Freedom or security?

[Nuvendil]

Mummelmann said:

Nuvendil said:

This kind of bifurcation of complex discussions is exactly what has caused intellectual discussion and philosophy among common people this generation to grind to a freaking halt. Are you a mysoginist or a feminist? Are you a hyper liberal or a hyper conservative? Do you want to take all guns away or do you have an abram in your basement? Are you an authoritarian yes man or a total freedom near-anarchist? And don't try to explain a middle ground or how extremes are almost always the worst options in complex situations because then your an indecisive coward who is unwilling to fight for freedom or order, depending on who you are talking to.

As for the Apple vs FBI debate, there IS no debate if both parties involved would get their heads out of their asses and use common sense. If incriminating documents were in a vault with an incinerator wired to the door to destroy evidence when the lock is picked or door is forced, you wouldn't just try to open it and hope for the best. You would find a specialist or preferably the designer to get it open for you. That's literally all this is. The smart phone is the vault, the "erase everything if you get the code wrong" is the incinerator. If the FBI would treat it as such and Apple would comply like what a normal, rational individual would there wouldn't *be* a debate. But no, even at the highest levels people have to make drama and get in pissing contests over simple issues.

The top bit; wow, just wow. Spoken as if you tore it out of my brain, I had this exact conversation at work today. I live in Sweden, the land without nuances and I feel like that every single day here, everything is polarized and either or and almost no one accepts middle ground suggestions.

Great post.

The most tragic irony - though for me it provokes a chuckle more than a sigh - is that in this current society that pays lip service relativism and a lack of moral and philosophical objective truths has more black-and-white argumentation and stagnation than there was at the opening of the 20th century, a far more objectivist society as far as underlying worldview goes.  That's right, a worldview about blithely accepting all ways of thinking equally has in fact bred more harsh bifurcation than we've seen in centuries.

But then is it that shocking?  True debate, true discussion comes from a pursuit of higher understanding, truth, a step forward.  You can't take a step forward with no destination.  Aristotle, Plato, Marcus Aurelius, St Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, René Descartes, Kant, Kierkegaard, Leibniz, all the great minds longed for understanding.  If there's no actual truth, nothing to really understand, what is there to pursue?  To drive true discussion and debate?  Nothing.  By throwing out a real truth or understanding to achieve, relativism throws out all incentive to pursue intellectual discussion.  Which isn't surprising; happened the last several times this kind of worldview rose up. Instead it devolves into the most crass, go-nowhere form of argumentation:  the "in it to win it" mindset that only cares about winning and not learning a thing.  A society that nonchalantly shrugs its shoulders in regard to whether there are objective truths is one that opens itself to being led along by shills, politicians, and "activists" (read "leeches") that will happily use extremes and bifurcation to stir up outrage and fanatical support.  

But that's enough railing on postmodern society for one thread.