running water, and fast internet.

I also prefer to live in a building with 24/7 security guard, swimming pool, and gym. But then again, you can get these facilities in all capital cities in the world, and even in many of the provincial cities.

In SE Asia, these things seem to be generally much cheaper than elsewhere.

Furthermore, there also needs to be a relative shortage of men with good finances in the area, as well as a surplus of young, pretty, undamaged women.

SE Asia is exactly like that, and therefore a great area to live in.

In my opinion, living outside the West is much better for your private life as well as for your personal finances. The same dollars buy you a lot more.

What a view! I think most of men (including myself) think of such an ideal world, and in addition I would like to stay without even working to earn my money, LOL. But every city, every country, every region has its drawbacks, and it is really hard to be fully satisfied despite you choose the best place to live as per your requirements. Only a comparatively better place can be chosen, which will be the most great in our own eyes.

[Sushan]

In the positive sense of "that's great!" - intended as praise - I am struggling to think of a single great country, past or present.

But "great" might also mean "powerful", and there, there is no lack of prospective candidates. But not one of those candidates approaches the positivity of "that's great!", I'm afraid.

So it depends on how we mean the word "great".

There are these two dimensions, yes. Power and positivity, if you will.

I think what's meant by "great" in this context is a country that one can take pride in.

It's hard to be proud of a militarily and economically weak country that acts as others tell it to.

But also hard to be proud of a country that's successful only in amorally promoting its own self-interest.

I suggest that what we take pride in is a country that effectively acts in the world to promote our values.

"Making a country great" is about getting back that sense of collective self-belief. The belief that one's country is a force for good in the world, whether that good is conceived as civilisation, or peace between nations, or justice, or any other value.

What it's opposed to is that cultural relativism which insists that no country can ever be a force for justice or civilisation because everyone else's idea of justice or civilisation is necessarily as good as one's own.

It is good if you can be proud of your motherland, or the country where you currently live in. But if your status of living is poor and your country does not try anything to make it better, what is the point being proud about it based on its history, military power, and economical strength. To have such a feeling a person should have quite a big heart and a very positive mind-set.

[Sushan]

If an objective criteria had to be defined for declaring "greatness", I would ask that it focused on current measurable conditions as indicators that a standard of greatness is met.

I think that this topic, and many similar ones, do not gain anything from an attempt to convert human value judgements into something "objective", defined, and precise. I suspect that such a conversion is not even possible. I wonder why some of us feel such a need for certainty?

Objective measures are necessary to avoid arguments. If there was an objective measure this author may not have a cause to even write his book, and America may not have been divided based on what Trump said. If there was an objective score either he would have been accepted or merely rejected. All the arguments are occurred due to the uncertainty.

[Sushan]

If an objective criteria had to be defined for declaring "greatness", I would ask that it focused on current measurable conditions as indicators that a standard of greatness is met.

I think that this topic, and many similar ones, do not gain anything from an attempt to convert human value judgements into something "objective", defined, and precise. I suspect that such a conversion is not even possible. I wonder why some of us feel such a need for certainty?

I agree this is not the most appropriate subject for which one would create a standard and measure the performance against it, but any attempt to qualify something, should set up a measurable criteria to do so. Anyone could replicate the measurement and at least we can talk objectively about the distance from the point of reference. That's how we worked out geographic coordinates and came up with very useful stuff to do with them. The reference criteria is disputable, though. Take the definition of "poverty" from the World Bank, for example.

Having an objective measure will avoid any arguments and it will bring certainty. But the effort to make such a measure is quite tiresome, and before even beginning such an endeavor the necessity and value should be evaluated. What is the actual need of an objective way to measure the greatness of a country? I see none.