The Philosophers....
Edmund Burke:I have observed that the Philosophers in order to insinuate their polluted Atheism into young minds, systematically flatter all their passions natural and unnatural. They explode or render odious or contemptible that class of virtues which restrain the appetite. These are at least nine out of ten of the virtues. In place of all these they substitute a virtue which they call humanity or benevolence. By these means, their morality has no idea in it of restraint, or indeed of a distinct settled principle of any kind. When their disciples are thus left free and guided by present feeling, they are no longer to be depended on for good or evil. The men who today snatch the worst criminals from justice, will murder the most innocent persons tomorrow
They do the same today - 250 years later. Only that now they have overtaken the Academia, and apart from turning Universities into institutions polluted by all the vices - becoming almost initiation grounds for immorality - they have also degraded the exigencies of study, producing people of mediocre knowledge and capability, for they have lowered the standards, to get the masses inside, and grow their profits. The steep climb of knowledge, the arduous and lonely journey, has been replaced with the dance of drunken ignoramuses...
Comments (114)
aww, sorry babe <3
Jesus...
The wretched refuse of Britain's (and others') teeming shores" weren't University-educated-philosopher-corrupted-atheists. If they weren't believers, they were pretty much solely responsible for their fallen state. Throughout the 16th and 17th century and beyond, the ruling classes had been ranting about the presumed evils of the poorest people: wicked, lustful, lazy, slovenly, disobedient, uncooperative, stupid, and so on. Once here, they turned out to at least be uncooperative. They weren't unbelievers, for the most part. They partook of such spiritual resources as were available to them -- whether that was Calvinism, Methodism, Shakerism, or Mormonism.
If there are more corrupted and immoral people now than in the past, I don't think we can blame that on the academy.
More likely, the collapse of the old time religion and the supposedly upright and moral masses of the past was/is due to paradigm shattering events like WWI and WWII, the Great Depression, The Pill, prosperity, mass media, etc. The watershed decade in American church attendance was 1960-1970. You probably are familiar with the stats, but it is difficult to grasp just how extensive the exodus was. Many millions of people left their churches, never to return.
Whether there are more corrupted and immoral people now than in the past seems doubtful to me. What is counted as immoral has changed (and I know you use a fairly severe standard to judge immorality and virtue) and I find that few people have thrown all virtue into the toilet. People have certainly not become less annoying, less stupid, and stuff like that.
Check out this chart:
What should immediately come to critical thinkers is the question, "does correlation imply causation"? Are atheists deliberately taking over "academia", getting jobs as professors while preventing religious people from getting in? Or maybe there is a stronger correlation between non-religious types and the wealth and intelligence required to get into school, get the higher degree and take up teaching as an occupation.
There have been many debates over whether the apparent correlation between atheism and intelligence was due to "higher intelligence leads to atheism", or "atheism leads to higher intelligence", or "those environmental constraints that lead to atheism also lead to better education ... and respect for intellectual, scientific and academic pursuits".
I've found that a significant number of my professors were religious, and even got into philosophy because it fit in with their general interest in religious traditions and reasoning. I remember I had a class which was studying the role and contribution of African Americans, (easy elective class), who kept inviting the class to her Pentecostal church. I found it interesting the contrast with the subject we were studying and the history of how Christians, up until recently, defended slavery and segregation. I figure it wasn't wise to kill the messenger for the content of the message, but wondered how people reconcile such extremes of the same ideology. Also, I've found that the students in universities tend to think fairly independently from professors and parents. If a kid goes to college and becomes and atheist, do you think it is because of the morality of their professors, their friends or the fault of their parents -- or is it just the natural tendency for youth to reject and reinvent themselves, at least until they become parents too.
I saw some sociological/psychological studies, (but you can't trust them -- look at the chart), which say that extreme religious piety is often used as a cover or counter-balance for immorality, and nonreligious people need to counter-balance their social role with an exaggerated moral stance. It is a huge thread on its own -- but you should be able to apply this model to societies around the world. Societies or countries which are the least religious should be the most moral, and the least religious the least moral, but this doesn't seem to work out that way:
If that were true, then you want to live in safety and morality, you should move to Africa or some countries in the Middle East, and steer clear of Western Europe. My guess is that the correlation is more complicated, and probably a side-effect of the influence about how a society associates morality with religion.
Right. Burke opposed slavery, Burke opposed colonial barbarity and injustice, Burke opposed the imposition of Christianity over other peoples, and desired their culture and religions to be respected. He also opposed the indoctrination of the masses by "philosophes" in France, and sought to combat vice and immorality of any kind everywhere he could. Immorality originates from the ruling class and the intellectuals, not from the poor - the poor just follow.
Quoting Bitter Crank
This occurred in continental Europe prior to the world wars. The French Revolution already saw much of this.
Quoting Bitter Crank
The immorality from continental Europe has definitely spread to the Anglophone world.
Quoting swstephe
Probably not. What it reflects rather is the cultural decadence of certain geographical regions. The US is much higher than Western Europe still - why? - because they were largely unaffected by the corrupt Academia until after WWII, when many many Marxist professors, and other radicals fled from Europe to the US, and took positions there. Whereas Western Europe is so low, because since the French Revolution intellectuals have continuously thrown stones at tradition and promoted disobedience. Not to mention the corrupting influence of communism. Also notice that if we look at just Europe, we see a very weak negative correlation between wealth and religiosity. Religiosity in fact seems to sit around the same value, regardless of wealth. Switch to other continents, and again the same feature appears. Cultural degradation is a phenomenon of people's mentality and consciousness, which is necessarily geographical and has little to do with wealth or intelligence for that matter.
Quoting swstephe
Rather it is because the culture is dominated by secular progressives (90% of social sciences are dominated by secular progressives), and don't forget that morality doesn't have to do so much with intelligence as it does with an innate moral sense. So people may very well be very intelligent while lacking a strong moral sense. This will be worsened by the fact that the surrounding society does not encourage them to develop it.
Quoting Hoo
Sure but that's nothing compared to what they did in the past. Ludwig Wittgenstein built his own flying plane as a mechanical engineer in University. Let me see a student today do that... not in a million years. Because education isn't rigorous enough. If it was properly rigorous, there would just be no time for partying, getting drunk, etc. It would just be impossible. Taking tests is a joke. Tests are artificial. You can't do anything of value out there in the world by taking tests. What they should do is actually and properly train you for example to be a doctor. Someone who goes to medical school should stay there long enough that once they have that diploma, they can go from door to door treating people. What happens now is that he gets that diploma very fast, and then is a servant in a bureaucratic system for many many years, until he can finally go knocking on people's doors to treat them. It's not rigorous enough.
It's not. There's totalitarianism on one side (think ISIS or North Korea), secular progressivism (decadence) on the other, and conservatism in the middle. Your position, the mysterian hard polytheism - that's alright for an individual, but not for society. Society needs law and order in order to allow people the freedom to, for example, follow mysterian hard polytheism without disturbing public order, and harming the lives of others.
Conservatism is tied to social order, which does require hierarchy, but not an immutable hierarchy. It is tied to promotion of culture and tradition - natural morality - not a specific religion, but rather all religions (Burke approved for example of Islam, Hinduism, and other non-Christian religions, and was fine to see them present in society). It has nothing to do with war or taxation for that matter (I see nothing wrong with a left-wing conservative for example). I think Burke's vision would be much in line with what you describe overall, apart from pride, where Burke would want humility, which really means knowledge of the limitations of oneself and not narrative transformation of those into virtues, as they do today. We see many actors especially treat their sexual lust as a virtue - they tell stories about in in their biographies, and wear it on their foreheads with pride. Under a conservative society all religions would flourish, but there will be humility and respect of others, and mutual companionship around shared values - the natural morality of which I talked of.
Sexual appetite in itself is not a problem. What is a problem is the moment when unrestrained sexual appetite harms other people (from a social point of view) or when it harms yourself. For example - unrestrained sexual appetite in a married couple will lead to jealousy, anger and hatred - a terrible set of emotions. These emotions lead inevitably to instability, in this case of the family unit, not to mention the harm done to the persons involved, including very likely the children. Why? Because people naturally want to feel special to their loved one, and this threatens that. If people are to be interested in beauty, then one of the most beautiful things they will be interested in is love - but if they live in a society which promotes unrestrained sexual appetite, their families will never be stable, nor will the partners be devoted to caring for and respecting each other. Today 40% of children are born out of wedlock, 50% of marriages include infidelity, divorce rate is greater than 50% (and by the way, 50 years ago, these numbers were 5%, 10%, and 15%). These are very important problems we face, and no one is talking about them. A large share of our economic problems - for example, the poverty faced by black communities - is the result of the fact that among the blacks for example 70% of children are born out of wedlock. So we create the problems through our decadence, and then try to fix them through our economy. This is insane - we have to go to the root. How can we have families when people do not show loyalty, trust, care, and love one for the other?
Sex in non-comitted relationships, while not as big a problem as what is mentioned above, still remains an issue for the following reasons: (1) it is unlikely that the participants can experience a pleasure greater than that achievable by masturbation as there is no love involved, or intimacy from which such pleasure could originate, (2) it encourages a habit of using others as a means to obtain a selfish end, therefore it is contrary to morality and care, (3) it creates future problems in committed relationships as people again want to feel special, and having had many sexual partners before diminishes from this feeling, (4) having a habit of looking at others as a means to achieve your selfish ends will prevent you from entering into a loving relationship and looking at a person in a different way, (5) it encourages slavery towards external sources for controlling personal feelings, (6) it keeps one subject to one's own sexual desire, as opposed to its master.
Committed relationships also have their dangers. One should not become dependent on the beloved for example, not being able to live in equanimity without them (which is one of the things that Lucretius and Aristippus warned about). Nor should one depend on sex in order to make their relationship work. All this requires mastery over one's sexuality, and thus involves all other stages mentioned before.
Your sort of conservatism (reactionary) is not in the middle. It is starkly to the right of the centre.
I believe in principles, education and order. Not in despotism of those who have power. Contrary to the political movements of which you are most familiar with (New Left, Marxism, Neo-Conservatism, Reactionaries, Alt-Right) my concern is with order and goodness, and NOT with power. Those on the left are obsessed by power - how can women get more power, how can gays get more power, etc. I don't care about power. Those on the right are also obsessed about power - how can the aristocracy maintain its power, how can dominance be maintained over society, etc. I'm not concerned with any of that. I'm concerned with what is good for society, and what is good for man - because as Plato put it, society is just man writ large.
Are you being serious? Comparing your sort of conservatism to more extreme sorts doesn't make your sort any less reactionary.
You do realise that in this very discussion, you're harking back to Burke's views of 250 years ago in which he is harking back even further into the past?
Your views are reactionary whether you care to admit it or not. You fit the description. And given these aspects, your views are not reflective of the centre ground or popular opinion.
Perhaps you should join the Amish. Heck, maybe even TGW will go along with you. He can keep his extra gods under the mattress.
Joking aside, all I see here is a desire to make the world in your own image so you can feel more comfortable in it. Join the club. We'd all like the world to reflect our particular ideals. There's no morality in that. It's more the drive for preservation writ large.
