The Parish pump is here to stay.

Hawkeye123

The issue of parish pump politics taking precedence over national politics has long been debated on Boards. Many very good suggestions have been proffered for dealing with the problem of ministers who spend/invest disproportionately in their own constituency. Also, there have been some great ideas for dealing with the problem of locals rallying around their local politician even if he/she is suspected of wrongdoing.
So, why have none of these ideas been implemented by our politicians?
Normally, in the Political Theory forum one is expected to support a theory with a quote, statistic or reference but since I am about to reveal an original notion – this is not possible. If there is a relevant quote, chances are it did not originate from a politician.
My theory is this: Politicians choose to maintain the parish pump system because it is divides the locals from the national electorate. For example, a politician who is reviled on the national stage can cling to power by simply keeping the locals on his side. And, since all politics is local, all politicians can deploy this tactic. Ok, so far I have not revealed anything new but I`m getting there. This strategy of dividing the locals from the national electorate could just as easily be called “Divide and Conquer.”
In short my theory is this: Politicians divide and the people are conquered.
Is it any wonder they will not reform the parish pump system. I know many readers may say this is not an original idea, but I have not been able to find a quote to support it.

Histie

Hawkeye123 wrote: »

My theory is this: Politicians choose to maintain the parish pump system because it is divides the locals from the national electorate. For example, a politician who is reviled on the national stage can cling to power by simply keeping the locals on his side. And, since all politics is local, all politicians can deploy this tactic. Ok, so far I have not revealed anything new but I`m getting there. This strategy of dividing the locals from the national electorate could just as easily be called “Divide and Conquer.”

Whilst I see a certain logic in your hypothesis, I can only see the relevance to a small number of politicians, the most obvious example being Michael Lowry TD; indeed, his unpopularity with what he would term the "Dublin media" is not only not harmful, but something which is even used to give an impression of a brave underdog.

However, most TDs are not household names like Lowry, and do not even have a national profile, so it is not really an issue for them, and as such do not see it as something in the interest of politicians as a whole. I do not see the localism of our politics as a ploy, and if there are people in whose interests it exists, this more likely derives from their adaptation to it, given how entrenched our electoral system is.

Interestingly, only 57% of TDs in the 30th Dáil actually supported the retention of PR-STV, so support for our system is surprisingly limited even amongst its beneficiaries.

cristoir

Give councils genuine power and make them fund themselves through rates/local income tax. That way the local heroes don't get to blame local problems on Dublin. They have to solve them themselves.

driver02

Hawkeye123 wrote: »

The issue of parish pump politics taking precedence over national politics has long been debated on Boards. Many very good suggestions have been proffered for dealing with the problem of ministers who spend/invest disproportionately in their own constituency. Also, there have been some great ideas for dealing with the problem of locals rallying around their local politician even if he/she is suspected of wrongdoing.
So, why have none of these ideas been implemented by our politicians?
Normally, in the Political Theory forum one is expected to support a theory with a quote, statistic or reference but since I am about to reveal an original notion – this is not possible. If there is a relevant quote, chances are it did not originate from a politician.
My theory is this: Politicians choose to maintain the parish pump system because it is divides the locals from the national electorate. For example, a politician who is reviled on the national stage can cling to power by simply keeping the locals on his side. And, since all politics is local, all politicians can deploy this tactic. Ok, so far I have not revealed anything new but I`m getting there. This strategy of dividing the locals from the national electorate could just as easily be called “Divide and Conquer.”
In short my theory is this: Politicians divide and the people are conquered.
Is it any wonder they will not reform the parish pump system. I know many readers may say this is not an original idea, but I have not been able to find a quote to support it.

spot on that's why we have so many gombeen men in the Dail with no interest in the national interest

Hawkeye123

cristoir wrote: »

Give councils genuine power and make them fund themselves through rates/local income tax. That way the local heroes don't get to blame local problems on Dublin. They have to solve them themselves.

I actually agree with this even though it seems to contradict what I said earlier. If we were a federal republic - like Switzerland for example, that would work. Under our present system, politicians are supposed to serve the nation but their bread is buttered locally. So, under our present system national politicians merely pay lip service to the nation and real service to their local constituents. Hence the state of the nation.

krd

cristoir wrote: »

Give councils genuine power and make them fund themselves through rates/local income tax. That way the local heroes don't get to blame local problems on Dublin. They have to solve them themselves.

