Alright, quick break from politics-
I came to the odd conclusion recently that ideas are entities which we embody. Take for example memories, which I argue are ideas- We think of a given memory (perhaps triggered by a smell say), and we feel an emotion as a reaction to that memory. Say I think of my deceased hamster and remember how sad I was when he died- well, I then feel sadness.
This is an example of how we embody idea's. They become us. They make themselves known to us. They are akin to biological organisms because of the Universal structure of Reason.
In a sense, this can be seen as an Aristotelian twist on Plato's theory of the world of Forms.
But these are just the basic premises- what becomes interesting is when we apply this notion to heideggers 'Region'. That is to say, Idea's occupy actual physical regions. This is clearly dubious, but let's take the example of general ideas. War, Love, etc. They can certainly exist as regions. Of course, I have previously stated that war and love are the same thing, but let's set that aside quietly for now. War or murder has a definite 'Region' (That is to say general physical location)- the bullet of a gun. But this is merely pragmatically to say that the notion of Ideas having physical regions has some arguments in its defense.
Take the Parable of Shroedingers Cat. He sets up an experiment where the cat will either live or die. This basic idea and the conclusions one could draw from it are an entity in a constant interaction-paradigm engagement with the regional/physical components of reality.
This is my basic idea, please comment.
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
TSA Controversy
The New York Times has admitted recently in print that the biggest story of the year is the body scanner/genital groping that has been going on in our nations airports. This story at very least deserves some investigation. Schnidt said that this will cause more American deaths...
How? - you might ask.
Well, simply more people will decide to travel via roads, and it's a fact that driving long distances on the highway (especially strenuously) is far more dangerous than flying on a plane.
This is not nearly as important though, however, than the fact that being forced to go through a potentially hazardous scanner, or be intrusively groped, is an encroachment upon our fourth amendment right which warns against the illegality of unreasonable searches and seizures.
Ask your average liberal and they will non-chalantly mutter something about security and avoid further discussion.
Ask your average conservative and hopefully they will cite the constitution and at very least say that we should be more judicious and not be afraid to profile on the basis of religion.
Ask me and I might likely say something about dangerous scalliwagerous tyranny being implemented by a communist president.
But let's just put this in the context of the Juan Williams NPR/Fox scandal. He said he felt fear sitting on a plane near a muslim. Ask yourself this- Is that unreasonable?
I don't think so.
But this is a huge story, and shows how this administration has very little care for the constitution, and how liberal activist judges such as Sonya Sotomayor pose a real threat to the sanctity of the constitution and yea our founding documents generally.
I decree that this issue should be taken to the supreme court and solved for the sake of America.
How? - you might ask.
Well, simply more people will decide to travel via roads, and it's a fact that driving long distances on the highway (especially strenuously) is far more dangerous than flying on a plane.
This is not nearly as important though, however, than the fact that being forced to go through a potentially hazardous scanner, or be intrusively groped, is an encroachment upon our fourth amendment right which warns against the illegality of unreasonable searches and seizures.
Ask your average liberal and they will non-chalantly mutter something about security and avoid further discussion.
Ask your average conservative and hopefully they will cite the constitution and at very least say that we should be more judicious and not be afraid to profile on the basis of religion.
Ask me and I might likely say something about dangerous scalliwagerous tyranny being implemented by a communist president.
But let's just put this in the context of the Juan Williams NPR/Fox scandal. He said he felt fear sitting on a plane near a muslim. Ask yourself this- Is that unreasonable?
I don't think so.
But this is a huge story, and shows how this administration has very little care for the constitution, and how liberal activist judges such as Sonya Sotomayor pose a real threat to the sanctity of the constitution and yea our founding documents generally.
I decree that this issue should be taken to the supreme court and solved for the sake of America.
Monday, October 18, 2010
MAYDAY
The sad state of affairs in our country 9right now amounts to the fall of our proud republic. As countercultural as I have been and in some ways continue to be, I cannot celebrate this- nor take solace in any kind of anti-governmental rhetoric. It offers no real way to deal with the tremendous tyranny with which we are now faced, and now across the globe we are all faced with very real, very corrupt, very insidious tyranny. What is the answer many ask. What can we do?
I do not claim to have any substantive answers, however I can continue to attempt to in some way elucidate Truth or truths which are seemingly important, seemingly noxious, and seemingly the attempt of feeble terrorists to lay some claim to important human qualities such as heroism, courage, and a true attempt to say 'no' to the atrocious distortions of our increasingly violent and oppressive regimes worldwide.
The truths are thus:
One cannot claim to have any kind of authentic understanding of revolution unless one takes into account the way in which we are being censored, the way in which we are being poised as animals who deserve to be snuffed out, the way in which even the most non-confrontational honest human is being directly confronted by vicious gangsters who hide behind a facade of fallen rhetoric and thrown last gasp attempts to salvage a grim and totalitarian future for an increasingly desperate and malevolent form of substance which reduces the most qualitative aspects of real human life to quantitative measurements.
This quantization would not be so rife for opposition were they not nearly explicitly stating that citizens of flesh and blood are nothing more than vile, base, obscene, deficient populations of chimps whose only right is to live defiles and die like dogs.
Surely right now, it is apparent that there is no need for any kind of confrontation. Surely right now, there is no apparent clash of any kind which determines our fates as collective individuals. Surely right now, the necessity of pederasty endorsing criminals pumping us full of their empty promises far outweighs any outcry that the public would innapropriately deem to be incumbent upon individual collective communities- after all, elections are coming.
But I simply humbly and ingorantly proclaim to you that there is very little difference between a murderer and any one of us. We are all implicit in the worst sham that the history of modern civilization has encountered, and every time we lace up our shoes or put on our shirts and sox, we merely encounter another aspect of the substantial everyday. Perhaps a little nonsensicle, I'll admit it- but should we succumb to the becoming of the everyday outlacing the authenticity of what Dreyfus coined engagement with the world on the basis of its genuine worldhood as opposed to some insipidity which proclaims the virtues of servility?
It was not so long ago that we seemed to have a certain degree of dignity. We as persons, we of districts, we of states, we of countries, we of nations, we of the west, east, north, south.
But it is all but vanished to the grand delusions of natural born elitests who even wish to reduce the most powerful independent minds of our times to nothing more than animals in some sick feces scented sanctuary for the mentally dead. This is all lcok and stocj, but the attack on our families, the attack on our children, the attack on our elderly can simply not be tolerated. It is an attack which is manifestly multi-pronged and aimed right for your most cherished places, ideas, people, and yay even forms of innocent leisure.
The most cherished memories of our noble ancestors are now subject to the devious perversions of the NEO-globalists who care no more about the fire and care our heredity kept than they do about the nobility and integrity of institutions academic and otherwise that have for all intents and purposes been publicly disgraced for the foreseeable future than they do for the goodness of humanity in a very general sense.
I am currently on the run from the law for singing a johnny cash song about second amendment rights at a old time music event recently- and the liberals sustained attack on me seems to be in a sense an impotent declaration that anyone who stands up for the supposedly inherently violent right to bear and use arms in self defense must be made an example of and silenced. I am resigned to my fate, my heart is clean, and there is a strong likelyhood that I will be unjustly incarcerated before november 2nd. I have commited no crime. I have done nothing wrong that contradicts the 'true' law of the state. I have not even proclaimed anything but strength through racial solidarity- Perhaps a bigot like myself deserves such a punishment. I will certainly make no claim of any sort which states that I have exclusive access to 'justice' in a philosophical, ethical, or theological sense- However, I will make the bold claim that the leaders of the proclaimed but not instituted free world currently are being so derisive towards the dignity of humans as such that they have clearly crossed a darkened line drawn imperfectly by the hands of those who scrawled the same sacred texts which which have illuminated the way for generation after generation after generation after generation after generation after generation after generation after generation after generation after generation after generation after generation... and once this line has been crossed as blatantly as it has been in this recent era, I cannot help but intuit that the nemesis of man has breached the barrier from which we will never return.