To a secularist atheist like myself, for example, all this talk about sex just reflects your desire that others should have less of it. And it doesn't take much looking under the psychological blankets to hypothesize why that might be the case. So, in order to get anywhere with all this, you'd have to present a more convincing set of arguments - in particular to the satisfied sexually promiscuous modern male - as to why the pleasure he gets from his lifestyle is somehow bad for him and why he'd be better off under a repressive conservative order in which some form of religious ideology would be compulsory.
To those arguments you did present, you're likely to get responses along the following lines:
Quoting Agustino
Solution: Don't get married.
Quoting Agustino
Solution: Don't have kids
Quoting Agustino
This is obviously false. And probably every man reading this - other than you - knows that. If it weren't false, men would just masturbate. Why go to all the trouble of seducing women if equivalent pleasure can be achieved through DIY?
Quoting Agustino
There is some validity in all this, but romantic love presents its own problems too. Think of all the heartache, pain and even violence, love and love unrequited cause. It's not clear that we wouldn't be better off without it.
Quoting Agustino
The alternative, making one's sexuality a slave to ideological forces, hardly seems more palatable or psychologically healthy. Just ask a Catholic priest.
All of this is not to say I'm a great fan of modern life, or especially antithetical to alternatives, or unsympathetic to those who present them. But again, I see your alternative as so tied to your particular personality as to be utterly alien to those of us who don't share your worldview.
There are a series of tenets that all those who have been classified as reactionaries adhere to, that I don't. I'm just informing you that it is intellectually dishonest to label me a reactionary. Among those tenets that a reactionary would agree with that I don't is authoritarianism - whether this is authoritarianism of corporations, or of the Church, or of anyone. I am not concerned with the power structure of society. There is a reason why in intellectual history conservatives like me and Burke are not labelled "reactionary", while someone like de Maistre, even in his life was labelled "reactionary".
That is because, following Nietzsche, all that you see in morality is another tool to dominate others. To have power. You see in morality a power structure. Your consciousness is so focused on power structures and sees nothing beyond. I don't see morality as just a power structure, or as a way to remake the world. I see morality as something that I myself struggle to approach - I struggle to be a moral person, and I fail many times, but nevertheless I struggle towards it. Why? Because that's what is excellent in a person, that's the only way we can enjoy life and truly grow and thrive. And it's not something that will give me power over others - if what I wanted was power, then I could've picked a better tool, rather than pick what is probably the worst out of the entire available arsenal. I used to be a progressive long ago in my very young days - but I gave it up, and I gave up all the popularity and admiration that came with it because those things are not worth having. It's not worth selling your soul to gain the world, because if your soul is missing, then nothing else even matters.
Quoting Baden
No I clearly desire for them to have a lot of it, that's why I think it's a good. I am saddened that they sacrifice love and intimacy for the equivalent of masturbation though. They are missing a lot.
Quoting Baden
I listed quite a few reasons I believe :) . it's up to each to read them and consider the matter honestly for themselves, and in consultation with what others have thought before them, including their traditions.
Quoting Baden
Quoting Baden
Marriage and kids are objective goods that people ought not to be deprived of in order to satisfy the selfishness of some.
Quoting Baden
For the simple reason that the real source of their pleasure is not physical orgasm, but the dark spiritual pleasure they get from having power and dominating and using another human being. That's why they do it. They get pleasure out of feeling powerful - I don't think this is moral or noble. If you think that's morality, then I can't do anything about it. And why do they choose this over the spiritual pleasure of love? Because love is difficult, and you only have Faith to hang onto. At any moment it can be gone. So they prefer to renounce it - renounce the ardous journey - and instead run towards the only escape they have from uncertainty - POWER.
Quoting Baden
I agree. That's why I insist first on sexual mastery and then on love. One cannot love in the true sense unless he first masters these emotions. I've experienced this from both sides. When you are still a slave to your sexual desire, you feel so shattered and broken when your beloved leaves you - your whole world is destroyed and even you give up on yourself. But when you have mastered sexual desire - then when your beloved leaves, you cling by that narrow thread of Faith, and an unmovable centre is created, which keeps you anchored and content. Not happy - but not hopeless either. Capable to live without the beloved as well.
Quoting Baden
It depends which priest - most priests are good people, there are some who have indeed molested children and the like. But I don't lump all of them in one category, afterall I doubt you'd be for lumping all Muslims into the category of terrorists, just because of the existence of ISIS. Priests face the same problems as the rest of us. They too struggle against their sexuality - some of them start priesthood too early and are not yet ready for the journey. Some of them were never meant to be priests. And so forth.
But it is possible for men to be free of their sexual lust, if that's what you're asking for.
But moving on, if you don't agree with authoritarianism, then why did you choose to target [I]secular[/I] progressivism, and why did you contrast this with just conservatism (in which the term "secular" is noticeably absent)? The alternative to secularism is religious authoritarianism, where one or more religious group has the authority to meddle in state affairs.
Ok no worries. I think it depends on what is meant by atheist. See I claim to believe in God now. But for quite a long time I identified as an atheist, and still I advocated the same positions on sexuality, and other elements of life. Recently - let's say the past 2 years - I've spent a lot of time reading and studying the past - especially Ancient Greek culture, as well as Christian tradition. This changed the way I perceive the God issue. I'm not concerned with the question of existence. The question "Does God exist?" means nothing to me. First I see issue with what does it even mean for God to exist? We never quite clarify. Second of all, is belief in X, whatever that X is, just claiming that I believe in X? I don't think so. I think belief is acting as if that belief is true. Therefore does God exist is answered by "are you virtuous? or not?" - someone who is virtuous and lives with love in their heart, care for their fellow human beings, and strives for excellence - such a person is a devout believer in God, even if he calls himself an atheist because what it means to believe in God is precisely to be virtuous. This is most excellently illustrated by Socrates.
Second of all, I've grown to appreciate tradition (including religion), and its role in teaching morality and love to the common man. Sure it isn't anywhere near close to perfect - and it has been abused many times. But it's still, in my opinion, the only vehicle that can teach morality to the mass of people. And in the end - the purpose of life is to live the truth, not to know the truth, and so if everyone needs to go through a long journey to reach the truth, and read and study the philosophers, life is indeed very mean - most people will be old by the time they know the truth, where's the time to live it as well? I would have much rather preferred to be born and have lived as a peasant somewhere far from the world of learning, just with the simple things of life, a wife, a family, children, animals, community, and religion that would have kept all of us together and united.
To answer your question: yes I believe someone can call themselves an atheist and say God doesn't exist and still achieve happiness. I would just say they haven't understood what it means for God to exist :)
I would add Baden that ultimately it's as Kierkegaard states an aesthetic choice - belief in God. We all make the choice, not through words, but through our actions. In the face of the anxieties of life, you can choose virtue and morality - or you can choose power. You can escape by faith, or you can escape by power. And it's a choice precisely because there is no intellectual reason to choose virtue over power, or power over virtue - that's why in the end analysis it's an appeal to your moral imagination.
I didn't say I want to return to the pope being both king and spiritual leader though.
Quoting Sapientia
Yes - some of them are the same. Not all of them, and my views fit better with a traditional form of conservatism.
Quoting Sapientia
Because secular progressives use secularism as a way to destroy and attack tradition and morality, which I am defending.
Quoting Sapientia
Depends what you understand by secularism. I don't understand by secularism a disrespect of religion, a disrespect of tradition and a disrespect of morality. I think the secular state should work together with all major religions present in the country to form a community which is friendly to the believers, and not antagonistic. I think Muslim communities in the UK for example should be allowed to encourage their people to dress according to their traditions, and they should be protected from having those traditions mocked in schools, university, etc. (with the exception of violence, that should not be tolerated). Same applies to Christianity and the other religions present. What I see the secular progressive as understanding by secularism is what the French revolutionary understood - a way to change the power structure of society, destroy tradition and put in place of natural morality, a new invented morality. I think government leaders should be religious in the sense of valuing morality and tradition, and setting up examples to follow. For example a Christian Prime Minister, who talks about his faith and at the same time respects the right of Muslims AND ENCOURAGES them to have different religious traditions. All religions ultimately share the same core moral values - for ex. both Christianity and Islam and Buddhism say people should dress decently. From then on, each has different traditions regarding dressing. But each of those traditions respects that core element of decency. So I believe people should appreciate their traditions and honor their ancestors.
The focus should not be this savage attempt to convert anyone and everyone to your own religion. Much rather we need an umbrella under which all religions (including atheism) can thrive - because all religions share the same fundamental values, they merely have different traditions. This umbrella I believe is conservatism. Religious - but not partisan to one religion.
As for this bit, Aristophanes did this sort of thing much better, but Aristophanes had a sense of humor and it's unclear whether Burke did. This complaint has a long, long history. As a result, I think it's more tedious than insightful.
I know, but you've said other things which fit that description. In this discussion, for example, you imply that you want to return to a time before atheism was as widespread and accepted amongst young minds as it is today, and since it has been in modern times. And you speak out against it with the use of slanderous and emotive language ("polluted", "odious", "contemptible", "immoral", "vice", "decadence", etc.), sometimes accompanied with little-to-no substance, as in the opening post.
Quoting Agustino
Some, but perhaps not all, and that last part is arguable.
Quoting Agustino
I'm not going to accept that accusation without good reason, and I don't believe you'll be able to provide it.
Rather, they attack [i]certain[/I] traditions - those which they believe do more harm than good - and what [i]some consider to be[/I] constitutive of morality - which may well be utterly wrongheaded.
Again, I'll point out that you don't have the authority to the exclusive use of the term "morality" as applicable only to those views which you happen to agree with. You should say instead that they don't share your view on morality, and you find that objectionable. A little humility wouldn't go amiss. Especially for someone so keen to maintain virtue and avoid vice.
Quoting Agustino
Neither do I. But whether or not secularism entails the above would very much depend on what is meant by respect of religion, respect of tradition and respect of morality. Your understanding might differ considerably to what I'd expect that to entail.
Quoting Agustino
As a generality, I'm inclined to agree, but as an absolute, I'd take issue. It's about freedom of expression. And if some are free to express an objectionable religious belief, then others should be free to object.
Quoting Agustino
Sure, that's all very agreeable, and I can only think of a few possible objections, which would be a rare encounter, such as religious garments which conceal the face being worn in certain public professions.
Quoting Agustino
Well, that's certainly not an impartial or charitable way of seeing it.
Quoting Agustino
No, they shouldn't necessarily be religious - which doesn't by any means rule out valuing morality and tradition. In fact, it's entirely possible to have a religious government leader who doesn't in some ways respect morality or tradition. And, furthermore, respecting [i]what you conceive of[/I] as morality, and respecting tradition, isn't necessarily a good thing.
I think that it's ill-considered to make blanket statements like that. What about harmful traditions?
Quoting Agustino
Or an atheist Prime Minister who promotes the good to be found both within various religions and outside of them.
But whether the Prime Minister belongs to any religion, or what particular religion that might be, if any, should not be important; especially in comparison to the attitude which should be promoted, namely religious toleration - albeit within reason.
Quoting Agustino
For a core moral value, that is remarkably trivial.
