"We intend to produce content that is ideologically neutral, pro-human, heterodox, and based on the Enlightenment principles of rationalism, objectivity, compassion, truth, and fidelity to the individual."
Is this possible to do while honoring the diversity of practitioner and client lived experiences. I am not sure. Rationalism and pro-n…
"We intend to produce content that is ideologically neutral, pro-human, heterodox, and based on the Enlightenment principles of rationalism, objectivity, compassion, truth, and fidelity to the individual."
Is this possible to do while honoring the diversity of practitioner and client lived experiences. I am not sure. Rationalism and pro-neutral stances are products of Early Modern Europe (Enlightenment), where all prominent thinkers of that time were White. This is a fact. Quite pointedly, one could say focusing towards those goals leads to an indoctrination
Hmmmm. Let mush push on that a little. I have heard this argument before, mostly from people with a race conscious outlook. I think there is an assumption in this argument that persons of different races have “lived experiences” that contradict the value of ideas like rationality and objectivity. Yet, I note that opinions about these issues are as varied among people of color, for example, as they are among white people. I think the race conscious outlook is often mistaken as the the “official view” of people of color when no such “official view” exists in reality.
I have noticed that progressive outlooks are often assumed by progressive people to be the outlooks of people of color as a whole. I see no evidence that this is the case. I think it would be more accurate to say that people with progressive views would call into question issues like rationality and objectivity and I think they are wrong for doing so.
The reason I think this is that “lived experience” is a terrible concept to organize society around because it is not governed by anything but subjectivity backed by power. Once we accept “lived experience” as an acceptable foundation upon which to build policies and institutions, we have freed the basest most hateful persons who would see their views reified by law, from the burdens of skepticism and evidence. Had German institutions in the 1930’s upheld standard of objectivity, rationality and skepticism, a terrible tragedy could have been averted. However, due to a weakened society they acted on unchallenged subjectivity backed by power. Predictably, trajectory ensued.
I hear you, but you also present your arguments in a tangential manner. Firstly, there is nothing inherently wrong with being conscious about race. Being mindful of how someone's life could be impacted by race and racism is a sign of attending to health. However, it is wrong when we ascribe stereotypes and value to others based on their identities without them affirming or ascribing to it themselves.
Secondly, noting the demographics behind the early thinkers of the Enlightenment is bringing attention to context. Rationalism and objectivity were values to break away from religious indoctrination, and it must be said that those screaming this loudly were white men. Rationalism implied that those who believed in religion were irrational (a gross simplification, but rang true for many early mental health thinkers like Freud and Ellis). That is a fact. It's not assuming that people of color (PoC) did/do not have these values, nor should it imply such. It is simply naming that these values did not become large through PoC sharing their beliefs in these values.
Lastly, your argument against lived experience because of subjectivity is also contradictory. By learning about people and truly honoring people's humanity, we avoid mischaracterization and leaning on stereotypes. You imply that humans can be objective and I simply push back that we cannot be that way, because of horrors like the 1930s. In the same way you argue that Germany was being subjective backed by power, they in fact were actually claiming to be objective through eugenics. Heck much of our statistical analyses come from eugenicists in the name of modernity. Claiming that humans could reach objectivity actually led to the Holocaust
Lord mercy. Through the prism of ethnicity, specifically noting white medical professionals, with no thought to that providing benefits to Koreans who were assisted via missionaries and other doctors that provided their services without regard to their ethnicity in the early 1900’s.
I better add that Japan’s society benefited from the aforementioned enlightenment, and the African(Asian) continent. Nary a peep of ones ethnicity and grievance over so-called colonialism’s harmfulness. Only in the US with self absorbed, looking for any excuse to justify neo-Marxist ideology and belief adherence.
Rationalism is a product of white Europeans. That's not racism. That's an observation of fact. It's akin to saying Jazz and Blues music came from Black Americans
It's inherent to you that it's racist? While it's inherent to me as a fact. Sounds like a subjective disagreement. Even though you haven't refuted my point. David Hume, Rene Descartes, John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Immanuel Kant, Baruch Spinoza we're all prominent rationalists and also guess what? They were all White
Rationality is inherent to logic and reason. What’s your objective? Mao was Chinese and Frederick Douglass was black. You’re oversubscribed on identity instead of the inherent value of the idea.
Frederick Douglass and Mao are post-Enlightenment thinkers. Idk how you're bringing them into the argument, when the context was rationalism which came to center stage during the Enlightenment period. Secondly, you don't know what I'm subscribed to. I only named facts
"We intend to produce content that is ideologically neutral, pro-human, heterodox, and based on the Enlightenment principles of rationalism, objectivity, compassion, truth, and fidelity to the individual."