Please pray for me.
I do not claim to have any substantive answers, however I can continue to attempt to in some way elucidate Truth or truths which are seemingly important, seemingly noxious, and seemingly the attempt of feeble terrorists to lay some claim to important human qualities such as heroism, courage, and a true attempt to say 'no' to the atrocious distortions of our increasingly violent and oppressive regimes worldwide.
The truths are thus:
One cannot claim to have any kind of authentic understanding of revolution unless one takes into account the way in which we are being censored, the way in which we are being poised as animals who deserve to be snuffed out, the way in which even the most non-confrontational honest human is being directly confronted by vicious gangsters who hide behind a facade of fallen rhetoric and thrown last gasp attempts to salvage a grim and totalitarian future for an increasingly desperate and malevolent form of substance which reduces the most qualitative aspects of real human life to quantitative measurements.
This quantization would not be so rife for opposition were they not nearly explicitly stating that citizens of flesh and blood are nothing more than vile, base, obscene, deficient populations of chimps whose only right is to live defiles and die like dogs.
Surely right now, it is apparent that there is no need for any kind of confrontation. Surely right now, there is no apparent clash of any kind which determines our fates as collective individuals. Surely right now, the necessity of pederasty endorsing criminals pumping us full of their empty promises far outweighs any outcry that the public would innapropriately deem to be incumbent upon individual collective communities- after all, elections are coming.
But I simply humbly and ingorantly proclaim to you that there is very little difference between a murderer and any one of us. We are all implicit in the worst sham that the history of modern civilization has encountered, and every time we lace up our shoes or put on our shirts and sox, we merely encounter another aspect of the substantial everyday. Perhaps a little nonsensicle, I'll admit it- but should we succumb to the becoming of the everyday outlacing the authenticity of what Dreyfus coined engagement with the world on the basis of its genuine worldhood as opposed to some insipidity which proclaims the virtues of servility?
It was not so long ago that we seemed to have a certain degree of dignity. We as persons, we of districts, we of states, we of countries, we of nations, we of the west, east, north, south.
But it is all but vanished to the grand delusions of natural born elitests who even wish to reduce the most powerful independent minds of our times to nothing more than animals in some sick feces scented sanctuary for the mentally dead. This is all lcok and stocj, but the attack on our families, the attack on our children, the attack on our elderly can simply not be tolerated. It is an attack which is manifestly multi-pronged and aimed right for your most cherished places, ideas, people, and yay even forms of innocent leisure.
The most cherished memories of our noble ancestors are now subject to the devious perversions of the NEO-globalists who care no more about the fire and care our heredity kept than they do about the nobility and integrity of institutions academic and otherwise that have for all intents and purposes been publicly disgraced for the foreseeable future than they do for the goodness of humanity in a very general sense.
I am currently on the run from the law for singing a johnny cash song about second amendment rights at a old time music event recently- and the liberals sustained attack on me seems to be in a sense an impotent declaration that anyone who stands up for the supposedly inherently violent right to bear and use arms in self defense must be made an example of and silenced. I am resigned to my fate, my heart is clean, and there is a strong likelyhood that I will be unjustly incarcerated before november 2nd. I have commited no crime. I have done nothing wrong that contradicts the 'true' law of the state. I have not even proclaimed anything but strength through racial solidarity- Perhaps a bigot like myself deserves such a punishment. I will certainly make no claim of any sort which states that I have exclusive access to 'justice' in a philosophical, ethical, or theological sense- However, I will make the bold claim that the leaders of the proclaimed but not instituted free world currently are being so derisive towards the dignity of humans as such that they have clearly crossed a darkened line drawn imperfectly by the hands of those who scrawled the same sacred texts which which have illuminated the way for generation after generation after generation after generation after generation after generation after generation after generation after generation after generation after generation after generation... and once this line has been crossed as blatantly as it has been in this recent era, I cannot help but intuit that the nemesis of man has breached the barrier from which we will never return.
Please pray for me.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
The Politics of War
War, it was said by Sun Tzu, is nothing more than love incarnate. Love Incarnate in the act of destruction, violence, occupation- on the seas, in the air, and in the boots on the ground. We certainly cannot refute love, can we?
War, of which I know nothing about other than what I have read, is the archetypal struggle between master and slave (I know it sounds trite, however, I reserve the right to be so). The terrorists have the morals of the slave, and fight us as slaves fight masters... But as I have been taught, even in the plantation era south there is a certain affection between the masters and the slaves- a sort of mutual conditional dependence. The jihadists WANT a fight, and I'll be damned if we won't give it to them. The radical fundamentalist Islamists need a master to fight against, and there is no doubt that history in the context of the brute force of globalization will prove that America and Israel are the masters of the middle east. We shall see another American century this century as Tom Wolfe said so eloquently in a recent interview (TW, author of Bonfire of the Vanities and The Right Stuff). He defended bushes intervention in the Middle East as proper and right and, indeed, good natured; and debunked the myth that there is no connection between Iraq and terrorism in the middle east (a dubious media created rumour).
War is central to the human condition- We war, in some way, with those we disagree with...
War is central to the human condition- It creates as well as destroys.
War is central to the human condition- Everyday life is on the frontlines of an historic struggle between ideologies and philosophies and Theologies.
We are living in dangerous times- and vileness, baseness, obscenity, and asphyxiation threaten us at every turn, and often times are our rewards for virtue (and as Rober Ebert once wrote, 'virtue' in itself is an absurdity).
Forgive me for feeling that war is for civilians as well as soldiers... but the great generals of our time and historically made many important philosophical distinctions, most of which no one but those famed heroes are even privy to...
But I have uncovered one important ancient truth to war that resonates in every battle throughout the ages.
Strength is the one virtue that makes all other virtues possible.
War, of which I know nothing about other than what I have read, is the archetypal struggle between master and slave (I know it sounds trite, however, I reserve the right to be so). The terrorists have the morals of the slave, and fight us as slaves fight masters... But as I have been taught, even in the plantation era south there is a certain affection between the masters and the slaves- a sort of mutual conditional dependence. The jihadists WANT a fight, and I'll be damned if we won't give it to them. The radical fundamentalist Islamists need a master to fight against, and there is no doubt that history in the context of the brute force of globalization will prove that America and Israel are the masters of the middle east. We shall see another American century this century as Tom Wolfe said so eloquently in a recent interview (TW, author of Bonfire of the Vanities and The Right Stuff). He defended bushes intervention in the Middle East as proper and right and, indeed, good natured; and debunked the myth that there is no connection between Iraq and terrorism in the middle east (a dubious media created rumour).
War is central to the human condition- We war, in some way, with those we disagree with...
War is central to the human condition- It creates as well as destroys.
War is central to the human condition- Everyday life is on the frontlines of an historic struggle between ideologies and philosophies and Theologies.
We are living in dangerous times- and vileness, baseness, obscenity, and asphyxiation threaten us at every turn, and often times are our rewards for virtue (and as Rober Ebert once wrote, 'virtue' in itself is an absurdity).
Forgive me for feeling that war is for civilians as well as soldiers... but the great generals of our time and historically made many important philosophical distinctions, most of which no one but those famed heroes are even privy to...
But I have uncovered one important ancient truth to war that resonates in every battle throughout the ages.
Strength is the one virtue that makes all other virtues possible.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Inception is Communist Propaganda
The new movie of the day is officially 'Inception', and I saw it.
I have one thing to say.
It is Communist Propaganda.
My reasons for saying so are thus...
It was very carefully crafted to hypnotize the audience with the 'dream within a dream within a dream' garbage, and then hit them with special effects par excellence.
It's the equivalent of swooning a mouse and then smashing it with a hammer.
The purpose of this psuedo-sci fi garbage is to entice the viewer into walking off of a socialist cliff like a lemming, all the while wondering if they are, in fact- dreaming.
'Inception' is not only jaggedly structured but has a hidden intent.