Quoting Agustino
Sure, but this appears to have drifted far from our original discussion and the original topic. We were talking about secularism, remember? You seemed to be against it, yet here you seem to be arguing in it's favour.
Quoting Agustino
Atheism isn't a religion. I'm not sure whether that was just a comical mishap on your part or whether you genuinely meant it, but either way, atheism isn't a religion.
Quoting Agustino
I don't know how you jump from what seems to be essentially an endorsement of religious toleration - which isn't incompatible with atheism or secularism or progressivism - to conservatism or religion or non-secularism or anti-atheism.
I'm also curious about this, Agustino. Can you point to an example of a country with the system of government that most closely fits your ideal?
The Kierkegaard reference is salient here, I agree. I would say though that the moral imagination is largely a product of, and constrained by (sensibly I would contend) the moral environment. Don't ask me to be Jesus when there are Romans around.
Do you accept that this is the bystander effect?
I speak against a certain kind of atheism which is popular. I have little to quarrel with the pious atheism of Epicurus for example. I have something against modern atheism which is used as a justification for lack of restraint, for attacking tradition, for demanding radical change, and for inciting people to rebellion. In summary, I have something against that which threatens order and stability, because chaos harms everybody. Instead of slowly looking for ways to reform society to eliminate the problems while minimising the difficulties generated, it hurries with a solution that is most often worse than what it appears to cure.
Quoting Sapientia
I'm not concerned with what intellectuals may claim they do. I'm concerned with the effect their actions have in practice, on the thinking, attitudes and beliefs of the common man in the street. What I see is that many people have become intolerant of religion, and disrespectful towards people who are religious. I'm using these terms as I understand them. A moral person by my understanding is religious even if they are atheists. And I'm talking about the common man here. And you can hear it in their discourse. They talk disrespectfully to and about moral people, and I don't think this is good either for them or for society, as it discourages something which is necessary for happiness - morality.
Quoting Sapientia
This is an abstraction so I am not sure what specific thing you're referring to. I think morality is something universal (hence my usage of natural morality), which can be summarised by the virtues, including humility, yes. The example I gave you before is decency. All religions promote decency - including by the way the atheism of Epicurus or Hume. Now the religious traditions surrounding this are different, yes. A Muslim friend wants his wife to wear a hijab. Humility for me in this case is understanding that ultimately he aims at the same virtue I aim at, decency, but achieves it using a different way than I would. So I congratulate him, and commend him for encouraging his wife to uphold their traditions and respect decency, even though the way he does this isn't the same way I would. I am humble about my tradition and don't think it superior to another's. The most common manifestation of humility though is being aware of one's vices and limitations and not creating a narrative to justify them. Most of the time though we see the opposite - you see someone like Amy Schumer for example coming and saying how easily she got a man to have sex with her - that's a story she makes to justify a vice as a virtue - that's not humility, that's pride. That shouldn't be praised or sustained, but it should be attacked and labelled for what it is. On the other hand, false humility is when someone refuses to accept merit for a virtue that he or she does in fact possess. I'm being neither prideful nor humble now - I'm not saying I am virtuous and you're not or anything of that sort, and if I have implied that please forgive me. I am defending morality - whether or not I uphold it or not is besides this point.
Quoting Sapientia
It depends on whether their religious belief has anything to do with you, or it just has to do with their own religious community in such a society.
Quoting Sapientia
In regards to progressive intellectuals maybe - in regards to public manifestations of progressivism by the common man, then I think it's quite on point.
Quoting Sapientia
Ok under your definitions. And for the latter yes - but this isn't good usually.
Quoting Sapientia
They should gradually be replaced.
Quoting Sapientia
Atheist under your definition isn't really atheist. David Cameron is an atheist under my definition - probably under yours he's a believer just because he talks about his Christian faith, and calls the UK a Christian nation.
Quoting Sapientia
Yes but it's part of that core. There are others, some of which aren't so trivial - love, courage, respect, patience, humility, temperance, kindness, charity, chastity, decency, etc.
Quoting Sapientia
Nope - there's two atheisms - one let's call it pious atheism (think about Epicurus, or even that CONSERVATIVE David Hume), and the other one impious atheism. In the former atheism is just a personal belief about the existence of a deity. In the latter it is a justification for permissible moral behaviour, with the intent of overthrowing tradition. I don't accept the latter as moral, to make this clear.
None. All previous systems of government of the sort I am talking about have been regional and geographical, generally governing a majority of people which shared the same language, customs, traditions and religion. It is only in today's world, that with the introduction of the internet, globalisation and migration of people that we have societies where there are multiple religions which interact frequently, on a day to day basis together. My proposal is the conservative response to this change of circumstances in order to prevent the destruction of traditions and morality which is currently underway, precisely because of the presence of alternatives, causing people to have lost faith in any one particular religion. That's why we need an umbrella - to hold all religions under it - a meta-religion formed of the natural morality (virtues) that all religions share in, which permits for each religion to still nevertheless develop according to its own traditions and customs, and which as I see it, is the only thing that can bring about a cultural revival. This allows individual people to explore their ancestral roots and respect them, all the while feeling part of the larger community which includes different traditions.
Quoting Baden
You have to do a calculation in that case. Is it worth it to die in the fashion of Jesus himself or of Socrates to teach a valuable lesson to your brothers and sisters in moral courage and resolution in opposing evil, and the triumph of the human spirit? Or is it worth saving yourself by lying for example, in order that you may protect your family from being killed as well?
Did you know Cicero was a conservative Ciceronianus? ;)
I disagree with you about Burke - whose favorite philosopher was none other than Cicero in fact. Burke supported the French monarchy because replacing it by force and all of a sudden instead of gradually would cause more chaos and suffering than anything else. And it did - it gave rise to Napoleon Bonaparte who re-established it, as Trump said, bigger and better than ever before - he made Monarchy into Imperial Dictatorship. Burke prevented the same thing from happening in England by fighting against both Monarchy, AND the revolutionaries who wanted to do away with religion and traditions, and yes monarchy.
And thanks for the suggestion of Aristophanes - I wasn't aware he was a conservative :) .
I was fortunate to escape the baleful influence of decadent continental intellectuals by attending a small state college in the midwest starting in 1964. "They" weren't here in that time, in this place. The English Literature faculty were all solidly pre-postmodern pre-continental infestation. The Social Science faculty were, maybe, a bit more secularized. But the most non-conformist history professor derived his non-conformity from his Unitarian church.
"The Beat Generation" ("beat" derived from "beatitude") of people like William Burroughs, Jack Kerouac, Allan Ginsberg, and the like were the home-grown American decadent immoral set -- I don't think they were brought into being by European decadence. I found them challenging enough in the 60s, though I like their poetry and novels now.
Maybe you have read some of them.
I was reacting to Burke's comment about philosophers, not to conservatism or his status as a conservative icon. Aristophanes famously made similar criticism of Socrates and others in his play The Clouds. Later, in Roman times, Lucian wrote a satire against philosophers as well. Criticism of philosophers for undermining morality has been around a long time, and was old long before Burke. Whether Cicero is properly considered a "conservative" according to current definitions, I don't know, nor do I think it's very useful to indulge in that speculation. I'm fairly comfortable with the claim that we have nobody of Cicero's quality around these days, though.
Burke had an unfortunate tendency to be sentimental, as evidenced by his rapture over Marie Antoinette and his excessive reaction to her death as the death of chivalry. Even his friends told him he made a fool of himself.
I do still have a dash of the moral romantic in me (though I can't deny it may be nothing more than the final limp twitchings of a deep-seated neurosis). So, though voluntary crucifixion would certainly be beyond the reach of my flailing moral imagination, I might yet be induced to drink the hemlock if it were in the cause of rescuing mankind from terminal ethical degeneracy. (Only on the proviso my tormenters agreed to leave my family out of it though, and this reprobate atheist was guaranteed a place in the history books to compensate for his certain lack of heavenly award).
Probably you also found the local atmosphere to be more decent and welcoming than a large metropolitan college would have been
Quoting Bitter Crank
Why do you think this happened?
Quoting Bitter Crank
I only know of William Burroughs in more detail from the three - from memory I remember that he came from quite a wealthy family and went to a private boarding school. He was a homosexual from school, but I don't think homosexuality in itself is necessarily a vice (and even if it is, it would be a minor one) - if by that we mean attraction to the same sex. It's about how one uses their sexuality that I would count as the source of the main sexual vices (as nothing can be a vice which isn't in one's control). However - he was shaped by the time he spent in Europe, if I'm not mistaken (and please correct me if I am), after college - which seemed to be very significant for a large share of his views. The other two I don't know much about.
The problem is that as the core of culture erodes, and we're left only with competing subcultures, the latter group grows larger while the former group disappears, and soon you have a collection of people that form a society 'for nobody,' that nobody is obligated to maintain. The solution is not to rally individuals to fight for something they have no stake in, and in fact once a society is 'for nobody,' it may very well not be worth saving.
The "moral environment", in both the broadest global and the narrowest local senses, is obviously influential on both the individual development, as well as the average level to be found in societies, of moral imagination. But it is not on its own sufficient to account for the vast differences to be found in the qualities of people's moral imaginations, and the differences in the degrees to which they possess and use moral imagination.
A society that was genuinely "for nobody" would mean a society that was equally for everybody. Why should we expect to enjoy anything more than a situation that provides a range of possible means of livelihood and a social structure wherein the companionship and love of a few friends and family is possible? What has society failed to give those who "never feel comfortable" and how is it "alien and hostile to them" except in their own imaginations?
Divorce rate: 50%+
Out of wedlock birth rate: 40% (in some populations even higher 70% in blacks)
Infidelity rate: 50%
Family is becoming increasingly difficult in such an environment, and will become increasingly rare in the future. Friendship is also becoming rare, when everyone is driven to compete against one another principally driven by greed. This generation, who are now in their 20s, some of them may still get away with things, and sneak through all the difficulties. But the problem is for coming generations - they will feel it in a big big way. Oh and real love - yes, maybe in the afterlife, that has already become almost impossible down here amongst us Western mortals :)
Modern secular humanism's vision of a human being as an abstract particular with material desires and preferences, devoid of religion, history, culture, and nationality is a vision of the human as non-human. It is possible for materially functioning society to be spiritually bankrupt in this way. We are not just things plopped here out of nowhere, but what we come from informs who we are. The message of a modern Western state is: "you are no one."
Those statistics you cite are merely that; statistics, and they don't necessarily reflect the status of love and friendship in the vast lebenswelt. I am not as pessimistic about it as you apparently are. I think genuine love has always been difficult and a rare thing to achieve. In any case as I see it the primary duty of the individual is to love and take care of those close to him or her, including him or herself, in the best way possible.
That is to say the duty of the individual is only the ethical one concerning his or her spiritual development; whether to neglect it or cultivate it; and if the latter, then how to cultivate it. The only hope for humanity consists in the spiritual development of individuals not in the imposition of social or moral orders on others, by those who are not themselves spiritually up to the task. I don't believe that you or I, or possibly anyone, no matter how spiritually developed they may be, knows what is coming.
~ Wikipedia.