No, because the councils would be as bollocky and slippery or even worse than national politicians.

Councils were behind all the awful planning decisions. And the boondongle projects for the cronies.

If you look at Ireland in the pre-boom years. We had a terrible national road network - we had something like 17 miles of low grade motorway. But bizarrely, we were in the Guinness Book of Records for the most road per-capita in the world.

Bockety boreen building was money into the pockets of the local boys.

Jellicoe

The quality of Irish politician is directly related the the quality of the Irish voter.
You get what you vote for.
E.g. evenone knew fine well Bertie and his FF pals were dirty, but they still loved them.
Now FG/Lab are the new FF, same politics, just different cronies.
Honest people steer clear of Irish politics for a reason.

Belfast

Special interest groups do the same as the parish pump at national level.
In the present system of politics no politician is rewarded for think of what is in the interest of Ireland as a nation.

"Ask not what you can do for your country, Ask what your country can do for you "

Seems to me that this is what drives politics in Ireland.

Irish votes always vote for "Mé Féin" never "Sinn Féin".

"It is not fair" normally means in Irish politics means some one else should pay.

Hawkeye123

Jellicoe wrote: »

The quality of Irish politician is directly related the the quality of the Irish voter.
You get what you vote for.
E.g. evenone knew fine well Bertie and his FF pals were dirty, but they still loved them.

This is a good point. When democracy goes wrong it is usually because the populice is mentally immature. Conversely, democracy is brilliant where the ellectorate are sensible people. Is it surprising that a country which invented and cellibrates Aurthurs day is mentally immature. The drinking, smoking, drug taking, gambling ways of the Irish is another reflection of our mental immaturity. Also, socialism tends to thrive in democracies like our own. Where you have ignorance, you have socialism and vice versa. Indeed socialism thrives on the very ignorance it creates. A case in point is the constant harping that left wingers do about state subsidies for private schools. A contemptable suggestion but one which does illustrate my point - socialism would rather punish those who invest in their children`s education than tackle the evils of our drink culture.

The Corinthian

Hawkeye123 wrote: »

When democracy goes wrong it is usually because the populice is mentally immature. Conversely, democracy is brilliant where the ellectorate are sensible people.

And whom decides whom is 'sensible' then, in the defence of democracy?

Any population will vary wildly in terms of intellect, education and maturity. Naturally this means you'll have citizens, as a result, who will tend to support short-term, self-interested and ultimately irrational policies. Yet if we are to counteract such negative democratic influences, how do we measure 'mental maturity'? Raise the voting age to 25 or 40? Allow voting rights to only those who have achieved a Leaving Certificate? A Bachelors degree? A Masters degree? IQ tests for all and if you score above 95 (100 being the mean score) then you can vote?

Winston Churchill once correctly quipped that "democracy is the worst form of government, with the exception of all the others", and this is simply because modern democracy, with it's doctrine of universal suffrage, is the only system that has a comprehensive oversight on government.

This is not to suggest that there is not significant room for reform - tying representation to geographic constituencies is at this stage grossly out of date, given that modern labour market economics have meant that we increasingly will be forced to move to different locations in search of employment - but if we do decide to reform democracy, it is important to remember that introducing even a slight electoral bias could irrevocably damage it.

Also, socialism tends to thrive in democracies like our own. Where you have ignorance, you have socialism and vice versa. Indeed socialism thrives on the very ignorance it creates.

In fairness, you get this whenever you have any kind of extremist politics that will promise simplistic solutions and scapegoats to complex problems, so it's hardly limited to socialism, as the recent successes of the Golden Dawn in Greece and Jobbik in Hungary will demonstrate.

Hawkeye123

The Corinthian wrote: »

Any population will vary wildly in terms of intellect, education and maturity. Naturally this means you'll have citizens, as a result, who will tend to support short-term, self-interested and ultimately irrational policies. Yet if we are to counteract such negative democratic influences, how do we measure 'mental maturity'? Raise the voting age to 25 or 40? Allow voting rights to only those who have achieved a Leaving Certificate? A Bachelors degree? A Masters degree? IQ tests for all and if you score above 95 (100 being the mean score) then you can vote?

My suggestion would be that we as a nation should adopt a culture which embrases philosophy and philosophical approaches to problem solving. I think that would work better than getting plastered on a gallon of Guinness. The transition would be challenging but where there is a will there is always a way. Unfortunately the love of drink and drugs is not confined to the gutter - these vices are just as likely to be found in the Dail bar.