That's right-
A hidden intent...
That intent is to subvert logical positivism and deify a Pelosian 'Power of Imagination'.
Oh, it's all just a dream within a dream within a dream.
-We're in the middle of a global recession but
It's all just a dream within a dream within a dream.
-Obama is a failed president but
It's all just a dream within a dream within a dream.
-Greeny bullshit rains supreme and
It's all just a dream within a dream within a dream.
-Deadmau5 looks like a wheelchair skeleton and
It's all, just a dream within a dream within a dream.
Wake up idiots.
'Inception' is Marxist.
I have one thing to say.
It is Communist Propaganda.
My reasons for saying so are thus...
It was very carefully crafted to hypnotize the audience with the 'dream within a dream within a dream' garbage, and then hit them with special effects par excellence.
It's the equivalent of swooning a mouse and then smashing it with a hammer.
The purpose of this psuedo-sci fi garbage is to entice the viewer into walking off of a socialist cliff like a lemming, all the while wondering if they are, in fact- dreaming.
'Inception' is not only jaggedly structured but has a hidden intent.
That's right-
A hidden intent...
That intent is to subvert logical positivism and deify a Pelosian 'Power of Imagination'.
Oh, it's all just a dream within a dream within a dream.
-We're in the middle of a global recession but
It's all just a dream within a dream within a dream.
-Obama is a failed president but
It's all just a dream within a dream within a dream.
-Greeny bullshit rains supreme and
It's all just a dream within a dream within a dream.
-Deadmau5 looks like a wheelchair skeleton and
It's all, just a dream within a dream within a dream.
Wake up idiots.
'Inception' is Marxist.
Monday, July 19, 2010
'The Obama Deception' censored by Google
Just a short news break.
Paleoconservative independant documentary 'The Obama Deception' was censored Saturday by google spies. Furthermore, 72,000 blogs have been removed by the federal government for talking about filesharing.
Just google 'Google Spies, censors users' and you'll see the first article that comes up is on president Obama.
'The Obama Deception' was set to reach 6 million more views within 3 months, and was deleted from google video's for no apparent reason.
This is proof that the Obamanation Administration has no real hold on the 'transparency' proclaimed by Obama while reading from his teleprompter in the election.
Paleoconservative independant documentary 'The Obama Deception' was censored Saturday by google spies. Furthermore, 72,000 blogs have been removed by the federal government for talking about filesharing.
Just google 'Google Spies, censors users' and you'll see the first article that comes up is on president Obama.
'The Obama Deception' was set to reach 6 million more views within 3 months, and was deleted from google video's for no apparent reason.
This is proof that the Obamanation Administration has no real hold on the 'transparency' proclaimed by Obama while reading from his teleprompter in the election.
Saturday, June 26, 2010
The Tea Party - A Simple Observation
A recent article by the professor of the philosophical department at the laughable New School in New York City proclaimed that the "Tea Party" is nihilist.
This is not only an impotent attack on the Tea Party, but a cruel form of academic elitism.
The Tea Party is many things, but certainly (and I'd wager the author knows this) not nihilist.
This impotent philosophy professor would imagine that those on the right are severely paranoid, delusional, and disgruntled to the point of violence- but in fact, the opposite is true.
This impotent philosophy professor would have us believe via a mistaken interpretation of Hegel that Thesis Antithesis Synthesis is somehow political- it is not. In fact, Thesis Antithesis Synthesis is nothing more than the Holy Trinity applied to Methodology.
The Tea Party is simply right.
They espouse the virtues of state and local government- of individualism- of patriotism.
These are all in dire need in America's great moment of disaster.
"I say to you friends that we must not succumb to the threat of terror that faces us within our borders."
-Ronald Reagan
How this could be construed as nihilism is, to me, beyond belief. That the author would resort to such crude polemics astounds me. Even one cursory reading of hegel and the history of the Nazi party would show that this is, in fact, insidious socialism within academia (ideology).
When it comes to a representative of education distorting so grossly the beliefs of these humble people in the New York Times- Ugh.
And to do so in the name of Philosophical inquiry?
Ugh.
There ARE still 'Old Hegelians' out there who view calling someone who is very obviously devout a 'non-believer' with nothing but contempt.
Read 'Bernsteins' article here.
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/tag/hegel/
This is not only an impotent attack on the Tea Party, but a cruel form of academic elitism.
The Tea Party is many things, but certainly (and I'd wager the author knows this) not nihilist.
This impotent philosophy professor would imagine that those on the right are severely paranoid, delusional, and disgruntled to the point of violence- but in fact, the opposite is true.
This impotent philosophy professor would have us believe via a mistaken interpretation of Hegel that Thesis Antithesis Synthesis is somehow political- it is not. In fact, Thesis Antithesis Synthesis is nothing more than the Holy Trinity applied to Methodology.
The Tea Party is simply right.
They espouse the virtues of state and local government- of individualism- of patriotism.
These are all in dire need in America's great moment of disaster.
"I say to you friends that we must not succumb to the threat of terror that faces us within our borders."
-Ronald Reagan
How this could be construed as nihilism is, to me, beyond belief. That the author would resort to such crude polemics astounds me. Even one cursory reading of hegel and the history of the Nazi party would show that this is, in fact, insidious socialism within academia (ideology).
When it comes to a representative of education distorting so grossly the beliefs of these humble people in the New York Times- Ugh.
And to do so in the name of Philosophical inquiry?
Ugh.
There ARE still 'Old Hegelians' out there who view calling someone who is very obviously devout a 'non-believer' with nothing but contempt.
Read 'Bernsteins' article here.
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/tag/hegel/
Saturday, June 12, 2010
Nietzsche Was A Conservative
Nietzsche Was A Conservative....
"To keep open house on ones heart is liberal, but it is merely liberal."
-Nietzsche
Nietzsche, I will make the bold case, was not only a conservative individualist, but- in fact, a Lutheran Theologian.
This may seem nonsensical to those who remember Nietzsche as the man who said that God was dead, and we killed him. This has been a banner for the Atheist movement as well as, to a certain extent, the Anarchist movement.
But what must be seen is the sense in which Nietzsche was an Ultra-Reformist.
He said that the notion that we are 'all' sinners is a falsity, and this means that he is commenting, in some sense, on Christian truths- and this, in some sense at very least, makes him in kind with the Reformationist movement.
Furthermore, Nietzsche was the son of a Lutheran Minister- and it is an old adage that one is inherently of the Religion of their parents; and this means that Nietzsche, in some way, more than likely had a Lutheran outlook- even if he was in large part reacting against it.
The idea that Nietzsche was a harsh reformist must be taken as Highly debatable, and any ardent Atheist should start by dealing with the notion of the Passions in Nietzsche's philosophy. The Passions play a large role, and it is dealt with as Superior to Logic and Reason (a departure from Hegel, but at the same time a Theological agreement), and Nietzsche treats the passions as a Female.
What if one viewed the Truth as a woman?
I'll leave you with that- but it should be noted that Nietzsche was undoubtedly two things- an Individualist, and a Conservative.
"To keep open house on ones heart is liberal, but it is merely liberal."
-Nietzsche
Nietzsche, I will make the bold case, was not only a conservative individualist, but- in fact, a Lutheran Theologian.
This may seem nonsensical to those who remember Nietzsche as the man who said that God was dead, and we killed him. This has been a banner for the Atheist movement as well as, to a certain extent, the Anarchist movement.
But what must be seen is the sense in which Nietzsche was an Ultra-Reformist.
He said that the notion that we are 'all' sinners is a falsity, and this means that he is commenting, in some sense, on Christian truths- and this, in some sense at very least, makes him in kind with the Reformationist movement.
Furthermore, Nietzsche was the son of a Lutheran Minister- and it is an old adage that one is inherently of the Religion of their parents; and this means that Nietzsche, in some way, more than likely had a Lutheran outlook- even if he was in large part reacting against it.
