Comments on: Patriotism and Monogamy http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2008/03/19/patriotism-and-monogamy/ The Sweet Release of Reason Tue, 22 May 2012 20:28:45 +0000 hourly 1 By: Eunomia » Self-Defense http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2008/03/19/patriotism-and-monogamy/#comment-13052 Eunomia » Self-Defense Sun, 30 Mar 2008 02:43:53 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2008/03/19/patriotism-and-monogamy/#comment-13052 [...] if we followed Wilkinson’s recommendation and loved freedom while being faithless to any particular country, we would need to have [...] [...] if we followed Wilkinson’s recommendation and loved freedom while being faithless to any particular country, we would need to have [...]

]]> By: John Thacker http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2008/03/19/patriotism-and-monogamy/#comment-13051 John Thacker Fri, 21 Mar 2008 06:52:28 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2008/03/19/patriotism-and-monogamy/#comment-13051 <em>If she were no longer caring, intelligent, etc, she would no longer be the same person.</em> So, blejkrajli, if your wife suffers a stroke or brain damage or Alzheimer's (anger and mood swings are also common symptoms as well, note), then you will no longer love her because she would no longer be the same person? Have you let her know that you would not serve as primary caregiver but rather leave her in such a situation? If she were no longer caring, intelligent, etc, she would no longer be the same person.

So, blejkrajli, if your wife suffers a stroke or brain damage or Alzheimer’s (anger and mood swings are also common symptoms as well, note), then you will no longer love her because she would no longer be the same person? Have you let her know that you would not serve as primary caregiver but rather leave her in such a situation?

]]> By: John Thacker http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2008/03/19/patriotism-and-monogamy/#comment-13064 John Thacker Fri, 21 Mar 2008 06:52:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2008/03/19/patriotism-and-monogamy/#comment-13064 <em>If she were no longer caring, intelligent, etc, she would no longer be the same person.</em> So, blejkrajli, if your wife suffers a stroke or brain damage or Alzheimer's (anger and mood swings are also common symptoms as well, note), then you will no longer love her because she would no longer be the same person? Have you let her know that you would not serve as primary caregiver but rather leave her in such a situation? If she were no longer caring, intelligent, etc, she would no longer be the same person.

So, blejkrajli, if your wife suffers a stroke or brain damage or Alzheimer’s (anger and mood swings are also common symptoms as well, note), then you will no longer love her because she would no longer be the same person? Have you let her know that you would not serve as primary caregiver but rather leave her in such a situation?

]]> By: John Thacker http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2008/03/19/patriotism-and-monogamy/#comment-13065 John Thacker Fri, 21 Mar 2008 06:52:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2008/03/19/patriotism-and-monogamy/#comment-13065 <em>If she were no longer caring, intelligent, etc, she would no longer be the same person.</em> So, blejkrajli, if your wife suffers a stroke or brain damage or Alzheimer's (anger and mood swings are also common symptoms as well, note), then you will no longer love her because she would no longer be the same person? Have you let her know that you would not serve as primary caregiver but rather leave her in such a situation? If she were no longer caring, intelligent, etc, she would no longer be the same person.

So, blejkrajli, if your wife suffers a stroke or brain damage or Alzheimer’s (anger and mood swings are also common symptoms as well, note), then you will no longer love her because she would no longer be the same person? Have you let her know that you would not serve as primary caregiver but rather leave her in such a situation?

]]> By: blejkrajli http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2008/03/19/patriotism-and-monogamy/#comment-13050 blejkrajli Fri, 21 Mar 2008 04:02:04 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2008/03/19/patriotism-and-monogamy/#comment-13050 I think Will's person/country distinction is valid. The primary difference is that I think of the attributes I value in my wife as being constitutive. If she were no longer caring, intelligent, etc, she would no longer be the same person. However, a less free USA would still be the USA. On that basis, I find it hard to see why I should value the USA for itself. I think Will’s person/country distinction is valid. The primary difference is that I think of the attributes I value in my wife as being constitutive. If she were no longer caring, intelligent, etc, she would no longer be the same person. However, a less free USA would still be the USA. On that basis, I find it hard to see why I should value the USA for itself.