The original motivation behind the secular state was to provide a framework within which one was free to practice any religion or none. However 'secular philosophy' is nowadays often interpreted to imply that 'none' is better than 'any'.
I agree with much of what you say about the importance of tradition, but I'm divided over conservatism.
I actually agree very much with this, and I wasn't implying that I think modern Western culture is not teeming with existential and spiritual problems. On the other hand, in terms of sheer accessibility for those that will, there is much more culture today than ever before. Globalizing tendencies have meant a shift away from the kinds of 'village cultures' of 'belonging' in which traditional tutelage is very strongly, sometimes even rigidly, retained, but where the expression of the individual may be severely restricted. So, as much has been gained as has been sacrificed, and I tend to see the development of modern culture to have been a kind of dialectical, developmentally logical necessity in any case.
I think that's is misreading given by those who identify with past traditions or the idea of being more than oneself. Secular humanism (at least once we get past Modernism and Classical Liberalism) views the individual as part of a culture of humans as they exist. It's doesn't say you are "no-one" ( well, except to those who thinks of themselves as nobodies, who are fooled by their expectation to be something other than themsleves), but rather "there is nothing necessary about you."
The message of the modern Western state is: "You will not necessarily be anything or anyone." It severs the myth that logic forms us. We are known to have an uncertain future.
I don't really believe i the 'expression of the individual,' I guess, in that there is no individuality to express outside of a heritage. I'm not saying any individual culture is guaranteed to be great or even not horrible to some individual or class of individuals. But what we're seeing is the option of having a culture essentially forcibly removed. And Hegelianism is bunk.
(A) religion is altered from a giver of insight and wisdom to anyone, to nothing more than the personal outlook without any more force than something like a piece or entertainment or commentary.
It does not. The point of 'humanism' is the value of the human in the abstract. There is no human in the abstract. Equality = leveling off. Cultures are permitted to exist under secular humanism only as trivial consumer choices.
I think what you say here is very one-sided: there could be no heritage absent the presently available expressions of unique past individuals.
Quoting The Great Whatever
I''m not sure what to make of this. I agree that there are forces at work against all aspects of culture that deserve the name. But this 'deculturating' tendency has by no means brought about any fait accompli as far as I can see. What do you have in mind?
Quoting The Great Whatever
So says the great pontificator! Why would you say that? Do you honestly believe there is no evolutionary logic to historical development?
Only if you are thinking in modernist terms. For those who come after (i.e. post modernists, post-structralists, those interested in the interaction of biology and culture, etc.,etc.), the individual is always comes from, is embedded and is creating culture.
Equality does equal a levelling off-- there is no culture which saves one from themselves or grants certainity of meaning-- but this does not equal the meaningless of culture or the individual. It only amounts to the absence of the abstraction of meaning-- the myth our meaning is given outside the expression of ourselves.
At best, it can only act as retrospective apologetics, which is what Hegel was interested in. Granted, whenever something happens, it always seems necessary in retrospect, due to natural solipsism / lack of imagination. The same solipsism that leads to humanism I guess.
Quoting John
I think the more you look at a tradition, the more the illusion that any one individual is important to it dissolves. Geniuses are few, and culture arises without being able to say who wrote the folk song or invented the tradition, etc., because no one did. This is not to say individuals are secondary or have no values, for the simple reason that there cannot be a culture without individuals. But I don't think the notion of a society constructed to maximize the freedom of the individual makes sense, except insofar as this is something the culture privileges. This is not IMO the modus operandi of secular humanism, which is interested in the destruction of culture through multiculturalism, not in maintaining a coherent culture of liberty.
Of course if a person wants to operate entirely freely, outside of a tradition, I think this is possible insofar as 1) they grow up in some tradition to begin with, to be a coherent human being, and then 2) abandon it in favor of being a 'lonely soul' (think Emil Cioran or Ralph Ellison). Even here one's loneliness tends to be a reflection of the previous culture, although I think works of genius are especially likely in this space.
So pomo doesn't traffic in culture so much as the reflection of it.
Seems a bit superficially dismissive. And I don't think apologetics of any kind was what Hegel was actually interested in.
Have you actually attempted to read Phenomenology of Spirit or Science of Logic or even done significant reading in the secondary literature?
Quoting The Great Whatever
Not true, for every folk song or tradition there was an individual that came up with the original melody or lyrics or idea.
Quoting The Great Whatever
I don't understand this at all. A society could not be "constructed to maximize the freedom of the individual" "except insofar as this is something the culture privileges", so I don't know waht you are trying to say here.
Quoting The Great Whatever
Again I don't know what you are trying to say. Are you claiming that because they were "lonely souls" that they were geniuses in a special sense beyond all the other less lonely geniuses? In order to be thought a genius at all there work would have be (at least) culturally relevant, wouldn't it. This would not seem to be possible if they truly operated "entirely freely, outside of a tradition". I haven't read Ellison, but I have Cioran; and I would say there have been many greater geniuses, and that in any cases his work owes much (if not to any others) to the works of the traditionally canonized figures Nietzsche and Schopenhauer.
Unless we're misanthropes, we would get involved in social affairs (for ethical reasons) if we cared about the people who were part of society. We need not care about the culture for us to care about the people subjugated within the culture.
From my perspective, it's that we're a part of society whether we like it or not. Nobody asked us if we wanted to be born, nobody asked us if we wanted to be a part of the world, and yet here we are. Furthermore, we also have a certain amount of compassion mixed with rationality that leads to a compelling sense of obligation towards others.
So when someone says it's "not their problem", this, to me, comes across as ignoring what other people are feeling. Not caring. At what point does someone else's problem become your problem?
I don't care. I'll be dismissive of what I think deserves to be dismissed. Hegel was certainly an apologist, if you've read Phil. of Right.
I've read the Phenomenology.
Quoting John
Modern secular humanist society tries to maximize the freedom of the individual by treating the individual as nothing but an abstract particular, a human. It provides no avenues for being free, but merely tries to make freedom in virtue of destroying cultural bonds that might stop this abstract human from developing in whatever direction it pleases. It's the difference between an absence of culture, only being able to see culture as restrictive, and a positive commitment to liberty as a culture.
Quoting John
No. Genius is independent of cultural merit and needs no approval.
My point was that it represents an understanding culture is lived. It's knowledge, unlike the study of culture that preceded, that one's meaning cannot be separated form the expression of oneself.
Unlike Classical Liberalism and Modernism, where the human is understood as an abstracted being (effectively as God or tradition were before it), it understands humans are always come from and are embedded within culture.
Rather than the individual being important to culture, the individual is the means by which culture manifests-- discourse speaks through indivduals.
The uncertainty of postmodernism is precisely because it avoids abstracting culture. Since culture manifests in how individual act, it cannot have a presence outside them. Traditions of the past (even those of modernist humanism) are revealed to be myths. We cannot have certainly in meaning because all it takes is a change in how we exist. Since we cannot eliminate the possibility of different culture, we cannot ever be sure ours will remain.
The assertion of tradition, from ancients to modernist humanism, is a falsehood. Those were always abstractions rather than the living human culture.
Yet, this is of no consequence to the ability of our culture to be present. That we might possibly act otherwise or could mean differently does nothing to eliminate the culture we have.
Post-modernism is not just a reaction against modernist humanism. It's a reaction against the abstraction of culture, the idea our culture is expressed outside ourselves, which has characterised philosophy for pretty much the rest of history.
It takes out all tradition, for tradition (everyone will necessarily do this) is recognised as the abstraction of culture: the idea culture manifests outside how people live, such that it must always be.
It isn't much different, in that instead of an abstract human, we have an abstract conglomeration of demographics, and those demographics just proliferate and proliferate endlessly though none of them mean anything.
If you are concerned with culture as it is lived, there is no issue at all. The demographics proliferate endlessly and that is enough-- the lived culture for those who are living it.
I found nothing to respond to in what you wrote except this. How do you determine genius in the absence of any criteria of cultural value? Also, you seem to be contradicting yourself in apparently valorizing genius as being beyond all culture and yet denying the importance of the unique individual.
Many of your comments seem to me relentlessly offhand and facile, even perverse. They seem more to be expressions of your dissatisfied temperament than to be well-considered expressions of the intellect.
Why would cultural value be relevant? Does approval of something make it genius? Clearly not. Does disapproval of something make it not genius? Clearly not. The point of genius as I understand it is that it seems to come from nowhere, from resources that can't be reduced to its environment. Genius by definition can't be predicted, and so it is unbound by the way in which it assimilates into its prior context in a way that non-genius material isn't. To that end it's indifferent whether the surrounding culture assimilates and understands it. It might very well do so, but in doing so the culture yields to the genius; the genius doesn't yield to the culture. And if the two never hit, then the genius is still so on its own terms.
Quoting John
What I said was that the unique individual is generally not important to a culture; I then mentioned genius explicitly as an exception to this in noting its rarity.
Quoting John
Tbh it would help if you read more carefully before responding. I'm fine with these sorts of criticisms but e.g. the 'contradiction' you thought you found above could have been remedied by paying attention to the post.
Quoting The Great Whatever
From a purely cultural point of view something is only genius if it is judged to be so. Something cannot coherently be said to be genius from 'an absence of any point of view'. So what point of view would you say exists outside the cultural, given that you seemed to be saying before that the point of view of the unique individual is irrelevant?
I agree that the culture yields to the genius; that is precisely what I was saying before about how the most significant aspects of culture find their origins in the works of geniuses as well as the genius of lesser creators (unique individuals one and all). Perhaps the idea of the 'undiscovered genius' is not totally incoherent or express the impossible, but how could you ever know?
Quoting The Great Whatever
So, now you are saying that genius is important to culture; I can't keep up. Surely the works of individuals that are less than genius are only less important in proportion to their distance from genius?
Anyway, it sounds kind of elitist; don't you think everyone has something to contribute in their own way, and the more so the more that they are authentically as opposed to merely biologically unique individuals; that is the more they have freed themselves from the normalizing dictates of any mob mentality?
Quoting The Great Whatever
Fair enough; I went too far with that in a moment of peevishness. I do acknowledge that you often have much of interest and subtlety to say. Although I stand by my criticism as I explain above; i think there is some inconsistency, even if not downright contradiction, in what you have been saying about the relation between culture and the individual.
:-! That is your opinion, personally I think statistics give us insight into what is happening in society, especially when we look at how they're changing. It doesn't give us insight into an individual's life - yes that could be unaffected by such problems, either because the individual himself took care to organise his life in such a way and choose his/her marriage partner or friends to make this possible, or because s/he was just lucky. But it certainly gives us insight into the life the average man in that society can expect.
Why so?
Yes, which is tragic.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
Interesting abstraction :D
Yes!
Quoting The Great Whatever
What do you take humanism to be, and why do you reject it?
Quoting The Great Whatever
I highly agree.
Quoting The Great Whatever
Very perceptive observations, I agree also here.
Depends - conservatism generally and historically refers to social policy. Someone can be a conservative with a socialist view of economics, nothing contradictory in that. In fact, my economics are probably slightly left-leaning as well (free education, free healthcare, government restriction of multinational corporations, etc.) Marx had something that he called reactionary socialism (because such a socialism was practiced before) - which is very alike to social conservatism coupled with socialist leaning economics.