The Corinthian

Hawkeye123 wrote: »

My suggestion would be that we as a nation should adopt a culture which embrases philosophy and philosophical approaches to problem solving. I think that would work better than getting plastered on a gallon of Guinness. The transition would be challenging but where there is a will there is always a way. Unfortunately the love of drink and drugs is not confined to the gutter - these vices are just as likely to be found in the Dail bar.

Didn't Marxism have similar aspirations to reshape human nature for the greater good? How did that work out?

What you're seeking is to reverse something that has been present in human societies for literally millennia. The unthinking nature of the mob, the lowest common denominator, has been around as long as there has been long-term human settlement - panem et circenses - yet your plan to fundamentally change this is "where there is a will there is always a way".

Ultimately, all you're suggesting is some vague aspiration and when I put forward realistic issues with its implementation, your response was the cliché of "where there is a will there is always a way". Aspirations are all very well, but on their own they really are little more than narcissistic navel gazing.

Hawkeye123

The Corinthian wrote: »

Didn't Marxism have similar aspirations to reshape human nature for the greater good? How did that work out? Aspirations are all very well, but on their own they really are little more than narcissistic navel gazing.

Marxism failed because it is a bad idea. It is true that aspirations for aspirations sake is akin to pub talk. My idea is that we do what other sucessful societies do which is to copy and if possible improve on the ways of the most exemplary societies on earth. When I said we should adopt a philosophical approach to dealing with our problems I was not thinking of the bolshies but of the Jewish culture which is more intellectual than our own and they tend to have a more responsible attitude than the victim mentality which is so prevelent amoung our own people. They also have an infinately better work ethic but I suppose when you look at the HSE it is difficult to see how anyone could have a worse work ethic than our own.

The Corinthian

Hawkeye123 wrote: »

Marxism failed because it is a bad idea. It is true that aspirations for aspirations sake is akin to pub talk. My idea is that we do what other sucessful societies do which is to copy and if possible improve on the ways of the most exemplary societies on earth.

There are numerous reasons why some cultures have greater civic duties or work ethics. History shapes them to begin with, and with history things such as religion have a strong influence. So does environment; climate is a significant factor, as are resources, that ensure that a society requires needs to work hard and be disciplined, simply to survive. And, of course, such qualities did not form overnight, but in many cases took centuries, if not millennia to develop.

This is not to say that some level of social engineering to encourage such qualities is impossible, but as with Marxism's attempts to change human nature to one that naturally followed a path of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need", may be met with limited (to no) limited success.

And then of course, there is the price of such qualities, and there is a price because often those very qualities we seek to encourage will be incompatible with other, desirable, cultural traits.

For example, look at the Swiss; impeccable civic duty and an unshakable work ethic - many Swiss, when they lose their jobs, will refuse to take social welfare out of pride, such is the culture. Now name me a dozen, half or even quarter dozen truly World famous Swiss artists or monuments. There's practically none; those that they even put on their banknotes are essentially unheard of (even in Switzerland) and art is typically seen foremost as an investment.

So ultimately, while I agree what you propose is a nice idea in principle, I do think you need to think it through in practice, because in doing so it may turn out to be unworkable or result in undesirable consequences if attempted - in short it may turn out to be a 'bad' idea in the end. After all, Marxism was a nice idea in principle too.

When I said we should adopt a philosophical approach to dealing with our problems I was not thinking of the bolshies but of the Jewish culture which is more intellectual than our own and they tend to have a more responsible attitude than the victim mentality which is so prevelent amoung our own people. They also have an infinately better work ethic but I suppose when you look at the HSE it is difficult to see how anyone could have a worse work ethic than our own.

You've clearly spent no time in Israel...

Hawkeye123

The Corinthian wrote: »

And then of course, there is the price of such qualities, and there is a price because often those very qualities we seek to encourage will be incompatible with other, desirable, cultural traits.

For example, look at the Swiss; impeccable civic duty and an unshakable work ethic - many Swiss, when they lose their jobs, will refuse to take social welfare out of pride, such is the culture. Now name me a dozen, half or even quarter dozen truly World famous Swiss artists or monuments. There's practically none;...

