The religion of the future

submitted by casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter from (self.debatealtright)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]NeoRail 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I can only reiterate some of my points from earlier - laws are instituted, obeyed and repealed by men. They have no autonomous value or power, and mean nothing without an active, affirmative will to enforce them. No law or structure can force a civilisation to hold to a course that it does not wish to hold to. The only thing that truly matters in the long term is precisely the maintenance and nurturing of an active and affirmative attitude in the future generations, who must be able to hold to the direction imposed by their predecessors with or without any external, structural supports.

Furthermore, having "zero faith" and assuming that future decline and collapse are inevitable automatically negates the meaning of doing anything to improve the situation in the present. This is a serious problem that you appear to have overlooked.

It is correct to have 'zero faith', to have layer upon layer of safeguards of all kinds applied such that not a single fundamental core idea, policy, value and all else that is of immense importance is alterable.

Will can also hold certain things to be unalterable, and will is far more effective than legal coercion. To have "zero faith" in a continuity of will essentially means giving up on this most vital ingredient. Again, look at what has happened to American Constitution worship. It exists even today, yet it is completely ineffectual, because vast portions of the population, including the ruling class, simply no longer care about or respect it. That's the difference will makes.

The problem with what you are saying about Cartesianism is that Descartes' conception of the soul is precisely a reduction to the reasoning faculty alone. This has nothing at all to do with the traditional concept of the soul, or with what most people mean when they use the term, especially in its more poetic sense. I can't even imagine how there could possibly be such a thing as a "good Cartesian soul" or "bad Cartesian soul", because an abstract reasoning faculty can by definition only hold correct or incorrect beliefs, but has no qualitative properties like "good" or "bad".

the existence of bodies and their qualities is verifiable

Moral qualities are also perfectly verifiable, they are just completely ignored in all the fields that matter today.

I should add that I am arguing against Cartesianism. I don't think that the Socratic conception is what people have in mind when they think about souls, therefore I consider it irrelevant. Christians, for example, are always using this blank slate Cartesian soul as a justification for their racial egalitarianism, and I see physicalism as being the solution to that problem. This, I think, is what your last sentence there means: I am indeed dealing with the 'modern definition' precisely because that is the one which is here in the world today, and I am not dealing with this 'traditional concept' precisely because that one is not.

Then maybe you should stop fighting ghosts and instead plainly state that you oppose rationalist materialism instead of traditionalist "idealism" or however you classify this. That modern Christians do not actually accept the doctrines of Christianity is quite besides the point. You are undermining your own argument here.

Your position on metaphysics is also unacceptable, because despite what you say, you do reject metaphysics as such. What you want is a cynically constructed metaphysics, devised for Machiavellian, political ends. It has nothing to do with genuine inquiry into the nature of absolute reality. You also have a lot of misconceptions about religion that I do not have the time to address in full here. I will limit myself to saying that you are reading too much into religion in general, when your only model seems to be Christianity. Prior to Christianity, pretty much every European ethnoreligion that neopagans today reduce to a form of materialist-biological racism in primitive, superstitutous form actually prioritised the soul over the body. This still did not prevent ethnoreligions from working as ethnoreligions.

Regarding the change in character, I think it is very much reconcilable with a physicalist worldview. What you may ascribe to the changes in the soul, I may simply ascribe to changes in the brain and to changes in the sociological 'collective consciousness'.

This is where we would go into another topic, and would need to examine various interesting problems that crop up with this view. For example, the people who maintain that Europeans have an innate, biological, genetically conditioned character, namely to be naturally assertive, creative, brilliant, honourable, disciplined, restrained, composed, etc. run into the issue of having to explain how it could be possible for those same Europeans, with those same genetics, to lose all of these qualities in barely a century. The others, who would reject the idea that there is such a thing as biologically conditioned character and instead examine the problem from a perspective of collective psychology, run into a different issue, namely, blank slatism, particularly in all the fields that matter. If a group of people can so radically negate and invert its values and character in just a couple of generations, what does this imply about the idea of innate personality, character, qualities etc? There are also other very major problems with physicalism and especially with its relation to cognition and psychology, but the one just examined is probably the most interesting one for the purposes of this sub.

[–]LGBTQIAIDSAnally Injected Death Sentence 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Furthermore, having "zero faith" and assuming that future decline and collapse are inevitable automatically negates the meaning of doing anything to improve the situation in the present. This is a serious problem that you appear to have overlooked.