]]> By: blejkrajli http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2008/03/19/patriotism-and-monogamy/#comment-13062 blejkrajli Fri, 21 Mar 2008 04:02:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2008/03/19/patriotism-and-monogamy/#comment-13062 I think Will's person/country distinction is valid. The primary difference is that I think of the attributes I value in my wife as being constitutive. If she were no longer caring, intelligent, etc, she would no longer be the same person. However, a less free USA would still be the USA. On that basis, I find it hard to see why I should value the USA for itself. I think Will’s person/country distinction is valid. The primary difference is that I think of the attributes I value in my wife as being constitutive. If she were no longer caring, intelligent, etc, she would no longer be the same person. However, a less free USA would still be the USA. On that basis, I find it hard to see why I should value the USA for itself.

]]> By: blejkrajli http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2008/03/19/patriotism-and-monogamy/#comment-13063 blejkrajli Fri, 21 Mar 2008 04:02:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2008/03/19/patriotism-and-monogamy/#comment-13063 I think Will's person/country distinction is valid. The primary difference is that I think of the attributes I value in my wife as being constitutive. If she were no longer caring, intelligent, etc, she would no longer be the same person. However, a less free USA would still be the USA. On that basis, I find it hard to see why I should value the USA for itself. I think Will’s person/country distinction is valid. The primary difference is that I think of the attributes I value in my wife as being constitutive. If she were no longer caring, intelligent, etc, she would no longer be the same person. However, a less free USA would still be the USA. On that basis, I find it hard to see why I should value the USA for itself.

]]> By: "Q" the Enchanter http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2008/03/19/patriotism-and-monogamy/#comment-13049 "Q" the Enchanter Thu, 20 Mar 2008 23:29:52 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2008/03/19/patriotism-and-monogamy/#comment-13049 Robin, presumably, any nation state could adopt the "American form of government." Doesn't "patriotism" on your analysis entail "loving" every country that does so? Robin, presumably, any nation state could adopt the “American form of government.” Doesn’t “patriotism” on your analysis entail “loving” every country that does so?

]]> By: "Q" the Enchanter http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2008/03/19/patriotism-and-monogamy/#comment-13066 "Q" the Enchanter Thu, 20 Mar 2008 23:29:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2008/03/19/patriotism-and-monogamy/#comment-13066 Robin, presumably, any nation state could adopt the "American form of government." Doesn't "patriotism" on your analysis entail "loving" every country that does so? Robin, presumably, any nation state could adopt the “American form of government.” Doesn’t “patriotism” on your analysis entail “loving” every country that does so?

]]> By: "Q" the Enchanter http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2008/03/19/patriotism-and-monogamy/#comment-13067 "Q" the Enchanter Thu, 20 Mar 2008 23:29:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2008/03/19/patriotism-and-monogamy/#comment-13067 Robin, presumably, any nation state could adopt the "American form of government." Doesn't "patriotism" on your analysis entail "loving" every country that does so? Robin, presumably, any nation state could adopt the “American form of government.” Doesn’t “patriotism” on your analysis entail “loving” every country that does so?

]]> By: John Thacker http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2008/03/19/patriotism-and-monogamy/#comment-13048 John Thacker Thu, 20 Mar 2008 19:17:31 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2008/03/19/patriotism-and-monogamy/#comment-13048 <em>Loving a particular woman does not contribute to a norm that enables her to wreak terrible violence.</em> Strange, I think that domestic violence campaigners might disagree about the capacity of love of a single person to enable the violence. Even aside from that, there are plenty of people who have wrought violence on others on behalf of one whom they loved, or who have excused terrible violence wrought by one whom they loved (and in some cases sought to help them escape punishment or otherwise been an accessory.) <em>Another reason is that we need special particularistic attachments and attachments to individual people are much more satisfying, and less likely to leave you with dirty hands, than attachments to countries</em> <a HREF="http://arts.ucsc.edu/Gdead/AGDL/dupree.html" rel="nofollow">Same old story and I know it's been told, some like jelly jelly-- some like gold, Many a man's done a terrible thing, just to get baby that shiny diamond ring.</a> <em>The higher-order property that is this specific combination of complementary traits is in principle repeatable, but is in fact completely singular, which encourages us to see it as a sort of quiddity or individual essence, which we take to have special value over and above the constitutive properties.</em> There are considerably more people out there than countries, so in principle it is more likely to find a near duplicate of a person than a country. (Of course, one can find another country that suits just as well, but is different on various aspects that are matters of taste, but that is surely true of people.) The argument goes back once again to your assertion that there are no such things as countries or societies. And as I said before, there's a similar problem to the reciprocal love game when it comes to countries, especially criticizing them. Demonstration of love of country Loving a particular woman does not contribute to a norm that enables her to wreak terrible violence.