While this may be true - the consequences on art are even more corrosive in our own society where the drink/drug/gambling culture is tollerated and philosophical thinking is not actively encouraged as a way of life. Here for example we celibrate the work of Joice, Yeats and Beckett. As far as I am concerned those people wrote in a foreign language and where of foreign bloodstock. Therefore they were not even Irish. That is not to say they cannot be Irish but for that to happen we must 1. Reveive our language 2. Apply Gaelicised versions of their names to those aforementioned individuals and 3. Translate their works to our own language.
You also mention monuments. Because of our infiriority complex which is the consequence of drinking instead of thinking - we have an obilisk in the Pheonix Park (named after a foreign mythological creature) and a spike in O`Connell Street instead of something relevant to our culture. We also protect Georgian and Eduardian buildings - examples of which can be found all over the former British empire, yet we allow our own unique ancient buildings to decay. Also, no effort has ever been made to repare the roundtowers which were vandalised by the infamous war criminal Oliver Cromwell.

The Corinthian wrote: »

So ultimately, while I agree what you propose is a nice idea in principle, I do think you need to think it through in practice, because in doing so it may turn out to be unworkable or result in undesirable consequences if attempted - in short it may turn out to be a 'bad' idea in the end. After all, Marxism was a nice idea in principle too.

A couple of points here: Marxism is an ideology - it cannot be fundamentally changed without giving it a different name eg capitalism (which by the way is a good idea). A culture or society is made up of people. People can change. Anyone who has migrated from a poor rural country to a wealthy city in a new country can adjust very quickly and often thrive in their new setting. So what does it take for this to happen - a cogent arguement and a respected speaker - someone like Marx for example. If only the guy had a good idea.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Denerick

I often laugh when Irish people ring in on Joe Duffy or complain on boards about the poor quality of our politicians, as if the Irish people are being actively betrayed by a coterie of self serving party hacks only interested in building bridges in Skibereen or bringing hospitals to Monaghan. You know why we have this intensely localised political discourse? Because the citizenry of Ireland are selfish, small minded, and parochial. Until that changes, the structural problems within Irish politics will remain.

kabakuyu

Denerick wrote: »

Because the citizenry of Ireland are selfish, small minded, and parochial.

Would that be all citizens of Ireland ? would you include non citizens but those who are resident here? Are you a citizen?do you apply these traits to yourself/ or are they the preserve of others? do you consider yourself to be benvolent,open minded and enlightened?

Hawkeye123

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Hitler mocked the Jews - that is what foreign biggots do. Like Joyce, you seem to be confusing culture with ethnicity. For practical purposes I would advocate the principle of broadening the gene pool - of course this should be done through invite in preference to a Cromwellian style invasion.

I believe the Irish language can be revived successfully beginning with total immersion at kindergarten level. If Finnegan`s Wake does not translate well - that would be unfortunate for Finegan`s Wake. We could of course write our own literature in our own language.

The Corinthian

Hawkeye123 wrote: »

While this may be true - the consequences on art are even more corrosive in our own society where the drink/drug/gambling culture is tollerated and philosophical thinking is not actively encouraged as a way of life.

So drinking, drugs and gambling are consequences of art? How did you arive at that conclusion and how do you explain Italy - hardly a poster boy of binge drinking culture, for example, despite possessing more artistic tradition than any country on the planet.

Here for example we celibrate the work of Joice, Yeats and Beckett. As far as I am concerned those people wrote in a foreign language and where of foreign bloodstock. Therefore they were not even Irish.

Well then, we're all foreigners then - including you. After all, if James Joyce's 'bloodstock' is foreign in your view, then it's unlikely that anyone could present any more Irish a lineage. On which point, you clearly see the Anglo-Irish as 'foreign'; what about those of Norman stock? Viking? Or Celts (given they were not the original inhabitants of Hibernia)?

As for our use of a 'foreign language', is that not what we are conversing in now?

That is not to say they cannot be Irish but for that to happen we must 1. Reveive our language 2. Apply Gaelicised versions of their names to those aforementioned individuals and 3. Translate their works to our own language.

That is your opinion, of course. Still, I don't really see how any of this actually is a response to my last reply.

BTW, which Irish, because 'modern' Irish is not strictly speaking the Irish spoken a few centuries ago, let alone middle or old Irish - different languages altogether, just like Old English would be to English. And which dialect? I know there's an 'official' one, but if so you might mention that to those Gaeltachts who don't speak it if that's the case.

Perhaps going back to old Irish might be best - before all those horrible foreign influences changed the language. Isn't ech better than capall, which came into usage only as a result of the corrupting influence of Latin? Indeed, should we not consider abandoning Christianity too, while we're at it, given it is fundamentally foreign - it's not even Indo-European in origin.