No, this has nothing to do with the fatalism of which have read into my words. That would be like saying that all totalitarian systems are in some way fatalistic because they have no faith in humans left to their own devices, and thus suggesting (although not necessitating, since that would be an affirming the consequent fallacy) the belief that liberal systems are not fatalistic because they are the ones which have the most faith in humans left to their own devices. Obviously such a proposition (liberal = non-fatalist; illiberal = fatalism) I consider nonsense. My views can be totalitarian and anti-fatalistic and yet 100% congruent, which is exactly what they are. To anyone who disputes this, was NatSoc Germany fatalistic? The aim would be to ensure that the ideal state lasts for as long as is possible and is as powerful as possible, for which every safeguard is required, not that it lasts forever (an impossibility).

I am sure that our understanding of metaphysics differs in the next paragraphs, because I frankly have no idea what you mean by 'reject metaphysics'. I suspect you mean 'genuine inquiry into the nature of absolute reality' as you mention soon after without presenting it as an explicit definition, and if so, this serves no absolutely purpose whatsoever in the construction or longevity of any nation-state. Humans have never made any serious advancement in metaphysics, which is precisely why it remains a philosophical field and has not progressed to a science, and it is unlikely (and unverifiable) that their inability to do so in some way has shortened the lifespan of some civilization, society, nation-state, etc. In short, metaphysics in your sense has no bearing upon the 'Dissident Right' or its projects, and the extremely poor ability of humans to answer metaphysical questions has nothing to do with current ills, and therefore finding the solutions to these questions has nothing to do with curing them. So what you have done, it seems, is accuse me of being disinterested in uncovering 'absolute reality', to which I respond:

1) Humans know little or nothing about absolute reality: they can't even disprove solipsism or determinism, they are miserable failures at philosophy and their attempts at it are all are laughable and unfruitful;

2) Humans have not been in any verifiable way harmed by their lack of metaphysical knowledge;

3) As a subset of humans, the lack of metaphysical knowledge has in no verifiable way contributed to our problems (for example, mass immigration would still happen with a perfected metaphysics, because mass immigration is largely ethical and not metaphysical, the perfection of metaphysics would not end mass immigration, and so forth);

4) Ergo, it is highly rational not to place such questions very high on our list of priorities, and they can be left to future generations to ponder.

And thus you are (in part) correct when you state:

a cynically constructed metaphysics, devised for Machiavellian, political ends

Indeed, because:

1) I contend that metaphysics in your sense is essentially unknowable without receiving help from something superhuman, and the idea of an 'absolute reality' that is just waiting to be uncovered is an unverified proposition and essentially a matter of faith, a faith which I tend to lack because I attribute little faith into human reasoning. This does not mean that 'absolute reality' does not exist, but only that humans may learn about it not from their own reason, only from something else: a God, AI, aliens, etc. could reveal it to them, but the idea that they can work it out for themselves strikes me as nonsense because they have made zero progress towards doing this despite all of the time that they have had;

2) Because human metaphysical meandering has generated no objective knowledge about the world, it has no intrinsic value, only instrumental value (e.g. as a political tool, as you suggest);

In other words, I do not see the value of 'genuine inquiry into the nature of absolute reality' at the present time. Your position seems to be that of someone who sees excess value in his own field of expertise precisely because it is his own field of expertise, and thus it is the 'lens' through which you view the world. And that is understandable. But as someone who is far more invested in the social sciences and for whom philosophy is merely a tool to perfect science, it should also be understandable that I do not accord much value to philosophizing, and accord much more value to science.

Your last paragraph seems to go into the structure-agency debate and all sorts of things upon which I have no strong opinion. Your last sentence, I presume, hints into the usual qualia thing upon which most physicalists (Churchland, Jaegwon Kim, for two) believe will simply be answered in time given further scientific advancement. Keith Woods, however, rejects physicalism on those grounds, thus following the same path as Chalmers and that Jackson followed for a time before fully converting to physicalism, but this is a path that I find myself increasingly likely to reject as I age. I think that physicalism is both more correct (and more instrumentally useful) than idealism, though I retain certain dualistic beliefs (hence, my self-identification as a 'physicalist-leaning dualist', and I imagine, later a 'dualist-leaning physicalist' given more time and thought).

I will leave this as the last comment, because I suspect that there is a great deal of difference between our definitions here. We already have determined that your concept of 'soul' is Socratic and mine is Cartesian (a minimalistic conception, a non-spatial entity that exists, that thinks, that predates and outlives the body and which is probably far more streamlined than whatever the Socratics believe it is), upon which we have already wasted words, and thus I suspect that our exchange is deeply ridden with misunderstanding each other's positions regarding what actually constitutes 'metaphysics' and so forth. A proper debate would require strict definitions of every philosophical term used in order to ensure that we're actually on the same page.

