(no subject)
May. 17th, 2016 09:12 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
timeletsAfter reading ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
ivanov_petrov's post about a possible long-term future of USSR-inspired ideas, I decided to see what philosophers typically say about socialism. Guess what, there's no "socialism" entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP). There's no "communism" entry either. The closest you get would be Karl Marx; but no "Lenin" or "Stalin" for you. Although, some SEP articles do refer to those [in-]famous characters. For example, here's what Bertrand Russell had to say about people like them:
Nevertheless, the original post and related comments deserve some pondering. From a methodology perspective, I see a couple of tendencies that prevent people from clear thinking: the anchoring effect and the begging the question (petitio principii) fallacy.
ivanov_petrov's post about a possible long-term future of USSR-inspired ideas, I decided to see what philosophers typically say about socialism. Guess what, there's no "socialism" entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP). There's no "communism" entry either. The closest you get would be Karl Marx; but no "Lenin" or "Stalin" for you. Although, some SEP articles do refer to those [in-]famous characters. For example, here's what Bertrand Russell had to say about people like them:
“Some people whom I refrain from naming, might with advantage to the world have been strangled in infancy; but we cannot blame the good women who brought them up for having omitted this precaution."
Nevertheless, the original post and related comments deserve some pondering. From a methodology perspective, I see a couple of tendencies that prevent people from clear thinking: the anchoring effect and the begging the question (petitio principii) fallacy.