I take humanism to be the valuation of human beings for the sole reason that they are human beings, a valuation that can't be augmented or diminished by any particular circumstance or quality of the human being beyond belonging to this abstract class. The humanist believes that all human beings have an intrinsic worth, and this worth is not gradable or essentially modifiable.
I reject it because I would rather celebrate individual cultures and accomplishments on their own terms, even if this means accepting that there is no abstract human essence in which all of them share (so that it is in theory possible for multiple cultures to exist with mutually incompatible values, or mutually incompatible ideas of what it is to be human). Forcing every unique culture into this abstract valuation necessarily destroys all of them insofar as they are not mutually compatible, and they can't be mutually compatible so long as they're real and substantive. So it isn't possible to be humanist without trivializing culture.
Very well, I largely agree with this, although I have never thought of it that way, and always thought of myself as a humanist. What would you say about a "culture" or call it way of life as that promoted by ISIS? Isn't that something that other cultures, even if they hold differences between each other should eliminate and fight against?
Furthermore, I think the word humanist will be applied in practice generally to people who value and love human beings and do something to help them. For example - the religions are frequently seen as humanist in these terms - wanting to help the poor, etc.
'In the Oratio de hominis dignitate (Oration on the Dignity of Man, 1486), Pico justified the importance of the human quest for knowledge within a Neoplatonic framework.'
As such, there was a grounding in transcendent truth which is generally absent from today's secular humanism.
'Science is the successful part of modern philosophy, and philosophy is the rump 1.'
Speaks volumes.
Leo Strauss is loved by neo-conservatives, not really by traditional conservatives. Eric Voegelin or Russell Kirk would be examples that are more friendly to traditional conservatives. There's many branches of conservative thought - the main stem, the traditional one which flows from Cicero to Burke is the one focused on social issues primarily.
I think the more important point that TWG was trying to make is whether or not humanism (whether of a religious or secular kind) is destructive. The way he has defined it:
Quoting The Great Whatever
Notice that this definition doesn't claim that being human has no value - only that this isn't the only source of value. It protests against the levelling of all people to the same conditions of value based merely on the fact that they are human - Hitler is not equal to Socrates for example, although they are both human. And one wonders whether this impulse to level all people to the same condition of value has caused, for example, the importance of virtue to recede, to the point that virtue has ceased to be a word used in common discourse. In common mentality, people no longer strive for virtue - why would they, they all have the same value, regardless whether one is a criminal or a saint. I think what TWG is trying to say is that once humanism is admitted, it inevitably will lead to the collapse of nobility and strength of spirit - these qualities will no longer be admired and desired by the masses of men. Instead, the masses will prefer the easy path that requires no effort - people will demand of each other "Accept me for who I am, don't tell me to be better - don't expect me to improve". Such an impulse, I believe, is highly destructive. And this is true even for religious humanism. In fact, a lot of Christianity has become decadent once it started accepting the discourse "Jesus loves you and will take away all your sins if you accept Him as Lord and Saviour! + Works don't save! It doesn't matter if you live a perfect moral life, if you do not say that you accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour, then you will perish" - this discourse basically provides people with a license for sinning - it tells them, don't be worried, don't fret - you're an adulterer? No problem, Jesus will forgive your sins. Why fret so much about it, afterall Christianity demands you not to be anxious!
And so - I believe - that TWG is trying to point out that this humanism produces a decadent effect, even upon religions.
"Accept me for who I am, don't tell me to be better - don't expect me to improve"
But what did Aristotle say? Friends are not those who make each other feel good, but rather those who compete to bring out the best in each other. That is a noble friendship - what is so common in the mainstream society, is the opposite - friends have become those who bring out what is worst in each other - encouraging each other to lust, greed, drunkenness, sloth, etc. And why? Because people have been trained not to tolerate those who challenge them and push them to be better.
There was a really good speech adapted to a movie from Aristotle about this very matter in the 2004 Alexander the Great movie - but the one I knew on youtube has been removed...
I'm tempted to say the same thing about ISIS and Islam, and that moderate Muslims and progressives just have their heads in the sand: that is, whether or not even more than a small minority of Muslims are a part of ISIS or even just have sympathies with it, ISIS is in a way just Islam developed to its logical conclusion, as progressivism is Christianity developed to its logical conclusion. Christianity and Islam are poisonous and dangerous left unchecked for different reasons, our cultural attachment to them, whatever it might be, not withstanding. My sympathies for either of them are waning. Both share in the original sin of Abrahamism, or monotheism, or whatever you want to call it. You can force everyone violently to become part of one culture, which is Islam's modus operandi, or you can destroy every culture in the world, which is Christinaity's.
The problem with what you say here is that if there is no essential value that consists in virtue of simply being a human value, then all values, including virtues are merely arbitrary insofar as they are entirely culture specific. It would then be a performative contradiction for you to argue for virtue ethics because it is intelligible as such only when it is considered as being universally applicable.
I agree with you, I was not for one minute trying to preach or convert, or to suggest a return to the past. My orientation has always been more towards alternative and counter-cultural philosophies, actually I have formally converted to Buddhism. But part of the motivation for that, was because of the forlorn hopelessness of philosophical materialism, the anti-religious mentality of today's secular mainstream. I was critically aware of that even as a child, for reasons I can't reallly fathom.
The issue which got me into internet forums was the publication of The God Delusion in 2007; the first forum I debated on was the Dawkins' forum. It was moderated by a lot of intelligent and conscientious atheists and was a bitterly polemical free-for-all (long since closed). Then I moved on to other forums and now here. But over those years I've done a lot of reading about the origins of the secular~scientific attitude. It is undoubtedly descended from, or even a product of, the decay of the Judeo-Christian worldview.
I think the original failing with Christian orthoodoxy was bound up with the formation of the Catholic church and the exclusion of gnosticism. Have a look at this scandalous article. It would never get published in a real journal, but contains more than a grain of truth.
No, you see, they're not arbitrary, because they're culture specific. It's trying to unbind them from culture that makes them arbitrary.
Your universalistic assumptions are so deeply embedded that you're unable to imagine value outside of them.
What I'm saying is that it didn't come from its decay, but from its arising and development. Although I was referring more to humanism than scientific materialism. While historically related I'm not sure how necessary a relation that really is.
I may as well show my cards and say that I agree, and that Gnosticism is for me anyway the 'real' Christianity.
No, I can very easily imagine culture specific values, What I am saying is that if they are merely culture specific then they arbitrary in relation to the whole of humanity, just as purely individually subjective values are arbitrary in relation to cultures.
I wasn't talking about the abstraction of knowledge versus living. That's a feature of every argument or instance of understanding-- to merely know is not to be. Such a point doesn't tell us anything much because all assertions to knowledge and wisdom fall underneath it.
The abstraction I'm talking about is what it takes to have a worthwhile culture or indentity. Instead of treating indentity and culture as of the lived and for the lived, it's treated as if it must transcend life.
If culture is not a tradition destined into infinity, then it supposedly "just entertainment." It forms the understanding that our life and value is defined outside ourselves. We are inherently flawed in being finite beings and so must be saved by a transcendent force, else we will be meaningless wretches (regardless of how ethical or unethical) we are.
Even the great destroyers of religion believe this shit. Nietzsche thinks in this way. God might be dead, but God was still always meant to be alive, as if that's what was required for meaning and ethics to have force. Like the religious philosophies before him, meaning and ethics are abstractions not expressions of human life.
Modernist humanism is the same. The generalised "free everyman" takes the mantle of the transcendent, becomes the tradition which is destined to be practiced, such that we will be saved from our finite wretchedness-- technology will create utopia, everyone is a free man able to realise their dreams, etc., etc. It's all wistful fantasy which doesn't take human life seriously.
Nietzsche was wrong. God is not dead, but rather was never alive in the first place. Throughout human history, our culture has been of the living and for the living, not the abstraction it purported to be. Ethical performance and identity are expressions of us, done for ourselves as living humans. For culture and identity to mean, they don't need to extend into infinity. They only need to matter for the living.
That's the abstraction I'm talking about. Culture and identity supposely have nothing to do with living humans. Instead of understanding them to be objective expressions of living people, you treat values and culture as if they are to be enforced from the outside.
To ask "why should anyone care" is to miss the point entirely. Nothing can enforce that. People have to care themsleves. Saying "God," "Tradition" or "Humainity" doesn't define anyone is a part of a culture. They have to live it. There is no reason which means someone is destined to partake in culture. No appeal to "essence" functions and it's not required to define a meaningful culture.
The problem here is that values have evolved within cultures that were previously separated from one another. As the population and the means of transportation have inexorably grown, no such separation is possible. To take the diverse human interests within cultures for granted as what matters, in times when cultures were much more separate from one another, is not logically different than taking the human (which is really nothing more than the collectivity of all cultures) for granted as what matters in times when cultures can no longer be considered to be genuinely separated from one another. Now there is inevitable intercultural interpenetration, so its not a matter of being an appeal to an "abstract essence" but to what seems universal across an inevitably culturally diverse human collectivity, The human is constituted by the totality of that collectivity, just as in the past it was variously culturally defined by each culture as a human collective.
You sound very Nietzschean to me even as you try to contrast your views with his. I understand the death of God to be the death of belief in God. Of course Nietzsche was an atheist. He was one of the strongest poets of worldliness, too, even if he sometimes "fell" into poses that implied a god-like universal.
I actually very much agree that "ethical performance and identity are expressions of us, done for ourselves as living humans." But I think "shrinking" Nietzsche (anxiety of influence?) only obscures this important point.
My point is Nietzsche is still steeped in the myth he identifies. He still views meaning as transcendent, as an expression outside of human life rather than of human life. As a result, his philosophy sees no meaning where meaning is in fact plentiful.
His account of ethics and meaning, reduced to power, is an on point refution of the idea life and justice are destined to exist, but it's also a failure to understand their significance. The meaning of life and justice were never found outside the world in the first place. God never defined them.
The death (or rather absence) of God has no impact on either. Nietzsche still labours under the illusion of Nihilism. He can't see life matters and means with the depth and breadth almost all philosophy has mistakenly assigned to the transcendent force.
I've never said nothing matters. That's the myth I'm refuting. The transcendent force is not necessary to mean because life itself is meaningful.
Only the nihilst, who views the world as meaningless, thinks a transcendent force needs to act turn the world into something that matters.
Quoting The Great Whatever
What do you think (both of you) about Eric Voegelin's account which actually points to Gnosticism as the cause behind both the totalitarian and progressive movements of 20th century and beyond? The account is best laid out in Chapter IV (Gnosticism - The Nature of Modernity) of his book The New Science of Politics.
The nuts and bolts are that Augustinian theology separates the transcendent (freedom from suffering, the Kingdom of God, etc.) from the immanent (the world), whereas gnosticism brings the transcendent into the world, or attempts to. Voegelin claims that all totalitarian and progressive movements are similarly marked by the same tendency to bring a transcendent (Marx's communism, where people live free from the sufferings of the world) into this world - instead of identifying it with a transcendent to follow in the "next life". Whereas Christianity encourages humility, piety and patience to bear the sufferings of this world as it is impossible to completely eliminate them, the heresy of Gnosticism (which he identifies in the Middle Ages with Joachim of Flora) encourages actively seeking to bring the Kingdom of God on Earth - Christianity seeks a transcendent salvation, while gnosticism an immanent one, in this life. He identifies the same tendencies in modern progressive ideology, as well as in the totalitarian states. More info in the book (and specifically the chapter) I have pointed to!
