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:

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.

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.

(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.

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.

0

• Back to top
• Report
• 

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

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.

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!

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.