Is this possible to do while honoring the diversity of practitioner and client lived experiences. I am not sure. Rationalism and pro-neutral stances are products of Early Modern Europe (Enlightenment), where all prominent thinkers of that time were White. This is a fact. Quite pointedly, one could say focusing towards those goals leads to an indoctrination
Hmmmm. Let mush push on that a little. I have heard this argument before, mostly from people with a race conscious outlook. I think there is an assumption in this argument that persons of different races have “lived experiences” that contradict the value of ideas like rationality and objectivity. Yet, I note that opinions about these issues are as varied among people of color, for example, as they are among white people. I think the race conscious outlook is often mistaken as the the “official view” of people of color when no such “official view” exists in reality.
I have noticed that progressive outlooks are often assumed by progressive people to be the outlooks of people of color as a whole. I see no evidence that this is the case. I think it would be more accurate to say that people with progressive views would call into question issues like rationality and objectivity and I think they are wrong for doing so.
The reason I think this is that “lived experience” is a terrible concept to organize society around because it is not governed by anything but subjectivity backed by power. Once we accept “lived experience” as an acceptable foundation upon which to build policies and institutions, we have freed the basest most hateful persons who would see their views reified by law, from the burdens of skepticism and evidence. Had German institutions in the 1930’s upheld standard of objectivity, rationality and skepticism, a terrible tragedy could have been averted. However, due to a weakened society they acted on unchallenged subjectivity backed by power. Predictably, trajectory ensued.
I hear you, but you also present your arguments in a tangential manner. Firstly, there is nothing inherently wrong with being conscious about race. Being mindful of how someone's life could be impacted by race and racism is a sign of attending to health. However, it is wrong when we ascribe stereotypes and value to others based on their identities without them affirming or ascribing to it themselves.
Secondly, noting the demographics behind the early thinkers of the Enlightenment is bringing attention to context. Rationalism and objectivity were values to break away from religious indoctrination, and it must be said that those screaming this loudly were white men. Rationalism implied that those who believed in religion were irrational (a gross simplification, but rang true for many early mental health thinkers like Freud and Ellis). That is a fact. It's not assuming that people of color (PoC) did/do not have these values, nor should it imply such. It is simply naming that these values did not become large through PoC sharing their beliefs in these values.
Lastly, your argument against lived experience because of subjectivity is also contradictory. By learning about people and truly honoring people's humanity, we avoid mischaracterization and leaning on stereotypes. You imply that humans can be objective and I simply push back that we cannot be that way, because of horrors like the 1930s. In the same way you argue that Germany was being subjective backed by power, they in fact were actually claiming to be objective through eugenics. Heck much of our statistical analyses come from eugenicists in the name of modernity. Claiming that humans could reach objectivity actually led to the Holocaust
Lord mercy. Through the prism of ethnicity, specifically noting white medical professionals, with no thought to that providing benefits to Koreans who were assisted via missionaries and other doctors that provided their services without regard to their ethnicity in the early 1900’s.
I better add that Japan’s society benefited from the aforementioned enlightenment, and the African(Asian) continent. Nary a peep of ones ethnicity and grievance over so-called colonialism’s harmfulness. Only in the US with self absorbed, looking for any excuse to justify neo-Marxist ideology and belief adherence.
Thomas Aquinas would like a word.
Your point? Also, is that your only takeaway from everything I said? In other words, you have no rebuttal?
Rationalism is not the purview of white people. That thinking is racist.
agreed, completely
Rationalism is a product of white Europeans. That's not racism. That's an observation of fact. It's akin to saying Jazz and Blues music came from Black Americans
Disagree. It’s inherent in logic and reason, not invented like an art form.
That's not a disagreement. It's a point of inconvenience for your stance
It's inherent to you that it's racist? While it's inherent to me as a fact. Sounds like a subjective disagreement. Even though you haven't refuted my point. David Hume, Rene Descartes, John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Immanuel Kant, Baruch Spinoza we're all prominent rationalists and also guess what? They were all White
Rationality is inherent to logic and reason. What’s your objective? Mao was Chinese and Frederick Douglass was black. You’re oversubscribed on identity instead of the inherent value of the idea.
Frederick Douglass and Mao are post-Enlightenment thinkers. Idk how you're bringing them into the argument, when the context was rationalism which came to center stage during the Enlightenment period. Secondly, you don't know what I'm subscribed to. I only named facts