There is no way to wipe out the "self", or the ego, or individualism. It is here to stay.

In my discussions with leftists, one of the main arguments, in the philosophy fora where I spent most of my time, put forth by the left, is that there is no "I", that there is no "self".

The best way to control the masses is to convince people that their ideas of selfhood and their sense of free will and autonomy are delusional, to try and convince them that the "I", the "self", are "illusions". I have argued with one scientist for years who loves to proclaim that consciousness itself is an illusion. He's one of the most ardent progressive liberals I know, and he's also a classist. Everything comes down to class for him, and he loves to talk about the "great unwashed", who are people without university degrees, who, in his warped mind, are not qualified to have opinions about the things that impact their lives.

The 99 percent need to be protected, of course, by the liberal progressives who have only their best interests in mind. Um, yeah, sure.

There are literally hundreds of videos that can be seen on Youtube and elsewhere, interviewing university students on the subject of free speech. There was one young student, very fervent and emotional, who danced around the question until she finally came to say, and I paraphrase:

"Free speech advocates are themselves suspect. Free speech enables hate speech."

Yes, free speech enables hate speech. Hate speech is offensive and it's sad that we have a world full of hateful people. But to shut down free speech in an effort to protect people from being offended cannot and will not have good results.

Being told that your racist or in otherwise jackass political ravings are not welcome on a school campus is not a threat to a healthy public sphere in my opinion. It is probably a bad strategy that only draws attention to said jackassery. It is not evidence of an equation with progressives as fascists. It is based in a recognition that there is a historical correlation between fomenting that sort of fear of "the Others" and the rise in actual racial violence. Reading the about the early developments of genocidal states in the last century of human history I think it is hard to argue with the fury that takes never again seriously enough to refuse to trust in the quiet majority to safeguard targeted minorities. I believe that a website devoted to arguing has a fair share of brittle fools saying all sorts of things in the name of the Left. I just don't find the viable working groups that I think represent actual progressive actions to be that open to that sort of fool. Less so now than in decades past. I stand by my belief that Horowitz is a the sort of former true believer that makes the best inquisitor. Just as Hitchen's view of religion was based in his own inability to conceive of a more subtle spirituality and his own attraction to ideological rigidity so is Horowitz's left a sign of his own former restricted imagination. Like creationist's quoting physicists or molecular biologists that they really don't understand he quotes thinkers like Berdyaev who would turn in their graves at his agenda.

I find it difficult to take Horowitz seriously. Here is a link to some debates that he has been involved in. If you find an area of these debates where you think he is shows some persuasive and important thinking that shines in contrast to either Wise or Albert (neither of whom are very important to me at any kind of partisan level) I would be interested to see it.


The reference to self in the word idiot is about prioritization as against the needs of the commons. I have no interest in doing away with the self and have no interest in ideas that do. The psychology that I find the most useful us deeply invested in concepts of the self and the individual. On the other hand, denying that the general sickness at the heart of our culture is selfishness and the denial of our interdependence with all life is untenable.

I agree that the ancient Greek term idiotes contrasts the individual with the polis. This is true in modern French, where the word idiotisme means a term used by a single individual.

Update: A tactful PM taught me that idiotes means a private individual or layman (I was partly right), and reminded me that idiotisme means idiom (I was plain wrong, and i should know better). If a single person used an expression, language students would just avoid that person. :-)
So, my bad. I don't want to put any falsehoods out here.

I agree! In part. I agree with calling a racist a racist, but I don't agree that people with conservative opinions ought to be kept from speaking on campuses. The more exposure to ideas, the better, unless you believe that we should cultivate groupthink? I don't think you'd argue that that's the way to go.

There are indeed racist jackasses who deserve to be called racists, just as there are people like Eric Clanton who deserve to be called out and embarrassed for absurd, dangerous behavior. The last I heard, Professor Clanton has admitted to feeling guilty about his actions, and has admitted that his bicycle-lock bashing of a Trump supporter (could be that guy was being a dangerous jackass too, I don't know) mirrored the very fascist behavior he is committed to opposing.