The idea that Nietzsche was a harsh reformist must be taken as Highly debatable, and any ardent Atheist should start by dealing with the notion of the Passions in Nietzsche's philosophy. The Passions play a large role, and it is dealt with as Superior to Logic and Reason (a departure from Hegel, but at the same time a Theological agreement), and Nietzsche treats the passions as a Female.
What if one viewed the Truth as a woman?
I'll leave you with that- but it should be noted that Nietzsche was undoubtedly two things- an Individualist, and a Conservative.
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
What Makes America Great?
Even the question "What makes America great?" is rife with patriotism- so perhaps the more important question is, "What does it mean to be a patriot?". Well, that's relatively simple- It means to be one who loves their country. What does it mean to say, "I love my country."?
Loving ones country is inherently moral- Disliking ones country is inherently moral- Even not particularly caring is inherently moral.
The question, it seems to me, is "Do I have the morals of a slave, or the morals of a master?".
Well, I've often said "No one is more enslaved than he who does not realize that he is a slave."- This raises the question, "How can one be a master?". Are we all slaves? Certainly not. Is it important to be a Master? Certainly so.
So the statement that no one is more enslaved than he who does not realize that he is a slave leads immediately to an important philosophical point- and it is the distinction between what is kno0wn as 'Lower Immediacy', 'Mediation', and 'Higher Immediacy'.
'Lower Immediacy' is the morals of the slave- the morals of a child. One characteristic of 'Lower Immediacy' is that it is unthinking, non-reflective or pre-reflective- where one follows only ones immediate instinctual drive. Interestingly enough, this is true for 'Higher Immediacy' as well (the morals of the master).
The difference between lower and higher immediacy is the crucial (and oft forgotton) notion of 'Mediation'. Mediation is reflective, characterized by deep rumination of the most basic phenomena of consciousness. This phenomena, in mediation, is carefully examined and, indeed, judged as either warranted or unwarranted- 'on the money' or 'off the mark'- and even more important- what is discovered is how to 'control' ones emotional drives. Certainly it would be difficult to examine the 'subconscious' in this way- but an intuitive understanding of the 'pre-reflective'. One must go through this process of 'Mediation' as Absolute and necessary to reaching higher immediacy.
Once one has gone through mediation (most often, but not exclusively, done in academia), one reaches Higher Immediacy which, like lower immediacy, is non reflective and basically intuitive. Take the example of 'Zen and the Art of Archery'. The 'Master' archer does not have to 'think' at all about how to shoot an arrow- all he does is draw the bow- aim- and let go. He does not 'think' or 'reflect'- the bow and arrow are 'extensions' of his body- it's almost a merely physical process without the involvement of conscious 'mind' as such. The reason why the archer is capable of this type of mastery is he has long ago gone through the process of 'mediation' of his art, craft, and preconscious drives.
This is how one becomes a master- but one must first realize that one is a slave (and this is where I depart from Hegel), and often times, a slave to ideology.
So I return to politics by saying one cannot be a slave to ideology and be a master of any kind. Love of country and state is much like this. Patriotism is much like this. Mature love is much like this.
I Digress... Thanks for reading folks.
Loving ones country is inherently moral- Disliking ones country is inherently moral- Even not particularly caring is inherently moral.
The question, it seems to me, is "Do I have the morals of a slave, or the morals of a master?".
Well, I've often said "No one is more enslaved than he who does not realize that he is a slave."- This raises the question, "How can one be a master?". Are we all slaves? Certainly not. Is it important to be a Master? Certainly so.
So the statement that no one is more enslaved than he who does not realize that he is a slave leads immediately to an important philosophical point- and it is the distinction between what is kno0wn as 'Lower Immediacy', 'Mediation', and 'Higher Immediacy'.
'Lower Immediacy' is the morals of the slave- the morals of a child. One characteristic of 'Lower Immediacy' is that it is unthinking, non-reflective or pre-reflective- where one follows only ones immediate instinctual drive. Interestingly enough, this is true for 'Higher Immediacy' as well (the morals of the master).
The difference between lower and higher immediacy is the crucial (and oft forgotton) notion of 'Mediation'. Mediation is reflective, characterized by deep rumination of the most basic phenomena of consciousness. This phenomena, in mediation, is carefully examined and, indeed, judged as either warranted or unwarranted- 'on the money' or 'off the mark'- and even more important- what is discovered is how to 'control' ones emotional drives. Certainly it would be difficult to examine the 'subconscious' in this way- but an intuitive understanding of the 'pre-reflective'. One must go through this process of 'Mediation' as Absolute and necessary to reaching higher immediacy.
Once one has gone through mediation (most often, but not exclusively, done in academia), one reaches Higher Immediacy which, like lower immediacy, is non reflective and basically intuitive. Take the example of 'Zen and the Art of Archery'. The 'Master' archer does not have to 'think' at all about how to shoot an arrow- all he does is draw the bow- aim- and let go. He does not 'think' or 'reflect'- the bow and arrow are 'extensions' of his body- it's almost a merely physical process without the involvement of conscious 'mind' as such. The reason why the archer is capable of this type of mastery is he has long ago gone through the process of 'mediation' of his art, craft, and preconscious drives.
This is how one becomes a master- but one must first realize that one is a slave (and this is where I depart from Hegel), and often times, a slave to ideology.
So I return to politics by saying one cannot be a slave to ideology and be a master of any kind. Love of country and state is much like this. Patriotism is much like this. Mature love is much like this.
I Digress... Thanks for reading folks.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Forum Quibbles
This came up in a recent debate on a BB.
This is a response to my article 'Liberal Fascism'/
" Where do we start.
Let us start at the first line of the argument.
The collective is a difficult notion to express.
Liberalism is inherently, deductively, not fascistic. If it was it would not be liberalism. Your argument fails on the first line. americas intended destiny.
But you say:
"Clearly 'fascism' is more than just a buzzword- it is a morally indignant insult. When one feels that ones ethics have been violated or undermined by a government, the knee-jerk response is to call the perpetrators fascist"
Okay. So what you actually mean then is that you feel the government have "violated your ethics" and you want use a morally "morally indignant insult" on them. That whole bit makes things pretty blurry. But the argument now makes much more sense since it only meant to be inflammatory.
Now to your actual argument:
You regard liberalism, empiricism and relativism as synonymous. They are not.
"When one sees ones own mental phenomena as untrue, and sees science as the only way of penetrating the truth, one is left open to accepting fascism more readily by virtue of the fact that one deifies science and places simple everyday 'Being' in the realm of 'subjectivity' (often times when people are asked about their philosophical world-view, they write it off as merely 'subjective interpretation')"
So according to you liberalism = empiricism = dualism = relativism. Highly problematic chain of reasoning but we will focus on the the dualism.
"Descartes is the philosopher who famously said Cogito Ergo Sum (I Think therefore I Am). This effectively splits "reality" into 'subjective' mental phenomena and the 'objective' external world"
Not really. ‘true community’ is replaced and eroded by a Jungian ‘Collective mind’ It says that when we push a skeptical argument to its furthest possible point all we can know for sure is that "I" exist in some form because their would have to be something doing this thinking. "Reality" is not remotely objective, and we cannot even be sure that our mental phenomena are objective. All our thoughts could be being fed to us by a "evil demon" or in a more modern take we could be in the Matrix. All we can be sure of is that some part of us exists because something is doing this thinking.
Your usage of Cartesian dualism, therefore the argument from ignorance to claim that:
"Once one sees their own 'being' as subjective then one comes to trust authorities in their claims that they, in fact, possess the 'real' scientific truth"
When in fact the opposite seems to be the logical conclusion
(i) S does not know that not-q
(ii) If S does not know not-q then S does not know that p
(iii) So S does not know that p
(Where 'not-q' is the negation of any skeptical hypothesis, and 'p' is any empirical proposition we take ourselves to know
(i) Carbine does not know that he is in the Matrix
(ii) If Carbine does not know that he is not in the Matrix then Carbine does not know that the sky is blue
(iii) So Carbine does not know that the sky is blue
Dualism tends to entail extreme skepticism.