Strange, I think that domestic violence campaigners might disagree about the capacity of love of a single person to enable the violence. Even aside from that, there are plenty of people who have wrought violence on others on behalf of one whom they loved, or who have excused terrible violence wrought by one whom they loved (and in some cases sought to help them escape punishment or otherwise been an accessory.)

Another reason is that we need special particularistic attachments and attachments to individual people are much more satisfying, and less likely to leave you with dirty hands, than attachments to countries

Same old story and I know it’s been told,
some like jelly jelly– some like gold,
Many a man’s done a terrible thing,
just to get baby that shiny diamond ring.

The higher-order property that is this specific combination of complementary traits is in principle repeatable, but is in fact completely singular, which encourages us to see it as a sort of quiddity or individual essence, which we take to have special value over and above the constitutive properties.

There are considerably more people out there than countries, so in principle it is more likely to find a near duplicate of a person than a country. (Of course, one can find another country that suits just as well, but is different on various aspects that are matters of taste, but that is surely true of people.) The argument goes back once again to your assertion that there are no such things as countries or societies.

And as I said before, there’s a similar problem to the reciprocal love game when it comes to countries, especially criticizing them. Demonstration of love of country

]]> By: John Thacker http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2008/03/19/patriotism-and-monogamy/#comment-13053 John Thacker Thu, 20 Mar 2008 19:17:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2008/03/19/patriotism-and-monogamy/#comment-13053 <em>Loving a particular woman does not contribute to a norm that enables her to wreak terrible violence.</em> Strange, I think that domestic violence campaigners might disagree about the capacity of love of a single person to enable the violence. Even aside from that, there are plenty of people who have wrought violence on others on behalf of one whom they loved, or who have excused terrible violence wrought by one whom they loved (and in some cases sought to help them escape punishment or otherwise been an accessory.) <em>Another reason is that we need special particularistic attachments and attachments to individual people are much more satisfying, and less likely to leave you with dirty hands, than attachments to countries</em> <a href="http://arts.ucsc.edu/Gdead/AGDL/dupree.html" rel="nofollow">Same old story and I know it's been told, some like jelly jelly-- some like gold, Many a man's done a terrible thing, just to get baby that shiny diamond ring.</a> <em>The higher-order property that is this specific combination of complementary traits is in principle repeatable, but is in fact completely singular, which encourages us to see it as a sort of quiddity or individual essence, which we take to have special value over and above the constitutive properties.</em> There are considerably more people out there than countries, so in principle it is more likely to find a near duplicate of a person than a country. (Of course, one can find another country that suits just as well, but is different on various aspects that are matters of taste, but that is surely true of people.) The argument goes back once again to your assertion that there are no such things as countries or societies. And as I said before, there's a similar problem to the reciprocal love game when it comes to countries, especially criticizing them. Demonstration of love of country Loving a particular woman does not contribute to a norm that enables her to wreak terrible violence.

Strange, I think that domestic violence campaigners might disagree about the capacity of love of a single person to enable the violence. Even aside from that, there are plenty of people who have wrought violence on others on behalf of one whom they loved, or who have excused terrible violence wrought by one whom they loved (and in some cases sought to help them escape punishment or otherwise been an accessory.)