A couple of points here: Marxism is an ideology - it cannot be fundamentally changed without giving it a different name eg capitalism (which by the way is a good idea).

Interesting point, but again irrelevant to my reply. Also, BTW, Capitalism is an economic system, not an ideology.

A culture or society is made up of people. People can change.

Which oddly enough was what Marxism believed, and that was my point. You see, Marxism believed that it could socially engineer self-interest out of the human condition and unfortunately it couldn't. You similarly are selling the came concept and likely committing the same error. Of course people can change and adapt. However, there are limits to this as history has taught us.

Hawkeye123 wrote: »

Hitler mocked the Jews - that is what foreign biggots do.

What do domestic bigots do instead?

TBH, I don't know where you think you're going with this romantic argument. If we're discussing the corrosive nature of 'parish pump' politics in Ireland, you've not put forward any argument so far, let alone a believable one, that such policies would solve this issue.

Indeed, we're we to consider critically pre-Anglo-Irish Ireland, one would have to conclude that 'parish pump' politics in Ireland was even more prevalent. After all, the Norman invasion of Ireland was ultimately the product of 'parish pump' politics - local interests trumping national ones.

Thus, the evidence would seem to point at, that what you propose would actually make things worse, not better.

Hawkeye123

Hello Corinthian. Yes we all speak a foreign language but that does not make us foreigners. If the foreign language were ours - we would be foreigners. You raise a lot of red herrings but to simplify matters we should differenciate those who were assimilated into the Gaelic culture and those who were not. The invaders from england never Gaelicised and therefore the undoing of their influence on our culture is a work in progress. Christianity was adopted not the consequence of invasion with genocidal intent. The version of Gaelic best suited the modern Ireland is modern Irish Gaelic which does include words which were adopted by native speakers from other languages. Marxism was, is and always will be a bad idea. It only ever seemed like a good idea to the gullible, the wise knew better inately and the rest tend to discover the folly of marxism through bitter experience or disallusionment.

The Corinthian

Hawkeye123 wrote: »

Hello Corinthian. Yes we all speak a foreign language but that does not make us foreigners. If the foreign language were ours - we would be foreigners. You raise a lot of red herrings but to simplify matters we should differenciate those who were assimilated into the Gaelic culture and those who were not. The invaders from england never Gaelicised and therefore the undoing of their influence on our culture is a work in progress. Christianity was adopted not the consequence of invasion with genocidal intent. The version of Gaelic best suited the modern Ireland is modern Irish Gaelic which does include words which were adopted by native speakers from other languages.

Therefore, by your 'logic' the nature by which a new or foreign influence that changed Ireland was introduced makes it good or bad. In that case most modern languages and cultures should likely be abandoned; English (a product largely of the Angle and Saxon invasions of England) is one example. Indeed, there are very few European cultures or languages that have not been shaped by an invasion along the way - certainly none of the Slavic or Germanic languages. Christianity should likely be abandoned in much of eastern Europe too, by the same logic, given it's introduction through the northern crusades.

None of which is ultimately relevant as it fails to actually responds to the question of how such a reintroduction of Gaelic Irish culture would somehow solve the curse of 'parish pump' politics in Ireland - especially given that the evidence is that this was an even more pronounced issue in Gaelic Ireland. You've avoided explaining this part of your logic.

Will you address that or would you like to wax lyrical a little more on the intangible benefits of romantic nationalism?

Marxism was, is and always will be a bad idea. It only ever seemed like a good idea to the gullible, the wise knew better inately and the rest tend to discover the folly of marxism through bitter experience or disallusionment.

Is there a reason you have completely ignored the point I made? In your arguments you are embracing a central belief in Marxism (the mutability of human nature), despite its failure in Marxism and your own, ironic, rejection of the ideology. How do you reconcile such a contradiction in your own logic?

Hawkeye123

The Corinthian wrote: »

Therefore, by your 'logic' the nature by which a new or foreign influence that changed Ireland was introduced makes it good or bad. In that case most modern languages and cultures should likely be abandoned; English (a product largely of the Angle and Saxon invasions of England) is one example. Indeed, there are very few European cultures or languages that have not been shaped by an invasion along the way - certainly none of the Slavic or Germanic languages. Christianity should likely be abandoned in much of eastern Europe too, by the same logic, given it's introduction through the northern crusades.