I am not sure what you would call the philosophical position you describe where you distrust your own mental phenomena and only trust the outside world, but it definitely isn't dualism or empiricism. I am the devious design of psuedo-intellectual rationalists who have no real philosophical foundation and have an inherent prediliction for simply accepting ideology . Why would you trust the external world if you do not trust your tools for perceiving it?
"When one puts faith in science (or deifies it), one is far more likely to trust those who claim to have your best interest at heart".
Not really. Science is about objectively, empirically studying the world not faith. Again just like the first premise if your science is based on faith then it is inherently, deductively, not science. What do you mean by science?
"An experiment in eugenics was done in europe where Nietzsche and Darwins relatives went to live, and breed, together in an isolated community. It was thought that this would create an Ubermensch. Ultimately, what this amounts to is the morals of the slave- and liberals will always have the morals of the slave regardless of whether it is in their best interest or not! This is a form of suicide- but not even noble suicide like committing sepiku because one has been shamed- no- this is the suicide of lemmings. What happened was after a few generations the offspring were sick and troubled and the experiment was a complete disaster"
I can find no reference to this experiment. I would be interested to see your source on this."
My first response-
I would respond to each point, but here's a little summary.
I would say that your interpretation mischaracterizes the conclusions I was getting at.
The popularity of this show and the pervasive influence of MSNBC and its ilk reveals, without a doubt, that the left is far more conformist than the right (not to mention the liberal bent of most institutions of education). In fact, the vast majority of media is controlled by marxist schooled journalists (ie columbia university), cynical leftist entertainers, and politically nihilistic anarchists-
Descartes Error was to split the world into subjective/objective realms.
hence, our only way to access truth is via 'objectivity'.
This ignores the unity of subject and object, and essentially says that our Mental Representations can never 'know' Truth.
I am interested to know how, deductively, liberals cannot be fascist.
I never mentioned Empiricism, so I'd be interested to know why you thought I was talking about empiricism.
Many liberals are Cartesians.
Cartesians accept Ideology.
Ideology is Liberal.
His response (not directed at my last comment)-
Their is no interpretation here. I am pointing that almost every step in your argument is faulty and almost every and almost every concept you use is misinterpreted or misunderstood (either by accident or deliberately).
After looking closer and using a bit of google I think I found the problem. You seen to often use other people's second hand interpretation of primary sources without making this clear.
For example:
I had no idea what you were on about until I noticed the caps and googled "Descartes Error", then it all became clear.
You're mixing a number of different theories that all clash.
(I)
I thought you were talking about Descartes.
It appears here you are referencing a neuropsychological book ‘The daily Show’
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descartes'_Error
I haven't read the book but I am quite familiar with the area.
In short a nice way to fuck with Descartes. Stick a sharp object through specific areas of his brain or a massive line of ketamine.
"The mind" is the phenomena of various interconnected functions of the brain which is a part of the body. No dualism here.
So premise (i) is a neuropsychological criticism of dualism.
Note that Descartes dualism is a epistemological concept not a neuropsychological concept. ‘The daily Show’
Indeed. But no objective truth can be known is Descartes framework except for the one. "I am". ‘The daily Show’
See the argument from ignorance I posted earlier.
As you may have noticed I really dislike this whole Hegel business so I'm going to ignore that first part. It seems a bit unnecessary step and brings in a whole other can of worms. Blurring the concepts again.
But yup. It is probably the most persistent problem in epistemology. Logically we cannot really "know" anything. ‘The daily Show’
BUT:
From a neuropsychological perspective this problem is not a problem.
Anyway.
The problem with all your writing is that you slapdash throw in a load of different theories from different areas making a mess without properly defining what you mean or how they link together. In those three lines I was looking at you use about 8 different positions some of which are probably immiscible / dissonant if we were to look at them closer without explaining them or in what sense you use them.
Me having to unpack your writing this hard to try to make sense of it is a sign of shitty writing.
Also you hei‘The daily Show’nously misuse logic.
Your argument is from the Zeitg‘The daily Show’eist / Jeff Goldblum school of logic. (For an example check the South Park episode where Earth gets cancelled and it has a Jeff Goldblum scientist‘The daily Show’ character. Couldn't find any youtube links. Its basically free association)
If a liberal was a fascist they would no longer be a liberal, they would be a fascist.
Maybe you mean those who call themselves liberals are not in actual fact liberals but are fascists masquerading as liberals. Maybe I'm giving you too much credit.
You constantly mention objective evidence based search for truth ie. empiricism.
This last bit is nonsense. Be a bit less lazy before you publish things.
Zeitgeist / Jeff Goldblum school of logic
My Response-
Great counteraction.
Here is the problem, which is more Kantian than Cartesian.
-
When we divide the world into Phenomenon (subjective) and Nuemenon (objective), we can never know Truth. Our mental representations are not the real thing (the neumenon is the 'real' thing). What Hegel says, is that the split between neumenon and phenomenon means we can never know any kind of truth apart from the subjective interpretation (even though Kant says the neumenon is the domain of god), and we must reconcile the subjective/objective split by recognizing that Reason IS Spirit.closer look revealscloser look revealscloser look revealscloser look revealscloser look revealscloser look reveals
It's not a matter of 'Logic'- and even Nietzsche favors Passion over 'logic'. Logic leads us astray. If, as you say, a=b and b=c therefore a=c, then we are in terrible trouble philosophically. A=B and B=C therefore A=C is not nearly as primordial as 'Reason is Spirit when its certainty of being all Reality has been raised to truth and it is concsious of itself as its own world and of the world as itself'.
Think of the great mysteries of knowledge. They are not a matter of mere logic but of illumination.closer look revealscloser look revealscloser look revealscloser look revealscloser look revealscloser look revealscloser look revealscloser look reveals
When we deify logic we diefy science- and this is a fatal mistake for people outside of the 'true' scientific community.
Logic is terrible.
The passions are what truly make life worth living- living life fully- with vigor- adding 'style' to our character- being fully engaged with the world- noy accepting the 'collective' interpretation of things... and I assure you, the 'collective' puts its 'faith' in logic and coherence. Being coherent or understood is dramatically overrated- the Truth or truths are, ultimately, in the mystery of life- the sacred knowledge and fire kept alive since ancient times,,,
We can only come to know the truths of this mystery through passionate involvement with the 'world'.
One could easily say that this is slipping back into Descartes, however, I would posit that 'passionate involvement' is far more basic than logical reflection or intentionality.closer look revealscloser look revealscloser look revealscloser look reveals
In fact, we have no intentionality- all we do is 'cope'. Liberals, inherently, don’t ‘stand’ for anything. They simply take the predominant ideology of the times, accept it as their own because it is what is presented as ‘hip’, and ignore the important philosophical distinctions which have been made historically.
This is a response to my article 'Liberal Fascism'/
" Where do we start.
Let us start at the first line of the argument.
The collective is a difficult notion to express.
Liberalism is inherently, deductively, not fascistic. If it was it would not be liberalism. Your argument fails on the first line. americas intended destiny.
But you say:
"Clearly 'fascism' is more than just a buzzword- it is a morally indignant insult. When one feels that ones ethics have been violated or undermined by a government, the knee-jerk response is to call the perpetrators fascist"
Okay. So what you actually mean then is that you feel the government have "violated your ethics" and you want use a morally "morally indignant insult" on them. That whole bit makes things pretty blurry. But the argument now makes much more sense since it only meant to be inflammatory.
Now to your actual argument:
You regard liberalism, empiricism and relativism as synonymous. They are not.
"When one sees ones own mental phenomena as untrue, and sees science as the only way of penetrating the truth, one is left open to accepting fascism more readily by virtue of the fact that one deifies science and places simple everyday 'Being' in the realm of 'subjectivity' (often times when people are asked about their philosophical world-view, they write it off as merely 'subjective interpretation')"
So according to you liberalism = empiricism = dualism = relativism. Highly problematic chain of reasoning but we will focus on the the dualism.