Another reason is that we need special particularistic attachments and attachments to individual people are much more satisfying, and less likely to leave you with dirty hands, than attachments to countries
Same old story and I know it’s been told,
some like jelly jelly– some like gold,
Many a man’s done a terrible thing,
just to get baby that shiny diamond ring.
The higher-order property that is this specific combination of complementary traits is in principle repeatable, but is in fact completely singular, which encourages us to see it as a sort of quiddity or individual essence, which we take to have special value over and above the constitutive properties.

There are considerably more people out there than countries, so in principle it is more likely to find a near duplicate of a person than a country. (Of course, one can find another country that suits just as well, but is different on various aspects that are matters of taste, but that is surely true of people.) The argument goes back once again to your assertion that there are no such things as countries or societies.

And as I said before, there’s a similar problem to the reciprocal love game when it comes to countries, especially criticizing them. Demonstration of love of country

]]> By: rob sama http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2008/03/19/patriotism-and-monogamy/#comment-13047 rob sama Thu, 20 Mar 2008 17:43:06 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2008/03/19/patriotism-and-monogamy/#comment-13047 I think you're confusing patriotism with nationalism, patriotism being love of one's form of government, while nationalism being love of one's country/people's/language/culture/etc. Hitler famously put it that he had no use for patriotism, but every use for nationalism. I put myself at the opposite end of the spectrum from Hitler. I think you’re confusing patriotism with nationalism, patriotism being love of one’s form of government, while nationalism being love of one’s country/people’s/language/culture/etc. Hitler famously put it that he had no use for patriotism, but every use for nationalism. I put myself at the opposite end of the spectrum from Hitler.

]]> By: rob sama http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2008/03/19/patriotism-and-monogamy/#comment-13054 rob sama Thu, 20 Mar 2008 17:43:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2008/03/19/patriotism-and-monogamy/#comment-13054 I think you're confusing patriotism with nationalism, patriotism being love of one's form of government, while nationalism being love of one's country/people's/language/culture/etc. Hitler famously put it that he had no use for patriotism, but every use for nationalism. I put myself at the opposite end of the spectrum from Hitler. I think you’re confusing patriotism with nationalism, patriotism being love of one’s form of government, while nationalism being love of one’s country/people’s/language/culture/etc. Hitler famously put it that he had no use for patriotism, but every use for nationalism. I put myself at the opposite end of the spectrum from Hitler.

]]> By: DWAnderson http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2008/03/19/patriotism-and-monogamy/#comment-13046 DWAnderson Thu, 20 Mar 2008 16:05:22 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2008/03/19/patriotism-and-monogamy/#comment-13046 I think David is correct when he says "I can love America insofar as it has characteristics I find worthy of love, even while being sickened by its participation in, e.g., torture. I’m quite happy that the Danes and Canadians are more or less free also, but I’m not Danish or Canadian so I don’t love Denmark and Canada to the same extent." But that seems to support the notion that patriotism is particularistic. Perhaps we "shouldn't" identify with a country in the same way we identify with a family, or a sports team, but people do. And as long as they do, I don't think there's anything problematic about patriotism as long as it isn't unflinching and is conditional. (I am unpersuaded that this a start down a slippery slope to militarism or facism.) Perhaps that isn't "patriotism", as Will has defined it but I think this conception is closer to what most in the U.S. think of as patriotism. I think David is correct when he says “I can love America insofar as it has characteristics I find worthy of love, even while being sickened by its participation in, e.g., torture. I’m quite happy that the Danes and Canadians are more or less free also, but I’m not Danish or Canadian so I don’t love Denmark and Canada to the same extent.” But that seems to support the notion that patriotism is particularistic. Perhaps we “shouldn’t” identify with a country in the same way we identify with a family, or a sports team, but people do. And as long as they do, I don’t think there’s anything problematic about patriotism as long as it isn’t unflinching and is conditional. (I am unpersuaded that this a start down a slippery slope to militarism or facism.) Perhaps that isn’t “patriotism”, as Will has defined it but I think this conception is closer to what most in the U.S. think of as patriotism.

]]>