Why does the Right stand any chance - at all?

Post Reply New Topic

My fear is the will make my country like UK/Canada. I'm not interested in that. We implement some socialist type programs now. That's enough.

In reference to countries like Canada, UK, Australia and NZ - is it the perception of a welfare state that troubles you or is it multiculturalism that is scary? I know both issues are perennial favourites for conservative parents use to "scare" their children about socialism.

Recently finished Johnathan Haidt's The Righteous Mind and he makes an observation that is backed by moral psychology science and seems quite relevant to this discussion. Haidt himself identifies as a liberal. A couple of the relevant conclusions:

1) There are not one but two distinct oppositions to the "left/liberals," they are the social conservatives and the libertarians. He describes this as a "Yin" and two "Yangs." These groups differ significantly in their beliefs and objections to the left.

2) Liberals incorrectly predict moral positions of conservatives, whereas conservatives more accurately predict the moral positions of liberals. Since this observation is likely to be met with some skepticism, I'll provide the link to the published article.
source: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/artic ... ne.0050092

The first is noteworthy, because Haidt demonstrates that libertarians and liberals are more closely aligned philosophically than libertarians and conservatives, and yet the libertarians politically align with the social conservatives. When liberals group their opposition into a single group they will be ineffective in their arguments.

The second is noteworthy, because it explains the left's confusion as to the right's success. They don't understand the views of the right and attacking something you don't understand tends to be ineffective.

To make things clear; I don't disagree with anything Bret said in that video clip you posted.

People do not care most about economics they care most about religion.

Unless they are conservative christian....then it's i) race ii) hip pocket iii) politics and then iv) economics...religion comes v)

I'm thinking that's mostly because Christian society is what you're used to being immersed in - Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism can get every bit as bad and in some cases worse. Very few people take their religion all that seriously - particularly if they're doing well (then again I take part of that back - the Hindu caste system helps permanently enforce social class). The situation also gets dangerous OTOH if the person in question is a guy in a polygamous society with no social networks and the religion happens to be an imperial one (OTOH if he becomes a radical Jansenist that's probably okay because there's no enticement there to saw men's heads off or take Yezidi women as sex slaves).

Something else that I think Sam Harris nailed, from a different angle than some of the Rebel Wisdom guys but I think the point is the same, the mystical core of religion - ie. the improvement of relationship between self and self or the increased command over self for the better, is the real baby in the bathwater and that's what our world probably needs to salvage from the eastern religions and the more heretical sects of western religion (eg. Rosicrucianism, Kabbalism, Sufism, etc.)

A lot of people here might not be Gad Saad fans (he's the non-woke variety of scientific atheist) but regardless:

Something else that I think Sam Harris nailed, from a different angle than some of the Rebel Wisdom guys but I think the point is the same, the mystical core of religion - ie. the improvement of relationship between self and self or the increased command over self for the better, is the real baby in the bathwater and that's what our world probably needs to salvage from the eastern religions and the more heretical sects of western religion (eg. Rosicrucianism, Kabbalism, Sufism, etc.)

So many names of organizations and traditions all seeking after the same kind of experience: gnosis. If increased command over self is the goal, why does it so often have to come with an unverifiable mythos and unhealthy disregard for science and reason?

Why can't it be that everyone mostly belongs to a Vulcan Religion? That would be, logical.
Logic

Assuming that’s the goal. The goal of Christianity, at least as I understand and practice it, is not about command over self. Command over self in Christianity is a by-product of the transformation of the human mind and soul. It’s what you should EXPECT. But it is a natural result of what has happened spiritually, and is most often expressed progressively. We are, simply put, all works in progress. It’s not really supposed to be something we spend a terrible amount of time worrying over.

Most everything I discuss relating to religion isn’t coming from church. I believe that there is an objective, measurable reality that we can gather knowledge from. All conclusions regarding virtue and morality derive from that reality. We learn from infancy to avoid pain and seek pleasure. Doing so keeps us alive. It’s logical. I believe we are capable of reasonable minds, and it is that logical mind that draws correct conclusions about reality, allows us to seek pleasure, and make decisions that increase our chances of survival. Ergo if it is logical, increases pleasure, avoids harm, then it is virtuous, moral, and good. What brings risk, pain, harm, and is unreasonable lacks virtue, is immoral, and is evil. ONLY from this point of departure can a human being draw conclusions regarding the human soul (is there such a thing?), God, science, the universe, and...well, everything conceivable. So the first piece of the puzzle for understanding is the nature of the mind itself. Can you trust it? How do you know if you can?

Most of religion and religious people is about one of two things: It’s typically either about affirmation and thoughtless pleasure seeking through pure wishful thinking, or it’s all about guilt and control. When you dig down all the way to the root of wishful thinking, what you’ll invariably find is someone benefiting from the poor saps who give him a LOT of money. Self-help books, prosperity gospel, motivational speaking, etc. At the other end of the spectrum is someone manipulating people by convincing them they are worthless. Now that’s not a matter of greed. It’s a matter of envy. It’s about power. They are both parasitic, destructive, and hateful. I don’t know how much of the Bible you’ve read, but neither one of those adequately reflect the Jesus I read about in the gospels.