"Descartes is the philosopher who famously said Cogito Ergo Sum (I Think therefore I Am). This effectively splits "reality" into 'subjective' mental phenomena and the 'objective' external world"
Not really. ‘true community’ is replaced and eroded by a Jungian ‘Collective mind’ It says that when we push a skeptical argument to its furthest possible point all we can know for sure is that "I" exist in some form because their would have to be something doing this thinking. "Reality" is not remotely objective, and we cannot even be sure that our mental phenomena are objective. All our thoughts could be being fed to us by a "evil demon" or in a more modern take we could be in the Matrix. All we can be sure of is that some part of us exists because something is doing this thinking.
Your usage of Cartesian dualism, therefore the argument from ignorance to claim that:
"Once one sees their own 'being' as subjective then one comes to trust authorities in their claims that they, in fact, possess the 'real' scientific truth"
When in fact the opposite seems to be the logical conclusion
(i) S does not know that not-q
(ii) If S does not know not-q then S does not know that p
(iii) So S does not know that p
(Where 'not-q' is the negation of any skeptical hypothesis, and 'p' is any empirical proposition we take ourselves to know
(i) Carbine does not know that he is in the Matrix
(ii) If Carbine does not know that he is not in the Matrix then Carbine does not know that the sky is blue
(iii) So Carbine does not know that the sky is blue
Dualism tends to entail extreme skepticism.
I am not sure what you would call the philosophical position you describe where you distrust your own mental phenomena and only trust the outside world, but it definitely isn't dualism or empiricism. I am the devious design of psuedo-intellectual rationalists who have no real philosophical foundation and have an inherent prediliction for simply accepting ideology . Why would you trust the external world if you do not trust your tools for perceiving it?
"When one puts faith in science (or deifies it), one is far more likely to trust those who claim to have your best interest at heart".
Not really. Science is about objectively, empirically studying the world not faith. Again just like the first premise if your science is based on faith then it is inherently, deductively, not science. What do you mean by science?
"An experiment in eugenics was done in europe where Nietzsche and Darwins relatives went to live, and breed, together in an isolated community. It was thought that this would create an Ubermensch. Ultimately, what this amounts to is the morals of the slave- and liberals will always have the morals of the slave regardless of whether it is in their best interest or not! This is a form of suicide- but not even noble suicide like committing sepiku because one has been shamed- no- this is the suicide of lemmings. What happened was after a few generations the offspring were sick and troubled and the experiment was a complete disaster"
I can find no reference to this experiment. I would be interested to see your source on this."
My first response-
I would respond to each point, but here's a little summary.
I would say that your interpretation mischaracterizes the conclusions I was getting at.
The popularity of this show and the pervasive influence of MSNBC and its ilk reveals, without a doubt, that the left is far more conformist than the right (not to mention the liberal bent of most institutions of education). In fact, the vast majority of media is controlled by marxist schooled journalists (ie columbia university), cynical leftist entertainers, and politically nihilistic anarchists-
Descartes Error was to split the world into subjective/objective realms.
hence, our only way to access truth is via 'objectivity'.
This ignores the unity of subject and object, and essentially says that our Mental Representations can never 'know' Truth.
I am interested to know how, deductively, liberals cannot be fascist.
I never mentioned Empiricism, so I'd be interested to know why you thought I was talking about empiricism.
Many liberals are Cartesians.
Cartesians accept Ideology.
Ideology is Liberal.
His response (not directed at my last comment)-
Their is no interpretation here. I am pointing that almost every step in your argument is faulty and almost every and almost every concept you use is misinterpreted or misunderstood (either by accident or deliberately).
After looking closer and using a bit of google I think I found the problem. You seen to often use other people's second hand interpretation of primary sources without making this clear.
For example:
Quote
Descartes Error was to split the world into subjective/objective realms.
hence, our only way to access truth is via 'objectivity'.
This ignores the unity of subject and object, and essentially says that our Mental Representations can never 'know' Truth.
hence, our only way to access truth is via 'objectivity'.
This ignores the unity of subject and object, and essentially says that our Mental Representations can never 'know' Truth.
I had no idea what you were on about until I noticed the caps and googled "Descartes Error", then it all became clear.
You're mixing a number of different theories that all clash.
Quote
(i) Descartes Error was to split the world into subjective/objective realms.
(II) hence, our only way to access truth is via 'objectivity'.
(III) This ignores the unity of subject and object, and essentially says that our Mental Representations can never 'know' Truth.
(II) hence, our only way to access truth is via 'objectivity'.
(III) This ignores the unity of subject and object, and essentially says that our Mental Representations can never 'know' Truth.
(I)
I thought you were talking about Descartes.
It appears here you are referencing a neuropsychological book ‘The daily Show’
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descartes'_Error
I haven't read the book but I am quite familiar with the area.
In short a nice way to fuck with Descartes. Stick a sharp object through specific areas of his brain or a massive line of ketamine.
"The mind" is the phenomena of various interconnected functions of the brain which is a part of the body. No dualism here.
So premise (i) is a neuropsychological criticism of dualism.
Note that Descartes dualism is a epistemological concept not a neuropsychological concept. ‘The daily Show’
Quote
(II) hence, our only way to access truth is via 'objectivity'.
Indeed. But no objective truth can be known is Descartes framework except for the one. "I am". ‘The daily Show’
See the argument from ignorance I posted earlier.
Quote
This ignores the unity of subject and object, and essentially says that our Mental Representations can never 'know' Truth.
As you may have noticed I really dislike this whole Hegel business so I'm going to ignore that first part. It seems a bit unnecessary step and brings in a whole other can of worms. Blurring the concepts again.
But yup. It is probably the most persistent problem in epistemology. Logically we cannot really "know" anything. ‘The daily Show’
BUT:
From a neuropsychological perspective this problem is not a problem.
Anyway.
The problem with all your writing is that you slapdash throw in a load of different theories from different areas making a mess without properly defining what you mean or how they link together. In those three lines I was looking at you use about 8 different positions some of which are probably immiscible / dissonant if we were to look at them closer without explaining them or in what sense you use them.
Me having to unpack your writing this hard to try to make sense of it is a sign of shitty writing.
Also you hei‘The daily Show’nously misuse logic.
Your argument is from the Zeitg‘The daily Show’eist / Jeff Goldblum school of logic. (For an example check the South Park episode where Earth gets cancelled and it has a Jeff Goldblum scientist‘The daily Show’ character. Couldn't find any youtube links. Its basically free association)
Quote
I am interested to know how, deductively, liberals cannot be fascist.
If a liberal was a fascist they would no longer be a liberal, they would be a fascist.
Maybe you mean those who call themselves liberals are not in actual fact liberals but are fascists masquerading as liberals. Maybe I'm giving you too much credit.
Quote
I never mentioned Empiricism, so I'd be interested to know why you thought I was talking about empiricism.
You constantly mention objective evidence based search for truth ie. empiricism.
Quote
Many liberals are Cartesians.
Cartesians accept Ideology.
Ideology is Liberal.
Cartesians accept Ideology.
Ideology is Liberal.
This last bit is nonsense. Be a bit less lazy before you publish things.
Zeitgeist / Jeff Goldblum school of logic
My Response-
Great counteraction.
Here is the problem, which is more Kantian than Cartesian.
-
When we divide the world into Phenomenon (subjective) and Nuemenon (objective), we can never know Truth. Our mental representations are not the real thing (the neumenon is the 'real' thing). What Hegel says, is that the split between neumenon and phenomenon means we can never know any kind of truth apart from the subjective interpretation (even though Kant says the neumenon is the domain of god), and we must reconcile the subjective/objective split by recognizing that Reason IS Spirit.closer look revealscloser look revealscloser look revealscloser look revealscloser look revealscloser look reveals
It's not a matter of 'Logic'- and even Nietzsche favors Passion over 'logic'. Logic leads us astray. If, as you say, a=b and b=c therefore a=c, then we are in terrible trouble philosophically. A=B and B=C therefore A=C is not nearly as primordial as 'Reason is Spirit when its certainty of being all Reality has been raised to truth and it is concsious of itself as its own world and of the world as itself'.
