This post is about two sociological phenomena commonly discussed in blogging, self-help, and therapeutic contexts. They are popular in lay discussions online as well as among experts, and they serve as the foundation of advice given by friends, therapists, and generally online. The situations in which advice based on these concepts is given can be high-stakes, dealing with some of the most important problems people may face in their relationships, like physical and emotional abuse. I argue that both have significant conceptual difficulties and that neither replace moral reasoning, although some of their proponents may desire that they do so. Despite these difficulties, there may be some instrumentally valid uses of these only-partially-true conceptual frameworks. 

My main goal with the essay is to discuss Putnam’s prescriptions for building social capital going forward. The book is somewhat outdated by this point, and it has become clear not only that we haven’t succeeded in raising social capital, but we are even lower in it than before. But even starting from now, I think many of his ideas on how to ameliorate our situation would be difficult if not impossible to implement because of something Putnam barely mentions: ideological changes.

“Can you really, honestly say that you do not ‘know’ the chair you are sitting in exists? Because you certainly behave as if you do.” People reflexively believe their sense impressions, and it is difficult to imagine what it would mean to not. Writing a paper on why you should not believe your sense impressions implies the existence of your writing implement or computer.

Question for the reader: when you think that something is outrageously wrong, how do you usually get there? By doing math?

There is one current debate around constitutional interpretation, happening largely among legal scholars on the right, that should be of interest to the online right wing. Those of you who plan on entering politics at some point, agitating for certain outcomes, or even voting, should be aware of what follows.

Actions become moral, under individual-focused, agency/consent-based morality, when they are desired and the harmful externalities fall under a threshold. But if our desires never come from within, if there is no authenticity, then no decision can be moral because the first requirement is never met.