None of which is ultimately relevant as it fails to actually responds to the question of how such a reintroduction of Gaelic Irish culture would somehow solve the curse of 'parish pump' politics in Ireland - especially given that the evidence is that this was an even more pronounced issue in Gaelic Ireland. You've avoided explaining this part of your logic.

Will you address that or would you like to wax lyrical a little more on the intangible benefits of romantic nationalism?

Is there a reason you have completely ignored the point I made? In your arguments you are embracing a central belief in Marxism (the mutability of human nature), despite its failure in Marxism and your own, ironic, rejection of the ideology. How do you reconcile such a contradiction in your own logic?

For future reference, may I suggest that you present me with a single red herring at a time - I have a life you see. To that end, I will confine myself to addressing the very first point you have made.

Yes, in many cases where a foreign language has been imposed - the ideal would be to unwind the evil legacy by reviving and reinstating the former language. This of course is up to the inhabitants - some would favor such a move, others would resist it. The seeds of bitterness, hatred, resentment and war are the inevitable long term consequence of invasion. Take the muslims for example, they are still waffling on about the crusades (as are other people I could mention Corinthian)

oscarBravo

Hawkeye123 wrote: »

This of course is up to the inhabitants - some would favor such a move, others would resist it.

Would it be fair to say that if a majority of us are content to consider English our native language as opposed to a "foreign" one, that that should settle the issue?

The Corinthian

Hawkeye123 wrote: »

For future reference, may I suggest that you present me with a single red herring at a time - I have a life you see. To that end, I will confine myself to addressing the very first point you have made.

Convenient way to sidestep uncomfortable points, I see. As to red herrings, from what I can see, you're the only one introducing them as a sidestepping tactic, from what I can see.

For example, I specifically asked "will you address that or would you like to wax lyrical a little more on the intangible benefits of romantic nationalism?" That's not a red herring, that is a direct challenge to your general thesis that somehow, through some as yet magical process, your romantic vision of Irish nationalism would change the Irish psyche, unrelated to it.

Ironically, your calling my point a red herring, is in itself a red herring designed to avoid responding.

Yes, in many cases where a foreign language has been imposed - the ideal would be to unwind the evil legacy by reviving and reinstating the former language. This of course is up to the inhabitants - some would favor such a move, others would resist it. The seeds of bitterness, hatred, resentment and war are the inevitable long term consequence of invasion. Take the muslims for example, they are still waffling on about the crusades (as are other people I could mention Corinthian)

Yet despite promising to respond to my first point, which was questioning your logic in what constituted a good foreign influence from a bad one, you just regurgitate this vague romantic notion that reverting to Irish would magically change our psyche.

And the reason I describe it as magical, is simply because you have not presented a single cogent argument, let alone evidence that it is anything other than a magical process - in other words, nothing more than wishful thinking on your part.

Hawkeye123

oscarBravo wrote: »

Would it be fair to say that if a majority of us are content to consider English our native language as opposed to a "foreign" one, that that should settle the issue?

It depends on what you mean by "settle the issue." If it means everyone should speak English and be satisfied with that - I don`t think the idea would catch on. Also, lets say the majority are satisfied to speak English - who is to say that attitude will not change in a generation. We really do not want to tie ourselves to a sinking ship do we? Lets be honest - the remnants of the former British empire are ebbing away with each passing decade. Also, the only reason America became a great nation was because of capitalism. Now that they are turning bolshie - you have to question weather there is a future for the English language.

Hawkeye123

The Corinthian wrote: »

Convenient way to sidestep uncomfortable points, I see. As to red herrings, from what I can see, you're the only one introducing them as a sidestepping tactic, from what I can see.

I will not ingraciate this remark with a responce.

Now to deal with the next point you have raised. Let us compare the Irish with the Danes. The Danes speak their own language and as a consequence they are inherently fortified against the self evident inferiority complex so prevellent amoung the Irish. Why else would the Irish seek solice in the beer, the drug culture, the gambling casinos etc. Other cultures such as the native Americans and the Maoris of New Zealand demonstrate similar self destructive behaviours as a consequence of the annihillation of their culture. The cure therefore, must include the systematic revival of our native language. The psychological benefits are intangible but the spin off from these intangible benefits are the stuff empires are built upon.

The Corinthian

Hawkeye123 wrote: »

I will not ingraciate this remark with a responce.