What lead me to an interest in Gnosticism, is why Christianity (or 'churchianity') didn't seem to have anything that corresponded with the idea of moksha, spiritual liberation, as it was depicted in books about Eastern mysticism that I had been reading all my life. I formed the idea that this had something to do with the formation of Christian orthodoxy. In a very general sense, 'gnosis' means a kind of saving insight; the term has an exact counterpart in the yogic religions, specifically, jñ?na (the same word, to all intents). But that kind of sense of 'inner knowledge' was absent from anything I had been taught about Christianity. Then I learned about the discovery of the Nag Hammadi sciptures, which was a huge cache of lost gnostic writings, that were found in the 1940's in Egypt and many of which have since been translated. They depict a radically different picture of early Christian (and other middle-Eastern) religions. At that stage, I formed the view that the kind of inner teachings I had been looking for were probably represented within gnosticism but had been lost very early in the Christian period.
But there are many complications. Gnosticism is not a religion or a sect, it is much broader than that - more like a cognitive mode, I think. And I also think there were probably some dreadful gnostic sects, and some with a reputation for harsh asceticism and the total rejection of the world. So I'm not arguing that they were anything like a 'true church'; Plotinus, for example, was harshly critical of the gnostics (but then, to us moderns, Plotinus seems gnostic as well.)
Anyway, when I was doing this research, I read a very interesting book, Beyond Belief, by a comparitive religion scholar called Elaine Pagels. This book argues that there was
(Don't judge this book on a single paragraph, however. The author is a tenured professor at Princeton and is a serious scholar. The Gospel of Thomas is freely available online.)
But anyway by the time I had found all this out, I had to all intents already adopted Buddhism, which in my view is also essentially a form of gnosticism. What I felt was vital, was that basically the Churches teach a kind 'pie in the sky' religiosity, in contrast to the experiential spirituality of gnosticism and similar traditions.
They did, only that it was transcendent. You would never be immanently free (or you would never immanently achieve spiritual liberation, in this life) - the desire for immanent freedom of this sort is, according to Voegelin, exactly the same desire to be found in secularist progressive movements - they too desire a freedom, or liberation achieved in this world. According to Voegelin, you and the secularist progressive share the same consciousness, you just have different means of achieving the desired result (and by "you" I mean the religious gnostic - as opposed to the secular gnostic)
Also very similar to Prometheus who desired man to be like the gods.
You remind me of Feuerbach a little. He wrote that Christianity was dead in fact if not in theory in his times. It was the leg of an uneven table, dangling, bearing no weight. Life is drenched in meaning, buried in meaning, is meaning as investment itself. Life is care, concern, bias, asymmetry. Is that what you're getting at? If so, I agree. But what do you make of this?
[quote=N]
2. "HOW COULD anything originate out of its opposite? For example, truth out of error? or the Will to Truth out of the will to deception? or the generous deed out of selfishness? or the pure sun-bright vision of the wise man out of covetousness? Such genesis is impossible; whoever dreams of it is a fool, nay, worse than a fool; things of the highest value must have a different origin, an origin of THEIR own—in this transitory, seductive, illusory, paltry world, in this turmoil of delusion and cupidity, they cannot have their source. But rather in the lap of Being, in the intransitory, in the concealed God, in the 'Thing-in-itself—THERE must be their source, and nowhere else!"—This mode of reasoning discloses the typical prejudice by which metaphysicians of all times can be recognized, this mode of valuation is at the back of all their logical procedure; through this "belief" of theirs, they exert themselves for their "knowledge," for something that is in the end solemnly christened "the Truth." The fundamental belief of metaphysicians is THE BELIEF IN ANTITHESES OF VALUES. It never occurred even to the wariest of them to doubt here on the very threshold (where doubt, however, was most necessary); though they had made a solemn vow, "DE OMNIBUS DUBITANDUM." For it may be doubted, firstly, whether antitheses exist at all; and secondly, whether the popular valuations and antitheses of value upon which metaphysicians have set their seal, are not perhaps merely superficial estimates, merely provisional perspectives, besides being probably made from some corner, perhaps from below—"frog perspectives," as it were, to borrow an expression current among painters. In spite of all the value which may belong to the true, the positive, and the unselfish, it might be possible that a higher and more fundamental value for life generally should be assigned to pretence, to the will to delusion, to selfishness, and cupidity. It might even be possible that WHAT constitutes the value of those good and respected things, consists precisely in their being insidiously related, knotted, and crocheted to these evil and apparently opposed things—perhaps even in being essentially identical with them. Perhaps!
[/quote]
What I see here is a vision of higher meanings tangled with lower meanings in a continuum of life-enhancing fiction. Since life is meaningful in the sense that we always already care, these fictions are weighty and crucial. But one can learn to shift one's weight from one foot to the other, from the higher meanings or Truths to the "daily detail." I will defend the thesis, however, that self-esteem depends on a "Heroic" investment/identification. To speak "intellectually" on a forum for instance is an implicit assertion of one's own worth and dignity (and even uniqueness). Since we are nothing but abstract thoughts here, our appearance seems to indicate an affirmation of the the abstract thoughts we possess and largely are.
A complete misreading, in my view, based on an inadequate conception of the nature of the goal.
Secular philosophy transposes the physical universe into the role previously attributed to the divine, and science into the role previously attributed to religion. In this understanding, apotheosis is inter-stellar travel, literally and physically 'going to the heavens'. That is why Stephen Hawkings and others are so committed to interstellar travel. So that is what is Promethean. It's nothing to do with 'gnosis'.
For one, it does not try to convert in quite the same way as the other Abrahamic religions, nor does it tie its identity to any ethnic group or even wider sociopolitical community like the surrounding pagan religions. It is more of a mystery cult writ large: emphasis is on the exclusion and specialness of those in the Gnostic community, which implies their rarity. Thus, 'I will choose one in a thousand, two in ten thousand,' etc. Gnostics are oftentimes even outright discouraged from participating in the world and its affairs ('be passerby') and warned that 'merchants,' which seems to mean anyone who takes its affairs, metaphorically financial affairs, seriously, is going to miss the kingdom.
For two, it often explicitly disavows the coming of a transcendent heavenly force in the future, instead preaching that the 'kingdom' is already present on earth, and that it is ignorance that prevents mankind from seeing it. The emphasis has always been on gnosis, and not on a sweeping change in material affairs. Indeed the implication seems to be that a change in material affairs can't truly change anything, since the world is just a kind of prison, or afterthought, or shadow play.
For three, it doesn't seem consonant with Gnostic theology that any sort of earthly authority or power structure could be a coherent goal. The closest Gnosticism came to having a political, as opposed to a spiritual, influence as when Valentinus almost was elected Pope. Even if he was, I'm not sure how much Gnosticism could seep into the Church – genuinely preaching it would seem likely to shrink the Church's membership. I remember reading that for a very brief period there was actually technically a Gnostic state somewhere in the Middle East, when its petty king was converted by a Gnostic confidant. I can't recall the name, though. That situation does not seem stable.
I agree that totalitarianism has echoes of millennialism, though. At the very least it's messianic.
This is great, but you neglect to mention anti-scientistic strains of secular philosophy. A pragmatist can view both physics and theology as instruments. This "higher instrumentalism" is not a worship of the "scientific image" (which is just a tool, not the Truth). It's usually humanist if not individualistic, so I'd call it secular. The point is that not all secular philosophers embrace scientism. We have "truths" versus Truth, whether that Truth is a ghost or a secret or an electron.
But that's 'the left' that do that, although they're as much 'anti-science' than 'anti-scientism'. Like, they will say that physical laws are 'embedded in cultural discourse'. Oddly enough, I am a scientific realist, i.e. I'm not one of those who believes that scientific truths are social conventions. Although I regard scientific truth as 'the truth but not the only truth', that is, limited in scope, because by its nature science excludes many existential truths, so I think there are domains or realms which are out of scope for science, but that doesn't undermine science.
I trust science on its own turf, but I think they're right. Is there a clear line between science and non-science? What sorts of "proof" do we demand from someone who claims to be a scientist? We want to know what institutions he belongs to, who takes his work seriously, whether he is funded, etc. A scientist will judge the work, perhaps, but also in the context of who else (if anyone) has vouched for it. The very prestige of science seems to derive from its work in the "manifest image." I can see skyscrapers and watch space shuttles on TV. I can take an aspirin, log on to a philosophy forum. That seems to be the significant difference between science and some piece of currently useless pure mathematics. That's why we are tempted to say it "models" the Real. Yet it seemingly only predicts and manipulates the manifest image.
Atheism is the disbelief in the existence of any god or gods. You seem to be against [i]other things[/I] which might or might not correlate with atheism in modern times.
Quoting Agustino
That's not an understanding; that's a misunderstanding. I shouldn't have to point out that there are people who are moral, yet not religious. If you're intent on equating being moral with being religious, then I doubt I can stop you, but they are distinct, and you'd be mistaken.
Quoting Agustino
I was referring to your use of the word "morality", which I think is quite telling. Regardless of whether or not you think morality is universal, it might well be that you've got it wrong in some respects, and that those who [i]you consider[/I] to fall short of meeting [i]your[/I] moral standards - some of whom it seems are the target of your criticism - are not in fact immoral or opposed to morality, but merely disagree with your conception of it and what you think that it entails.
Saying that you think that morality is universal doesn't excuse your tendency to use this terminology to give the impression that you have superior knowledge or authority in this regard. It really does irk me when you imply that you are on the side of morality and others who don't share or conform with your views are against it, because I very much doubt that it's as black-and-white as that.
A prime example would be your reply to Baden in which you speak of "the destruction of tradition and morality". Imagine someone from the past who has notably different or more extreme views to your own saying that, and perhaps you'll realise how you come across to others.
Quoting Agustino
Atheism isn't a religion.
Quoting Agustino
No, it doesn't. If they're free to express an objectionable religious belief, then I'm free to express my objection to it. It's a two-way street. The former shouldn't have some sort of privileged status on account of being religious.
Quoting Agustino
Nonsense. An atheist is simply someone who doesn't believe that any god exists. Ironically, it is [i]you[/I] who apparently thinks that it is something other than - or more than - that. So, you should redirect that line at yourself.
Quoting Agustino
Obviously he's a believer if he believes and he isn't a believer if he doesn't. It's as simple as that. Usually talking about your Christian faith is an indication that you believe in God and are a Christian.
Quoting Agustino
No, there's just atheism - which is about belief in the existence of a deity or deities. You're not criticising atheism itself, but rather what some atheists believe atheism entails, and their alleged intent to overthrow certain traditions. I don't accept that that is necessarily wrong, to make myself clear. You'd need to be more much more specific.