I saw an antifa banner that read: The only good fascist is a dead one!

Well, while I fervently oppose fascism, I still would defend a person's right to espouse whatever political orientation they decided was right for them. What I would not defend, however, and this is a crucial point here - what I would NOT defend is an act of violence on any person who is merely exercising their right to march and speak and protest. I don't advocate violence in any form, except in self defense, or in defense of an innocent who is being physically assaulted.

I'm going to start another thread, using a Dave Rubin interview as a starting point, since we are hi-jacking Mike's thread here.

I would strongly encourage anyone who feels like discussing these sensitive issues in a rational manner to join the thread...

"Our tests have determined that the President is...an idiot."

"Doctor, what does that mean? Is it terminal?"

"Well...we... it is more of a syndrome than a specific disease. We know it has something to do with what used to be called the Id, and that there is a focus on self involved in a deeply ingrained sort of ignorance. Left unchecked for seven decades...we have never seen a cure. Cheer up though. He seems to like it."

Who do you hope to impress, and/or, what do you think is accomplished, by calling someone an idiot?

It does nothing, Andrew. Nothing, except make you feel better.

**Edited in: It also demeans real, actual, literal idiots - the unfortunate individuals whose intelligence is exceptionally low, through no fault of their own, by equating them with someone whose behavior is idiotic, on purpose.

Who would I be trying to impress. It isn't some jaw dropping analysis here. This guy's moral and intellectual bankruptcy is elementary.

I use the word idiot in the common sense as a total pejorative. I don't look down on the neuro-atypical or even the childlike. I find those mental states to be gifts and ways to learn from. But some chest thumping filth ripping off everyone around him, bragging about sexual assault and his own caustic ignorance while using racism and misogyny to leverage his own megalomania? Idiot. And enemy. Any nonviolent thing that will contribute to him finally meeting his deserts...bring it. Seriously, if you can't see what this guy is I really don't think we will find a common language on this subject. We can't be in the same world.

Sadly, I think you're right about that.

Andrew, did you notice that I said (indirectly) that Trump's behavior was "idiotic, on purpose" ? If you did, why do you suggest that I "can't see what this guy is"?

Have you seen, in any of my posts anywhere, anything that speaks kindly of DT? Have you failed to notice that I've repeatedly said I do not support him and that I did not vote for him? This is the kind of thing that makes political discussion so difficult.

'X is an idiot', isn't an argument. It does nothing, even if it's true!

With all due respect, I think you both are barking up the wrong tree.

In my view Trump is conducting himself like a CEO of a privately owned company that has just made the acquisition of a lifetime. It's what he does. He's seventy years-old. He has no intention of changing. It's all he knows how to do. He's never held (or even ran for) an elected office. He's never been a public servant. Ha! Imagine that! The Donald a public servant! Republicans who enable him should be ashamed of themselves.

The fact is he has displayed time and time again, during the campaign and now in office, that he is woefully deficient in his knowledge of the workings of government and the history and current affairs of US/world politics. Only mega doses of arrogance and narcissism can overcome those facts. What he knows how to do for better or for worse is run a business empire (though he has run that into the ground/bankruptcy several times). Only in that regard is he anything close to being an idiot.

Of course, he isn't CEO and the USA is not a business, much less a privately held business. We the people are CEO and shareholders. He is a public servant beholden to us. It is the antithesis of what he knows how to do and what he wants to be -- only now he knows. He thought he could be CEO. He can't. He lies in bed at night thinking how he can get us to bend to his will. It will not happen.

Ok, he's an idiot.

But it's far worse than being an idiot, I'm afraid. A good-hearted, well-meaning idiot could possibly do a reasonable job as president, but Trump is a mean-spirited, narcissistic, corrupt, greedy, impulsive, uncaring, sociopathic, divorced-from-reality, thuggish, lying and vengeful idiot who is quite possibly at the early stages of dementia. And I'm not just playfully hurling around insults. I thought about and meant every adjective.