Upping the ante to indignation as a means to avoid responding to points, I see.

Now to deal with the next point you have raised. Let us compare the Irish with the Danes. The Danes speak their own language and as a consequence they are inherently fortified against the self evident inferiority complex so prevellent amoung the Irish.

And you have deduced that the Danes are "fortified against the self evident inferiority complex" because they have their own language? Not due to their history? Their religion? Culture? Obviously has to be due to language.

Why don't we all pick a loose and weak correlation and then magically jump to how this is in reality the primary accusatory factor in a national psyche? How about the Danes are how they are because they have a big cross on their flag?

The psychological benefits are intangible but the spin off from these intangible benefits are the stuff empires are built upon.

Imaginary, rather than intangible, I would say.

So to recap. Parish pump politics can be solved, and Ireland's psyche restored, by returning to a language which while historically native is de facto foreign to the vast majority of the population. This is because, somehow, having your 'own' language is the deciding factor (for reasons not explained) in a healthy national sense of civic virtue.

All despite absolutely no rational explanation for why this would be the case and historical evidence pointing to a lower level of national sense of civic virtue in Ireland when Irish was the widely spoken language.

I look forward to your next response where you ignore or dismiss pretty much every point made and then go on to make a few more straw men and simply repeat your thesis

Hawkeye123

The Corinthian wrote: »

And you have deduced that the Danes are "fortified against the self evident inferiority complex" because they have their own language? Not due to their history? Their religion? Culture? Obviously has to be due to language.

Why don't we all pick a loose and weak correlation and then magically jump to how this is in reality the primary accusatory factor in a national psyche? How about the Danes are how they are because they have a big cross on their flag?

You do make one valid point in that the Irish were also irresponsible when the Irish language was spoken. The Christian brothers attempted to beat that stupidity out of them - it didn`t work so alternative means are required. My suggestion is to encourage a culture of philosophy. Adopting those aspects of other cultures which have been proven to work is a good strategy. Now to the issue of language; If the English for example had the Irish language imposed on them to the point that they had lost their own language - I think that would potentially undermine their sense of identity, confidence, self worth etc etc etc. So reverting back to reality - I think there is a case to be made for the revival of the Irish language.

The Corinthian

Hawkeye123 wrote: »

You do make one valid point in that the Irish were also irresponsible when the Irish language was spoken. The Christian brothers attempted to beat that stupidity out of them - it didn`t work so alternative means are required. My suggestion is to encourage a culture of philosophy. Adopting those aspects of other cultures which have been proven to work is a good strategy.

Finally, some progress. However, you'll need to expand upon what you mean by and how you would "encourage a culture of philosophy". Otherwise, my first reaction is that the ability to think philosophically is beyond a large proportion, if not the majority, of people to begin with and so such an aim would be doomed from the onset.

Now to the issue of language; If the English for example had the Irish language imposed on them to the point that they had lost their own language - I think that would potentially undermine their sense of identity, confidence, self worth etc etc etc. So reverting back to reality - I think there is a case to be made for the revival of the Irish language.

Yet that case is entirely based upon the two words I've emboldened - "I think". That's unfortunately not a case, it's an opinion, for which the only evidence you've managed to present in favour of it is by falsely presuming a causative link between the Danish language and the positive aspects of Danish culture.

So, let's examine your thesis that a native language promotes civic virtue. It may, and one may point to a correlation between more 'virtuous' cultures and their use of a native language, but there are serious problems with this.

To begin with, returning to the Germans, the German language or more correctly High German (Hochdeutsche) is not actually the native language of a large proportion of Germans. Bavarians, who live in the most prosperous Bundesland in Germany, had this imposed upon them - their native language is actually Bavarian, yet the loss of this (which is still spoken, but only really in rural areas), didn't see their sense of identity, confidence, self worth, etc. undermined and certainly did not see their sense of civic virtue damaged.

Additionally, look at all the nations that lack such civic virtue, yet retain their native language - Greece being the prime example. Ireland's own experience, where we had less national unity when we actually spoke Irish, is another damning example of this.

Both of the above already contradict your correlatory link between language and identity, let alone identity and civic virtue.

But even if there was such a correlatory link between language and identity, let alone identity and civic virtue, you still have to demonstrate that language has a causative link to either - remember correlation does not imply causation (seeing as we are now seeking a philosophical approach).

As such, your thesis does not hold up to examination. There may well be ways to promote civic virtue in society, but use of a native language clearly isn't one of them.