Think of the great mysteries of knowledge. They are not a matter of mere logic but of illumination.closer look revealscloser look revealscloser look revealscloser look revealscloser look revealscloser look revealscloser look revealscloser look reveals
When we deify logic we diefy science- and this is a fatal mistake for people outside of the 'true' scientific community.
Logic is terrible.
The passions are what truly make life worth living- living life fully- with vigor- adding 'style' to our character- being fully engaged with the world- noy accepting the 'collective' interpretation of things... and I assure you, the 'collective' puts its 'faith' in logic and coherence. Being coherent or understood is dramatically overrated- the Truth or truths are, ultimately, in the mystery of life- the sacred knowledge and fire kept alive since ancient times,,,
We can only come to know the truths of this mystery through passionate involvement with the 'world'.
One could easily say that this is slipping back into Descartes, however, I would posit that 'passionate involvement' is far more basic than logical reflection or intentionality.closer look revealscloser look revealscloser look revealscloser look reveals
In fact, we have no intentionality- all we do is 'cope'. Liberals, inherently, don’t ‘stand’ for anything. They simply take the predominant ideology of the times, accept it as their own because it is what is presented as ‘hip’, and ignore the important philosophical distinctions which have been made historically.
Back to top
Report
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Random Notes
Hitler, according to my own philosophy of politics, was most definitely left as as opposed to right wing. I understand the previous quote (see forum responses for previous post and relevant information) from a reputable source saying he was Right Wing, but all I am telling you is that THIS IS A DEFINATE POINT OF CONTENTION, with implications and ramifications for the way we view our own political truths (I apologize for prattling on). If you aren't following this train of thought-Imagine that your beliefs about things generally coincided with essential ideologies behind atrocious fascism. You would say that vis a vis these beliefs were false or at least ethically wrong, therefore subject to re-appraisal.
It's only logical.This comes up for me in my readings of conservative philosophy, and marxist philosophy.
Many of the German Philosophers in the 1900th century get associated with laying the seeds of totalitarianism. Hegel begot marx- Hegel the german idealist- and it has been said by such notable scholars as Robert Solomon (RIP) that he was a proto nazi- that his radical idealism lent itself to:
a) subordination of the individual to the state.
an inconsistent or indeterminate statement of principles.c) radicalism, nationalism, and...
*DEEP BREATH*
...an integral relationship between the master and the slave.
Marx himself early on in his academic career identified himself as one of the 'young hegelians' of prussia- also refferred to in certain circuits as the LEFT HEGELIANS (who I will argue are FAR FAR more prone to the brutal techniques of dictatorial power than the Old Hegelians, but more on that later).
Hegel, it has been said by commentators, was an 'automoton of the state'. He had a definite ethics of conformity, as illustrated by some of his characterizations of the master slave relationship between the powerful and the weak, the rich and the poor, the living and the dying. But he really emphasized the relationship of the individual to society as residing in communication and community- a very good way of uniting the individual with the universal, which is what I think Hegel ultimately set out to do. The young Hegelians (marxists) were hopelessly idealistic and really appropriated and plaigarized Hegels methodology in service of left wing ideals such as communism, socialism, and radical liberalism.
Now I'm no nationalist and I'm certainly aware that the cold war is over- however, philosophically the idea's of marxism still have salience today. Not purely in the realm of removed academia, but in the way that our ideas interact with VERY REAL ethical Being.
Now the question of Right Wing fascism remains, yet I have of yet read no 'Old Hegelian' commentators that fall victim to Marxism, Nazism, nor Fascism of any kind. Rightwing philosophers with their tireless dialectical scalpel have all but extracted any remnants of this kind of totalitarianism, leaving the essential structures of what Heidegger called 'Dasein'.
This German Pragmatist said that:
"DASEIN COMPORTS ITSELF TOWARDS AN UNDERSTANDING (vorstanden) OF ITS OWN BEING."
This is entirely opposed to Descartes Cogito Ergo Sum.
Reading and References
Hiedegger Being and Time
Hegel Phenomenology of Spirit
Robert Solomon In the Spirit of Hegel
Monday, May 24, 2010
Liberal Fascism
Liberals are far more fascistic than conservatives. Conservatives are the ones most often accused of Fascism. Clearly fascism, generally, doesn't restrict itself to party lines, however, the Regime can be accurately characterized as fascistic. By the 'Regime', of course, I mean the Obama administration. This so called Regime is far more fascistic than any proceeding administration, including the much hated and feared Bush/Cheney Administration.
Clearly 'fascism' is more than just a buzzword- it is a morally indignant insult. When one feels that ones ethics have been violated or undermined by a government, the knee-jerk response is to call the perpetrators fascist. Now one could easily say that fascism has a definition proper, and this is true; however, fascism could also be accurately described in laymen's terms as an 'abuse of power' at high levels. This violates our basic sense of Justice, Honor, and Dignity.
Well, one might argue that Justice is just subjective (falling into Descartes Error as Antonio Damassio put it). In fact, arguing that Truth is merely 'subjective' is proof that the Cartesian tradition is alive and well despite being thoroughly dismissed philosophically since the beginning of the 20th century. What does Descartes have to do with politics and fascism?
Descartes is the philosopher who famously said Cogito Ergo Sum (I Think therefore I Am). This effectively splits "reality" into 'subjective' mental phenomena and the 'objective' external world. This is known as 'Dualism', and it has been said that your average man on the street is a 'Dualist'.
When one sees ones own mental phenomena as untrue, and sees science as the only way of penetrating the truth, one is left open to accepting fascism more readily by virtue of the fact that one deifies science and places simple everyday 'Being' in the realm of 'subjectivity' (often times when people are asked about their philosophical world-view, they write it off as merely 'subjective interpretation'). When one accepts this dualistic way of looking at things, one falls into 'ideology'.
Progressives operate off of ideology rather than Philosophy, and this leads them into supporting liberal fascism while believing that they are in fact, merely being moderate. A truly moderate liberal is a rare if non-existent thing- and many radical liberals claim to be 'independent'. Obama was elected under the stated intention of being a 'moderate' democrat, yet he is anything but moderate.
This is made most clear by the people Obama has surrounded himself with- all of them radical leftists- Marilyn Katz, David Axelrod, Valerie Jarret, Mark LLoyd, Cass Sunstein, Ron Bloom, Anita Dunn, and the much publicized Van Jones. Just do a little research on any one of these names and you should find, amidst plenty of fluff, their radical credentials.
I digress...
The connection between Cartesianism and Liberalism is quite simple actually. Once one sees their own 'being' as subjective then one comes to trust authorities in their claims that they, in fact, possess the 'real' scientific truth. When one puts faith in science (or deifies it), one is far more likely to trust those who claim to have your best interest at heart- a malicious lie in the case of the Obama administration.
Obama and his cronies despise everyday 'being'. They even despise human life generally. These are bold claims, but if you have ever heard Rahm Emmanual off the record you would have proof of the kind of elite attitude that is possessed by this administration. They hate human life. They despise everything America has stood for historically. They even have contempt for free thinking and free speech. I know it sounds far fetched, but I warn you- this administration supports eugenics.
Eugenics has, historically, proven to be a terrible strategy. An experiment in eugenics was done in europe where Nietzsche and Darwins relatives went to live, and breed, together in an isolated community. It was thought that this would create an Ubermensch. What happened was after a few generations the offspring were sick and troubled and the experiment was a complete disaster.