The post-modernist's point is that our scientific discourse is cultural regardless of how well it describes the world. It is always our statement of what the world does rather nature itself.
And frequently, that it is not description of the world, but rather an insistence of a particular meaning of the scientific discourse.
I like your iconoclastic edge. I like viewing humanism from the outside (I've read Stirner's book closely). But what is this "taking human life seriously"? Do you approve or disapprove of seeking pleasure and avoiding pain? Are you criticizing the assumption of the necessity of the transcendent as a source of needless pain? As an obstacle to pleasure? If so, I can relate. But I don't see how fantasy is bad in itself unless there is a transcendent Truth that we have some duty toward. Why not fantasies if they work? The only strong difference I see between fantasies-that-work and non-fantasy is that non-fantasy is made "the sacred" in Stirner's terms.
[quote= Stirner]
Alienness is a criterion of the “sacred.” In everything sacred there lies something “uncanny,” strange, such as we are not quite familiar and at home in.
[/quote]
We seem to have fantasies-that-work versus truth-to-be-revered (which also happens to work, as a lucky by-product). What good is truth apart from utility if it's not the "hallowing" of its messenger?
[quote=Stirner]
Here we come upon the old, old craze of the world, which has not yet learned to do without clericalism – that to live and work for an idea is man’s calling, and according to the faithfulness of its fulfilment his human worth is measured.
[/quote]
That reminds me of what I think is your view. We think we need the "infinite" idea in order to measure up. But I personally think we serve "the sacred" (in a sophisticated form) even as we point it out as a dominating structure. We become (as intellectual personae wearing philosopher's hats part-time) something like pure ideological violence or nothingness.
[quote=Stirner]
Therefore I repeat that the religious world – and this is the world of thought – reaches its completion in criticism, where thinking extends its encroachments over every thought, no one of which may “egoistically” establish itself. Where would the “purity of criticism,” the purity of thinking, be left if even one thought escaped the process of thinking? This explains the fact that the critic has even begun already to gibe gently here and there at the thought of Man, of humanity and humaneness, because he suspects that here a thought is approaching dogmatic fixity. But yet he cannot decompose this thought until he has found a “higher” in which it dissolves; for he moves only in thoughts. This higher thought might be enunciated as that of the movement or process of thinking itself, as the thought of thinking or of criticism, for example.
[/quote]
I've never said fantasies were not worthwhile, only that they aren't true. My argument extends to the philosophical responsibility of reporting truth. Fantasies are never empty and not necessarily some terrible monster. There are other of ethics than whether someone understands the particular falsehood of Nihilism and the transcendent saviour. My point is fantasies are false, not without meaning or necessarily unethical to hold.
I would argue Stirner is still caught under the spell of the transcendent here. Criticism is veiwed in terms of seeking the "higher" rather than understanding a particular subject itself. No doubt there is a gap in thought between a religion and a criticism which takes it down, but they are different thoughts entirely-- if I call out a religion as fantasy, I cannot even think in terms of the religion. To say the religion is true is impossible for me when understand it as fantasy. There is no completion to thought-- think one way, you give up the opposite, even within instances of doublethink.
Criticism is about different ideas, not "higher" ones. At least good criticism is. When critics speak in terms of "higher" and "lower," they are really only boxing in a popularity contest.
Here the "non-fantasy" is not "sacred," at least in the context of the argument. It's a descriptive. A truth we don't need to follow, but will if we are to tell the truth in this context. We might say there is a "sacred" element in the motivation to talk about it-- if we are talking about it, the we think we ought to, that it's important to recognise fantasy as fantasy, but it's not the point of the argument.
The falsehood of the transcendent means even our "sacred" concern for truth will not save us. We can't reach meaning by telling people they ought to find themselves meaningful. It's not how we save ourselves from meaninglessness. Many meaningful lives are present believing in their fantasy.
Truth is not a soultion to meaninglessness. Meaninglessness was never a problem in the first place, not even for those who think believing fantasy is required for meaning.
I'm asking something far tougher of fantasy than making a call to obliterate it or offering an alternative fiction. My descriptive truth hits our fantasies right at their core: in their cliam of truth. I'm not talking about what we ought to do or offering a way to save us from meaninglessness. My subject is the truth of fantasy regardless of whether we believe them or not.
In this respect, it's all together more powerful than any assertion of how someone ought to think. If I was just saying fantasy was bad for us, it would be easy to counter. I would be a dogmatist demanding we could save ourselves through (the fiction of) truth, a run of the mill cheerleader for one of the many ways of living in this world.
I not doing this though. Believing the truth isn't going to save us because no-one needs saving. My argument doesn't say we ought to give up fantasies, just that they're telling a whopping great lie about our meaning. In this context, fantasy becomes untenable. Not because it is not worthwhile or we ought not be involved with it, but rather because it says something about us which is untrue.
If I am meaningful in myself, fantasy no longer saves because there is nothing that needs saving. Worthwhile or not, it becomes a mere practice I enjoy (or do not enjoy) rather than how I avoid being a meaningless wretch.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
Actually Stirner was criticizing criticism for being still too pious, albeit something like the final station of (generalized) religion. He thought there was a stage beyond criticism, basically in thoughtlessness, which is maybe like overcoming the will to overcome metaphysics. But we all do that sometimes. For me, Stirner as intellectual persona just isolated pure iconoclasm. (To be sure, this is implicit in "all is vanity" with a much older text.)
If Nietzsche questioned the will to truth in 1886, Stirner wrote this is 1848:
[quote= Stirner]
The truth, or “truth in general,” people are bound not to give up, but to seek for. What else is it but the Être suprême, the highest essence? Even “true criticism” would have to despair if it lost faith in the truth. And yet the truth is only a — thought; but it is not merely “a” thought, but the thought that is above all thoughts, the irrefragable thought; it is the thought itself, which gives the first hallowing to all others; it is the consecration of thoughts, the “absolute,” the “sacred” thought. The truth wears longer than all the gods; for it is only in the truth’s service, and for love of it, that people have overthrown the gods and at last God himself. “The truth” outlasts the downfall of the world of gods, for it is the immortal soul of this transitory world of gods, it is Deity itself.
I will answer Pilate’s question, What is truth? Truth is the free thought, the free idea, the free spirit; truth is what is free from you, what is not your own, what is not in your power. But truth is also the completely unindependent, impersonal, unreal, and incorporeal; truth cannot step forward as you do, cannot move, change, develop; truth awaits and receives everything from you, and itself is only through you; for it exists only — in your head. You concede that the truth is a thought, but say that not every thought is a true one, or, as you are also likely to express it, not every thought is truly and really a thought. And by what do you measure and recognize the thought? By your impotence, to wit, by your being no longer able to make any successful assault on it! When it overpowers you, inspires you, and carries you away, then you hold it to be the true one. Its dominion over you certifies to you its truth; and, when it possesses you, and you are possessed by it, then you feel well with it, for then you have found your — lord and master. When you were seeking the truth, what did your heart then long for? For your master!
[/quote]
Of course one is hallowed by proximity to (or possession of) this "master." In other words, we allow ourselves to be bound in order to bind in a sort of pyramid scheme.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
But my question remains. In the name of what value or goal do you bother to hit fantasies at their core with this descriptive truth? If you don't want to save others from meaningless, do you want to save them from the illusion that they need saving? It's hard to see how a thinker isn't always offering something useful (beauty is something like pure use if pleasure is value).
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
OK, but why is the "whopping great lie about our meaning" a problem? Why does fantasy become untenable? If the fantasizers aren't happy with their fantasies, then surely they need better fantasies, if you'll allow that fantasies (myths, prejudices, fictions) help people cope.
I really like meaningfulness in one's self. But I tend to view it as an introjection of the archetype of "the sacred," achieved in time dialectically. Because I see this "sacred" as archetype, we always have not only the usual bodily meanings but also 'sacred' meaning, especially through all of those alienating identifications such as God, man, truth, science, philosophy/criticism. A minimum of alienation is seemingly found in declaring one's own mind sacred. There is nothing sacred outside the mind to be sinful or wretched in relation to. Of course this only solves the "spiritual" problem, where "spiritual" is aimed at the urge to sacred. The needs for food, love, etc., are something else. I think constraints on behavior (laws, customs) under-determine most of our beliefs. This culture is largely about persona construction, the "happiness of being envied" or glamour (John Berger). So I connect "status anxiety" with the "spiritual." A person can be happy in a shared fantasy or identification with the sacred. Perhaps it's the anxiety of influence and the thrill of violation that drives the instability of identifications in some of us.
I'm actually surprised there aren't more people who embrace this combination of social conservatism and leftist(ish) economics. That's become my position in recent years, and it's a lonely place. Well, at least its lonely here in the US, where social conservatism is almost always wedded to neoliberal economics. This being the case, I find myself having much more in common with people on the Left than on the Right, since the former do appear to take ethical considerations seriously. What has begun to separate me from them, in part and amongst other things, is that they stop short of endorsing the idea that any one way of living is, or even could be, superior to another. That theoretical relativism of the Left is belied by passionate protestations against greed, corruption, racial oppression and other things they (IMO rightly) consider social ills.
But getting back to the point, I do think a focus on virtue - and character formation generally - can only benefit the development of genuine 'freedom' as well as a 'progressive' economic agenda. A virtuous person for instance would seem much more likely to treat their family, their workers, and their fellow citizens in ways that would result in more camaraderie, trust and good will than we see at present. Without that ethical grounding, cynicism and hedonism and shortsighted self-interest combine to create a hostile and exploitative social and economic environment.
I'll shamelessly offer myself as an example of how embodying some (admittedly poor) semblance of 'virtue' could be compatible with a progressive social policy - keeping in mind my many personal flaws of course and admitting I was going to go with the old 'I have a friend who...' routine. Long story (somewhat) short, I offered to take a pay cut at work to make sure a couple of my hardworking employees got modest pay increases I felt they deserved. This idea was met by the owners with total disbelief, like how could anyone be so stupid as to volunteer to make less money? The answer for me was pretty simple: taking care of our employees and treating them like human beings rather than numbers would reinforce their loyalty and commitment, which would make my job a lot easier, and would also increase the likelihood of the company's success.
What I didn't say, so as not to give offence, is that I'm not fixated on money or gaining the approval of others through the typical symbols of social success. I would gladly spread the wealth around if it meant others are taken care of too. Being stubborn and shortsighted bean-counters, and seeing our workers as obstacles rather than contributors to increased profits, they couldn't fathom mindset. It was like I was speaking a language they had never heard. I then tried to use their language and reinforce the pragmatic cost/benefit angle (setting aside the moral/ethical aspect) as increased pay (along with other things) would likely improve morale, decrease absenteeism, help us avoid turnover, and improve the overall performance of our staff. With that they started to listen and actually gave the employees raises.
I only bring this story up because I feel it represents, in a very small way, some form of social conservatism aligning with almost communistic economic tendencies. I may have a somewhat antiquated or idiosyncratic view of social conservatism as a cluster of related positions (community-oriented, there's more to life than making money, people should be treated as ends rather than means, virtue is its own reward, awareness of the historical tradition and its exemplary figures, etc...) but it seems reasonable to assume that a virtuous populace would be likely to embrace a progressive social/economic agenda. At the very least, this voice should be represented amongst all the political parties and noise we hear today.