[–]NeoRail 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Liberalism is indeed not at all fatalistic in this particular sense of the word you are using, because liberals believe in a linear, progressive movement towards ever growing prosperity and freedom. Your views, on the other hand, are very fatalistic. In your very first post you suggest that a future totalitarian state system should be designed to control a society of idiots, completely incapable of political thought or loyalty of any kind. There most certainly are types of "non-fatalist" totalitarianism - yours is not one of those. As to totalitarianism more broadly, I believe the concept of the organic state is superior to the totalitarian one precisely because of the totalitarian tendency to standardise and micro-manage in a misguided attempt to mitigate, control or avoid moral failure - a problem which requires a totally different approach. A further question to look at on this topic would be why any political activist, today or in the future, should bother to exert great effort in working for the future of what, according to you, would be an idiotic and contemptible mass without loyalty or will of any kind. I do not know anyone who would willingly and selflessy work for the sake of ungrateful idiots. This is a very fundamental problem with your view.

I am sure that our understanding of metaphysics differs in the next paragraphs, because I frankly have no idea what you mean by 'reject metaphysics'. I suspect you mean 'genuine inquiry into the nature of absolute reality' as you mention soon after without presenting it as an explicit definition, and if so, this serves no absolutely purpose whatsoever in the construction or longevity of any nation-state.

If we don't need to account for reality when constructing our societies, what's the problem with liberalism? It seems that your only problem with a world based on lies and pure power is that you want to control the lies and the power instead. Unfortunately, your political opponents have the power, and by the looks of it, according to your view, they are complete justified. Not to mention that some things, such as metaphysical inquiry, have an autonomous value that exists independently of any political ends, although metaphysics certainly could exert its influence over politics as well.

Humans have never made any serious advancement in metaphysics

This is incorrect. It would be more accurate to say that most humans have proven completely incapable to appreciate any serious advancements made in metaphysics. Great achievements abound, starting with the ancient world. Vedanta and Neoplatonism are even discussed in this very thread. I must also object to the rest of your four points. Points 2 and 3 falsely suggest that there is a disconnection between metaphysics and ethics (and by extension, presumably the rest of practical life). No such separation exists. To give a very basic example, Christian metaphysics and conceptions about God and the afterlife determined everything about morality, politics, culture etc. in the Middle Ages. I can partially agree with your fourth point - metaphysical inquiry is not immediately necessary for political success, although the outright rejection and hostility to metaphysics is not necessary either. There is also not much to "ponder", because a lot of the work is already done.

The issue with your cynical approach to metaphysics is that the normal relationship between metaphysics and social norms is that the latter are derived and justified on the basis of the former. Your desire to do the opposite may have some short term political benefits, but is fundamentally incoherent in the long term and undermines the very foundation of civilisation and the human personality. I do not think that you have seriously tried engaging with metaphysics, because if you had then I am sure you would know that "human reason" is not the only, or even the main tool in the examination of metaphysical problems. A study of metaphysics and epistemology is also very important in order to even define what it means to "know" something - the materialist scientific definition of knowledge that you have repeatedly used in your posts, for example, has a far narrower application that is commonly believed.

But as someone who is far more invested in the social sciences and for whom philosophy is merely a tool to perfect science, it should also be understandable that I do not accord much value to philosophizing, and accord much more value to science.

The insurmountable problem with this is that science is a branch of natural philosophy, which is itself a branch of philosophy in general. Science certainly has its rightful place, but it is still just a branch of philosophy, and is fatally dependent on the field of philosophy. There are many questions which science is completely incapable of answering, simply because that is not what it is meant to do.

Your last paragraph seems to go into the structure-agency debate and all sorts of things upon which I have no strong opinion.

But you should have an opinion on it, because the example I provided exposes a major problem with the physicalist perspective.

I will leave this as the last comment, because I suspect that there is a great deal of difference between our definitions here. We already have determined that your concept of 'soul' is Socratic and mine is Cartesian (a minimalistic conception, a non-spatial entity that exists, that thinks, that predates and outlives the body and which is probably far more streamlined than whatever the Socratics believe it is), upon which we have already wasted words, and thus I suspect that our exchange is deeply ridden with misunderstanding each other's positions regarding what actually constitutes 'metaphysics' and so forth. A proper debate would require strict definitions of every philosophical term used in order to ensure that we're actually on the same page.

In principle, I agree that a good debate would require precise definitions, but in this specific case I think you are being a bit disingenuous since it seems pretty clear to me that you understood exactly what I meant. Nevertheless, I am glad you enjoyed our exchange, judging from what you said earlier. I hope that you will reconsider your position on materialism in the future, or at least that what I have said will be useful to you in some manner or another.