“Evidence” and “logic” are useful tools. But evidence and logic can’t answer for themselves. How do you prove “logic,” for instance? If you say it “just works,” or logic “because logic,” you’re guilty of question-begging. For as long as that’s the case, you cannot assume that the mind is reliable. Logical conclusions aren’t possible beyond that.

“Evidence” and “logic” are useful tools. But evidence and logic can’t answer for themselves. How do you prove “logic,” for instance? If you say it “just works,” or logic “because logic,” you’re guilty of question-begging. For as long as that’s the case, you cannot assume that the mind is reliable. Logical conclusions aren’t possible beyond that.

The above is an interesting question. I find it interesting you talk about evidence speaking for itself, as if a "spirit" has to speak for ideas to exist, even mathematical ones. I have noticed that people who have supernatural beliefs engage in category errors all the time. Abstract becomes concrete; concrete goes abstract.

What is proof to you? In math it means to show something to be the case. As you have said that "Evidence" and "logic" are useful tools as a true statement, by logic I have proven that you believe in using double-quotes around words that scare you. Trust me, this is 100% true proof, and I am not spoofing you in any way.

"Logic is the cement of our civilization with which we ascend from chaos using reason as our guide."

- T'Plana-Hath, Matron of Vulcan philosophy

There is a reason it is called "Science-Fiction".

Yeah, go ahead and try to explain logic to AngelRho. I dare you. Btw, how much are you going to donate to AWAIC? I am still waiting for the picture of the check. I am sure they could use another bed, or money for keeping the lights on, or to pay SJW's those fat non-profit salaries they make. I hope you keep to your word.

To explain the "why" of logic... let's start with Kant, and a whole bunch of philosophy as well, then... other stuff, then it would fail anyways. I took the artistic route.

The Vulcanians are certainly fictional, but the example was given so that AngelRho (can I call you AR?) would have a better window into what logic is, using that quote. I mean, AR does not know that he accidentally asks some of the dumbest and smartest questions, simultaneously, all the time. Freaking mathematicians don't know what logic is, why should that mean we should not '"trust"' it, as AR implies, most especially so, though, if logic and reason ever challenge anything supernatural from the bible! Then that is not right at all I hear AR ready to wall of text scream at us...

It is only interesting to give responses to AR because it allows writing and critical thinking practice. The rest of the time it is

You're avoiding the issue. To draw logical conclusions, you must use logic by definition of what logical conclusions are. The law of identity is often summarized as A = A. Assuming what must be proven is question-begging, or circular reasoning, and is considered fallacious. If that is true, then logical laws, including the law of identity, must also be proven. If you attempt to prove A = A, you're using (at least) what you believe to be a reasonable mind, which is a precondition of logic itself. Proving the law of identity is nothing special. But what about logic itself? Remember, it's a fallacy to assume what must be proven. If A = A must be proven, so must logic. If logic gets a free pass, then you're holding logic to a lower standard. You're stuck having to either accept a low standard or questioning whether it's possible to know anything.

What is proof to me? It's not unlike scientific proofs (I'm aware that science doesn't "prove" anything, strictly speaking, so I'm not speaking of scientific proof in any hard sense), or logical proofs, or mathematical proofs. If you have a math problem, you can provide a mathematical proof using simple +-, */, etc. language and operations. Logic? Syllogistic arguments, inductive/deductive reasoning. You have, say, a logical problem such as the existence or non-existence of God, or morality, or good/evil, etc., or by extension law, economics, diplomacy, or whatever. By providing proofs, you hope you are able to persuade someone to your point of view.

The problem is requiring proof for everything. I don't need proof for every single thing in life. It's pretty obvious to me why it's a good idea to wipe after I sit on the toilet. If your standard is that everything must be proven, then what about those things themselves by which you prove anything? Aren't you going to prove those things as well? Or do you merely accept those things without question? "Logic is"...because LOGIC. That's when everything breaks down into circular reasoning, or some red herring or whatever, and you ultimately find the mind isn't trustworthy for drawing any conclusion. If you stubbornly hold to "because logic" or similar kinds of thinking with no rational basis (because there's not one), then there's nothing you can know with any degree of certainty. There MUST be some sort of external means of verifying what we believe or think or think we know if there's to be a way forward in using those tools for anything meaningful.

Or to make it even simpler than that: How do you even know with certainty that YOU exist? You have no proof.

Indeed.

The Vulcans were hypocrites. First off, it’s perfectly logical to have emotions. It’s only immoral to be guided exclusively by them. Emotion-only existence is not fundamentally different from an animalistic existence based on instinct and nothing else. Sentient beings have the ability to accept or reject reactivity in favor of something that yields more favorable circumstances.

Second, Vulcans are deluding themselves by denying even pleasurable emotions. There’s a reason they prefer pure logic. If they didn’t find pleasure in it, or even virtue, they wouldn’t choose it. That makes their particular reasoning absurd.

Logical thoughts and actions are virtuous. But it doesn’t do you any good if what you consider logic really isn’t.