Hawkeye123

The Corinthian wrote: »

Finally, some progress. However, you'll need to expand upon what you mean by and how you would "encourage a culture of philosophy". Otherwise, my first reaction is that the ability to think philosophically is beyond a large proportion, if not the majority, of people to begin with and so such an aim would be doomed from the onset..

So! You agree - excellent! The aim of such an initiative would naturally be to succeed in encouraging a culture of philosophy. Given the enormous gap between downing 40 pints of a Saturday night and dealing with ones emotional welbeing in a more effective way - I think patience and perseverance would be prequisites. As to the strategies to deploy - I would suggest the use of whatever works. This may require an element of trial and error but learning from other more successful cultures is generally a good idea.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Yet that case is entirely based upon the two words I've emboldened - "I think". That's unfortunately not a case, it's an opinion, for which the only evidence you've managed to present in favour of it is by falsely presuming a causative link between the Danish language and the positive aspects of Danish culture.

I also used the example of the native Americans and the Maoris of New Zealand to support the arguement that destroying culture leads to social problems such as drinking, gambling et al.

The Corinthian

Hawkeye123 wrote: »

So! You agree - excellent!

I did nothing of the sort; the progress I suggested is that you finally accepted one of my points.

The aim of such an initiative would naturally be to succeed in encouraging a culture of philosophy. Given the enormous gap between downing 40 pints of a Saturday night and dealing with ones emotional welbeing in a more effective way - I think patience and perseverance would be prequisites. As to the strategies to deploy - I would suggest the use of whatever works. This may require an element of trial and error but learning from other more successful cultures is generally a good idea.

So you want to encourage a more philosophical attitude in society, but have no idea how this would be achieved. Not that you've really explained what you mean by this 'culture of philosophy', BTW.

Also, had it occurred to you that even if you could achieve this, you're simply going to have everyone coming up with, often conflicting, philosophies?

I also used the example of the native Americans and the Maoris of New Zealand to support the arguement that destroying culture leads to social problems such as drinking, gambling et al.

Yes and as I pointed out correlation does not imply causation and underlined this with numerous examples where destroying and that, more correctly, supplanting an existing culture does not lead to such problems and retaining a culture still leads to them.

Your thesis regarding language does not stand up to testing, I'm afraid.

Hawkeye123

The Corinthian wrote: »

So you want to encourage a more philosophical attitude in society, but have no idea how this would be achieved.

This is not only an assumptious presumption - it is wrong.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Not that you've really explained what you mean by this 'culture of philosophy', BTW.

The Jews tend to be fairly philosophical.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Also, had it occurred to you that even if you could achieve this, you're simply going to have everyone coming up with, often conflicting, philosophies?.

Yes that occured to me and I think as long as the alternative philosophies are being debated there will be less inclination to get drunk. Besides, some of the philosophies will be the correct ones.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Your thesis regarding language does not stand up to testing, I'm afraid.

I have known people to site examples in support of the assertion that aliens walk amoungst us. Like I said, a quack is born every minute. People who think as I do know inately that they are correct. No amount of quackery will ever change that.

oscarBravo

Hawkeye123 wrote: »

People who think as I do know inately that they are correct.

...

...wow.

The Corinthian

Hawkeye123 wrote: »

This is not only an assumptious presumption - it is wrong.

Your tautology aside, why is it wrong? It's not good enough to state something simply as wrong simply because you don't like the sound of it, you do actually have to back up why it is wrong.

The Jews tend to be fairly philosophical.

No more than anyone else. Did you mean stoicism or some other school of philosophy?

Yes that occured to me and I think as long as the alternative philosophies are being debated there will be less inclination to get drunk. Besides, some of the philosophies will be the correct ones.

And of course some will not be 'correct', and I suppose we'll be able to tell them apart because you'll be there to tell them that they're wrong?

I have known people to site examples in support of the assertion that aliens walk amoungst us. Like I said, a quack is born every minute. People who think as I do know inately that they are correct. No amount of quackery will ever change that.

That argument would be a straw man, except it has no relationship to what I said, so it even fails at that. Indeed, you're the only one coming out with 'quack' theories here; I'm just pointing out how they don't stand up to even the most cursory examination.

So are you actually going to back up your position with even argument, let alone evidence, or would you simply like to dismiss dissension with some ridiculous appeal to conventional wisdom as defined solely by you?