.
Quoting The Great Whatever
First I think it is good to have an introduction of Voegelin's thought for this discussion. On the internet there are quite a few sources. Here. Here (very long, and quite comprehensive. Or here.
Try to remember that what Voegelin focuses on is the consciousness of Gnosticism. He claims that the structure of consciousness for the medieval Gnostic and for the modern secular Marxist is the same.
Quoting The Great Whatever
Yes, this structure of consciousness where the participants see themselves as special or elite appears in modern movements like Marxism, where the Proletariat is the special class that will bring about the communist paradise for everyone. Modern homosexual movements see themselves in this same light, as special and unique and deserving to show and demonstrate their sexuality to everyone. This is pride, instead of humility.
Quoting The Great Whatever
Voegelin criticizes this as the Gnostic denial of reality, and seeking to replace it with a more real, second order reality that only they have access to. This bears the character of totalitarianism for several reasons: (1) it seeks to replace reality as empirically accessible, (2) claims infallible direct access to reality that is not open to rational criticism and correction. It's very similar to what @TheWillowOfDarkness does, when he claims that there is nothing necessary about a person - it's an empty abstraction, which carries with it the denial of reality.
Quoting The Great Whatever
Indeed - which really is an important point. A religion which cannot ensure social stability and order is really no religion at all. I'm not disagreeing with perhaps there being a higher, mystical tradition within a religion, but I disagree with considering something to be a religion which is formed of pure mysticism denied from connection and criticism from authority and tradition. Such is anathema to the purposes of order.
I guess the biggest difficulties with Gnosticism are (1) its infinite moral variations, (2) its lack of respect for authority and tradition, (3) taking and encouraging personal experience and its validations over tradition. For example Gnostics have been across both extremes - completely denying the value of man's sexual nature, or freely indulging in it. Such variety I think arises precisely because there is no respect for authority and tradition AND because everyone is encouraged to their own interpretation, which could very well differ very much from another's. As such, gnosticism is untenable as a social position - much like any other religion that emphasises disrespect for tradition and completely free and dogmatic trust to one's own experiences.
Yes, I am especially surprised as most conservatives nowadays tend to be religious and yet, I can find nothing in religion which supports rampant capitalism, accumulation of money for its own sake, social ostracization of different races, and other manifestations of greed.
Quoting Erik
Yes!
Quoting Erik
Thanks for sharing your example! We need more examples like this in the world, and I think there should be no shame in sharing examples of goodness. Afterall, if you do not share examples of goodness, then all that will happen is that others will share examples of evil and shamelessness, and make evil cool. A big problem today is that the good men have sat down, and have restricted themselves to a humility which prevents them from having an effect on educating their peers. Instead, people like Lady Gaga, Amy Schumer, and the like spread their vulgarity, rudeness, and selfishness across society, and no one does anything to stop them. Instead they are allowed to make this into a "cool attitude" - whereas if someone tries to make virtue and goodness cool, then there is a problem, then he is an oppressor, and lacks in humility. I think people need virtuous examples to combat the influence that decadence is otherwise guaranteed to have over society - and there really should be no shame in doing it. Those who spread evil have no shame about doing it - why should those that spread good have any shame?
I know. That's why I say he's stuck in the transcendent mode of thinking: criticism is understood as the way we save ourselves, rather than a way of developing an understanding of ourselves and the world. He doesn't envision truth as the living world or logic, which has no role in saving us. Truth is understood as our rescue, despite it being the living world and logical expression which has no role in saving anyone from meaninglessness.
Fantasies do work for those who believe them. Only those who reject the fantasy are concerned with the falsehood of fantasy. Truth's power is not over those who believe fantasy, but those interested in truth-- if you accept the truth things are meaningful in themsleves, then fantasy has no role to serve.
The promises of rescue which make fantasy so profound to its adherents are revealed to be empty. Their claim-- their fantasy is a wonderful truth rescues us from meaninglessness-- is known to be false because no one was ever meaninglessness. It's not an ethical question, but a descriptive one.
If I realise the world is meaningful, I cannot think fantasy is a saviour. It's reduced to a mere cultural practice people enjoy. At best I might say a fantasy "saved" someone from hating the world or themselves, if they were horribly depressed or self-destructive before they followed the fantasy. Fantasies frequently have utility, but they never save us from meaningless.
My argument is saying exactly the opposite. Since nothing in the world is necessary, the absence of necessity has no impact on who or what people are. It doesn't mean that people escape who they are, just that it's not logic which makes them who they are.
Who anybody is a question of their existence, not what philosophers think they must be. Since we are worldly (states of the world), the transcendent realm can neither cause or limit us. Make no mistake, people can't escape being who they are, but it is formed by a state of existence not a logical rule.
Your world constrained by logic shares a denial of reality similar to the gnostics. Insisting the world must be your preferred logical meaning, you ignore the movement of existence itself. You are blind to any part of existence which does not fit your logical rule. Anything which is not your particular tradition is a "shadow play" which doesn't qualify as a meaningful state.
Well, it's hard to imagine a non-dialectical leap from teen angst to world-affirming wisdom. I'd say that criticism, properly understood, is the way we "save ourselves." (We get better at life, some of us). But we don't save ourselves from meaninglessness (though we might pass through death of god angst). We save ourselves from inferior-in-retrospect meanings (worldviews, ego-ideals). Some might claim to have been saved by "meaninglessness."
[quote=Stirner]
Christianity took away from the things of this world only their irresistibleness, made us independent of them. In like manner I raise myself above truths and their power: as I am supersensual, so I am supertrue. Before me truths are as common and as indifferent as things; they do not carry me away, and do not inspire me with enthusiasm. There exists not even one truth, not right, not freedom, humanity, etc., that has stability before me, and to which I subject myself...
[/quote]
We have here an image of the self-consciously free ego for whom "nothing is sacred" but the tool-using ego itself, or pure post-principle profanity. Let's give this poet his due.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
I can't know what you mean by the words, but I don't see a big difference between fantasy and meaning. "I'm here to be kind." "I'm here to experience lots of things." "I'm here to serve God." "I'm here to serve humanity." "I'm here to forge an original persona." And so on and so on. They are myths or projects. I don't see why either of us (or anyone on the forum) wouldn't be "performing" some version of the (philosophical) hero. Is that fantasy? It's a vision of the real we act on. I get the sense that you're envisioning a non-metaphysical life as the thing we don't need to be saved from, but I think "placing" ourselves via myth is a central part of the human experience.
I knew you'd say this :) - of course, if you are right, then I'm the gnostic, only that I don't think you have your facts (which ground your understanding of the structure of Being - or lack of it) right :D
Your problem is not in the logic, but in the premises my friend.
On the contrary, yours are incoherent by their content. Being is nothingness precisely because it infinite. If someone is to claim Being as foundation for existence, they are equivocating us with the infinite. Deep down they are saying we are really infinite, that are finiteness is a mere mirage. It is literally to ignore the world as it exists (the finite) to imagine a higher order to which we properly belong (the infinte)--i.e. "nature," "God," "Science," "Utopia," etc., etc.
My position is not informed by some wild speculation of premise. It's reasoned on the distinction between the finite and infinite.
For Being to be anything collapses the this distinction and so amounts to a contradiction.
More like a metaphysics without intention or destiny. A metaphysics which only concerns itself with describing logical relationships, rather than supposing what we ought to be or a destiny of action. One which does not say, "I am here to..." as if it was logically impossible for a person to do anything else, but one that says: "I am here (doing)..."
Or in the terms of you examples: "I am being kind.", "I am experiencing lots of things", "I am serving God", "I am serving humainity," and "I am forging an original personality."
A metaphysics which understands us to be defined in terms of how we exist, rather than by logical necessity. One which recognises who we are ("I am..."), instead of understanding ourselves to be moving ("I am to necessarily be...) to some destiny always outside ourselves.
Oh, that helps. It sounds like you don't want the future to bear so much on the present, or the projected, hoped-for self to bear on the present self.
For me the "I am here to do X" isn't about logical but mythological necessity. I'm positing a "general structure." It can take complex forms: "I'm here to figure out that I'm not here to do anything in particular." Or "I'm here to learn to live without fantasy in the unvarnished real." What especially interests me is the "dialectical" self-modification of this mission. So "I am here to find the truth, even if it hurts" might lead to questioning of the will to truth, in pursuit of the truth about truth. This is all oversimplification, but I think we find role-play in ourselves in others if we keep an eye out for it. This isn't bad unless we are invested in the role of being beyond role-play. Movement (intellectual as well as physical) seems always to be in a pursuit of value. While bodily values are pretty constant, it seems that intellectual values change with the belief system as a whole.
I'm still not exactly sure if you embrace the truth as a value in itself or as a tool for leading a better life. Do you view your metaphysics as a personal solution? That may as a byproduct help others? Or is it presented as a sort of scientific finding? Or as just another perspective? I'm very in to these questions of exactly what the philosopher is up to socially.
This "to be" fantasy is the target here, whether it be about serving God or telling the truth. There is nothing I am "to be." My interest in truth might be gone tomorrow; I could become the most devout believer of fantasy.
In the sense you are talking ("to be" ) I don't hold a value of truth. Truth is just a matter of talking about the world as it exists or logical relationships which are expressed.
Even in ethics context this is true. Let's say I consider we ought to recognise truth (which I do, to some degree, though it is not what I'm arguing here). Is this what the world is "to be?" No, it's just what the world ought to be. There is nothing necessary about it. The world will ignore truth as much as it does.
A mighty defender of truth, such as myself, might wake up tomorrow and support fantasy. No myth ("it's to be") defines what exists.
I should say this point has no bearing on causality. The idea of "to be" works perfectly well as an intention or speculation of what someone might be. Such statements are often part of causality-- I might say "I am going to make a post" before doing so. If I didn't make the statement, I might not have made this post at all. Ideas about the future bearing on the present is entirely possible.
The issue with the mythological use of "to be" is it closes of possibity and so cannot talk about the world. It fails in description of logic and the world, not in causality (myths are perfectly capable of causing particular actions from people). It pretends there is a way the world expresses meaning regardless of its existence.
Movement is not a pursuit of value or meaning ("to be"), but an expression of value or meaning ("it's" "I am")--meaning, caring and ethics are lived actions, not something forever outside that we seek.
Thanks for your reply. I'm still not clear on how you see the value of your ideas. As a pragmatist, I "market" my own words as potentially useful marks and noises. I forge tools. I also identify with the goal of being a "strong poet" in Harold Bloom's sense. I want to put some valuable twist (maybe just in tone or emphasis) on what is otherwise synthesis of my influences more or less for the narcissistic pleasure of having done so. In short, it's a creative act. I mention all of this to show that I'm happy to answer the same sort of question I'm asking. So, anyway, how would you "market" yourself? It's a goofy word. But if you wrote your philosophy in a book, what type of consumer would benefit and why? I can't see how sharing abstract thoughts doesn't imply some dialectical movement in personality. If no one needs to saved in fact, perhaps they need to be saved from the illusion that they need to be saved, etc.