Eugenics aside, the fact that you consider truth to be 'subjective' is proof of the pervasive influence of Cartesian thought, which lends itself to scientific dictatorships, or- Fascism. This way of thinking makes accessing Truth with a capitol 'T' virtually impossible- a great tragedy for our supposedly enlightened society and an affront to everything American tradition holds dear.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
The UK Polls
Hello,
I've conducted a series of polls on a British Music forum with the intent of rabblerousing a bit. To take a look at the following polls, just copy and paste the web address to your browser:
This first one isn't a poll, but the response to the essay on 'The Scourge of Liberalism'.
http://www.dogsonacid.com/showthread.php?threadid=677354&cache=98
POLLS:
What Do You Think of Barack Hussein Obama?
http://www.dogsonacid.com/showthread.php?threadid=671371
Is Barack Hussein Obama a Socialist?
http://www.dogsonacid.com/showthread.php?threadid=675228
Do You Believe in God?
http://www.dogsonacid.com/search.php?s=d797d31923f18b93f286c45cb5e5922d&action=showresults&searchid=4628870&sortby=lastpost&sortorder=descending&pagenumber=2
Greetings from the Bible Belt
Hello,
Welcome to my blog- Politalk.
Have a nice cup of coffee, smoke some fine tobacco products from Winston-Salem, N.C. (I recommend Lucky Strikes), and settle into my plethora of Conservative tirades. I try to blend a bit of Philosophy in with politics, as Philosophy is central to understanding the ethics involved in political thought.
A bit about myself- I am a student, I am related to Micheal O'Connell, famed Activist/Documentarian, and I live in Pittsboro NC.
Well, that's it for the quick hello and all. Enjoy!
Welcome to my blog- Politalk.
Have a nice cup of coffee, smoke some fine tobacco products from Winston-Salem, N.C. (I recommend Lucky Strikes), and settle into my plethora of Conservative tirades. I try to blend a bit of Philosophy in with politics, as Philosophy is central to understanding the ethics involved in political thought.
A bit about myself- I am a student, I am related to Micheal O'Connell, famed Activist/Documentarian, and I live in Pittsboro NC.
Well, that's it for the quick hello and all. Enjoy!
The Scourge of Liberalism
It has been said by such atheist philosophers as Daniel Dennet that Christianity is a disease. One could easily say the same thing about Liberalism. Liberalism, like a disease, infects people through state controlled media outlets such as MSNBC, CNN, and even such seemingly innocent non-news related outlets like Comedy Central and HBO. Surely their programs are innocuous enough at a cursory glance, but a closer look reveals the insidious and infectious nature of this programming. Ironically, it has been noted by many liberal commentators that conservatives are conformist and propagandized- yet in a recent study it was shown that the majority of young people and college students get their news from Comedy Centrals ‘The daily Show’, a parody of news networks that delivers leftist commentary on world affairs, entertainment, and politics. The popularity of this show and the pervasive influence of MSNBC and its ilk reveals, without a doubt, that the left is far more conformist than the right (not to mention the liberal bent of most institutions of education). In fact, the vast majority of media is controlled by marxist schooled journalists (ie columbia university), cynical leftist entertainers, and politically nihilistic anarchists- and, excluding a few exceptions, the main narrative one receives from the majority of television, film, and academia is one of all out class warfare, hatred of the rich and corporations generally, and a ‘progressivism’ that is really nothing other than a thinly veiled form of socialism.
This isn’t, of course, to say that this is some kind of Evil force or some such thing, but merely that the claim that conservatives are conformist is a blatant lie, and it is far easier to be a liberal today than to take a strong stand of any kind whatsoever. Liberals, inherently, don’t ‘stand’ for anything. They simply take the predominant ideology of the times, accept it as their own because it is what is presented as ‘hip’, and ignore the important philosophical distinctions which have been made historically. Ultimately, what this amounts to is the morals of the slave- and liberals will always have the morals of the slave regardless of whether it is in their best interest or not! This is a form of suicide- but not even noble suicide like committing sepiku because one has been shamed- no- this is the suicide of lemmings. They simply follow the persuasive rhetoric right off the end of a cliff, all the while claiming to be doing so for the common good. Not only is this ignorant, but it is a despicable form of collectivism, in which one puts the good of society over the excellence of individuals. This is the origin of the liberals resentment of the free market, of capitalism, and of the very idea that one can become successful of ones own accord. As a matter of fact, liberals hate success if it goes contrary to their notion of the collective.
The collective is a difficult notion to express, as no one can deny that community is very important- but to get what I am saying, I must first address the fact that America was founded on individualist principles. The rights of the individual, garaunteed by the constitution, are the cornerstone of americas intended destiny- and I hate to say it, but we have, today, strayed far from this path. We are, as of the publication of this article, a socialist nation- in which the business class is being subverted by socialist party leadership. People seek to gain status not by true grit and sheer determination, but by pleasing party leadership. They look towards the government and beuracracy as a means of personal achievement, and in all but a few rare exceptions, seek good standing from their peers through a pathetic ‘please approve of me’ mentality. Well I don’t want to be ‘approved of’ by socialists, marxists, or beuracracies. I would rather stand alone in the cold than take part in this deceptive charade.
That may seem like a bit much, as everyone would like to be accepted and loved by their community- but in socialist societies like the one in which we are now living, ‘true community’ is replaced and eroded by a Jungian ‘Collective mind’, and we are now subject to the devious design of psuedo-intellectual rationalists who have no real philosophical foundation and have an inherent prediliction for simply accepting ideology (this is all to true in academia unfortunately).
William F. Buckley Jr. once talked of the difference between ideology and philosophy, and while this is a somewhat complex distinction, it is elucidated quite simply by the following decree-
The left has ideology, and the right has philosophy.
This isn’t, of course, to say that this is some kind of Evil force or some such thing, but merely that the claim that conservatives are conformist is a blatant lie, and it is far easier to be a liberal today than to take a strong stand of any kind whatsoever. Liberals, inherently, don’t ‘stand’ for anything. They simply take the predominant ideology of the times, accept it as their own because it is what is presented as ‘hip’, and ignore the important philosophical distinctions which have been made historically. Ultimately, what this amounts to is the morals of the slave- and liberals will always have the morals of the slave regardless of whether it is in their best interest or not! This is a form of suicide- but not even noble suicide like committing sepiku because one has been shamed- no- this is the suicide of lemmings. They simply follow the persuasive rhetoric right off the end of a cliff, all the while claiming to be doing so for the common good. Not only is this ignorant, but it is a despicable form of collectivism, in which one puts the good of society over the excellence of individuals. This is the origin of the liberals resentment of the free market, of capitalism, and of the very idea that one can become successful of ones own accord. As a matter of fact, liberals hate success if it goes contrary to their notion of the collective.
The collective is a difficult notion to express, as no one can deny that community is very important- but to get what I am saying, I must first address the fact that America was founded on individualist principles. The rights of the individual, garaunteed by the constitution, are the cornerstone of americas intended destiny- and I hate to say it, but we have, today, strayed far from this path. We are, as of the publication of this article, a socialist nation- in which the business class is being subverted by socialist party leadership. People seek to gain status not by true grit and sheer determination, but by pleasing party leadership. They look towards the government and beuracracy as a means of personal achievement, and in all but a few rare exceptions, seek good standing from their peers through a pathetic ‘please approve of me’ mentality. Well I don’t want to be ‘approved of’ by socialists, marxists, or beuracracies. I would rather stand alone in the cold than take part in this deceptive charade.
That may seem like a bit much, as everyone would like to be accepted and loved by their community- but in socialist societies like the one in which we are now living, ‘true community’ is replaced and eroded by a Jungian ‘Collective mind’, and we are now subject to the devious design of psuedo-intellectual rationalists who have no real philosophical foundation and have an inherent prediliction for simply accepting ideology (this is all to true in academia unfortunately).
William F. Buckley Jr. once talked of the difference between ideology and philosophy, and while this is a somewhat complex distinction, it is elucidated quite simply by the following decree-
The left has ideology, and the right has philosophy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)