Tuesday, October 20, 2020

Is Leftism a Lie or Something Worse?

I want to pull a couple more passages from the article cited yesterday, each going to our exploration of the deepest deep structure of the left.  First, for the activist of the left, “to be antiracist is to see all cultures in their differences as on the same level, as equals”:

“When we see cultural difference we are seeing cultural difference—nothing more, nothing less.” It’s hard to imagine that anyone could believe that cultures that condone honor killings of unchaste young women are “nothing more, nothing less” than culturally different from our own. But whether he believes it or not, it’s obvious that embracing such relativism is a highly effective tool for ascension and seizing power (Weiss).

Even on its face the claim is absurd, for in this formulation, isn't the culture that makes no distinctions between cultures the morally superior one? If not, then what are we arguing about?  

My culture, for example, understands that "homosexual marriage" is -- no offense -- impossible in fact and in principle.   But my culture is regarded by the totolerantarian leftist as hateful, whereas, say, Islamic culture is considered beautiful despite sanctioning and encouraging violence toward homosexuals.  In my culture, that would be evil.  Yet, I'm the immoral one.  

Normally -- speaking now as a psychologist -- when a person is able to maintain such starkly contradictory ideas it points to pathology.  This is because the mind as such is designed to seek unity.  A normal person is distressed by contradiction and  attempts to resolve it, either by ruling out one of the theses or integrating them at a higher level.   This being the case, how is it even possible for someone to make the claim that "all cultures are equal except for mine, which is superior to the rest, and yours, which is inferior to the rest"?

This claim is either self-refuting or merely the pretext for a raw power play.  No, it's actually both.  In fact, one of the reasons the left is so furious at President Trump is that he refuses to play by the rules of this corrupt power game.  It's why the very idea of MAGA is a moral obscenity.  For the left, America can indeed be great, but only by acknowledging that it's rotten.  What the left is really saying is:  "All cultures are equal and America is the worst of the bunch."

Exaggerate much, bOb?

This is no longer a fringe view. As the philosopher Peter Boghossian has noted: “This ideology is the dominant moral orthodoxy in our universities, and has seeped out and spread to every facet of American life— publishing houses, tech, arts, theater, newspapers, media,” and, increasingly, corporations. It has not grabbed power by dictates from above, but by seizing the means of sense-making from below.

Over the past few decades and with increasing velocity over the last several years, a determined young cohort has captured nearly all of the institutions that produce American cultural and intellectual life. Rather than the institutions shaping them, they have reshaped the institutions. You don’t need the majority inside an institution to espouse these views. You only need them to remain silent, cowed by a fearless and zealous minority who can smear them as racists if they dare disagree. 

Sense-making from below.  Now that is a bingo. For it is literally the imposition of meaning instead of its discovery, and as we will explain, this is the very structure of paranoia and of mental illness more generally.  I read something about this just the other day, but where is it?  I've been cramming so much into my noggin lately that I've exceeded its already limited carrying capacity.  

This also happens to be a VERY LARGE subject, being that it goes to the whole metaphysical question of whether reality is discovered or projected -- in other words, whether common sense realism is the case, or if Kant got it right after all.  If you presume to practice philosophy -- and we all must, on pain of cashing in our humanness -- this is among the very first questions that must be settled: are my concepts about reality true?  Or just forms of my own apperception?  What comes first, the thing perceived or my perception of it?  

One can ignore this question, which is precisely how one is reduced to being the village atheist, e.g., "our minds are totally contingent and that's the absolute truth."  

More generally, materialism is the abstract doctrine that holds abstractions to be unreal.  But like the multiculturalist referenced above, the materialist is too naive or incurious to follow his train of logic until it blows up the tracks.  If you believe that perception is prior to the thing perceived -- pro-tip here -- you have permanently sundered the link between perception and reality.  

Not only can you never get back to reality, but by all rights the word should be abolished from your vocabulary.  To say "perception is reality" is to say "perception is perception," all the way down. It is the negation of reality.  These are nihilists, Donny.  Everything is true because nothing is true.  It's how a mentally ill man who wants to hack off his penis is normal, whereas Amy Coney Barrett is depraved. Come to think of it, it is how Jeffrey "Keep Your" Toobin has the moral standing to denounce ACB.  

The party of science.  Okay, here's a clarifying question: does science deal with the real world, or not?  Are its conclusions purely subjective, or do they describe reality?  Are our minds the measure of reality, or vice versa? 

Not only do we believe science is both objective and true, we don't leave it at that.  Rather, we go to the deeper question of how science is even possible in principle.  So, yes, science describes reality (on its own plane with its own methods, of course).  But by virtue of what principle?  Yes, the principle of creation, through which being bifurcates into intelligence and intelligibility.

But we're getting rather far afield.  Back to the damn quote I'm looking for.  Ah. Here it is: from Sheen's Philosophy of Science (see sidebar).  He notes that the intelligence -- to the extent that it is intelligence and not something else! -- "never communicates to the phenomena an intelligibility which they do not possess themselves."

Example.  Actually, it isn't a perfect example, because the people propagating it presumably know it is a baseless lie, because they can't be that crazy.  Can they?  

I'm speaking of our media and big tech overlords who are trying to pretend this whole business about the Biden Crime Family is just Russian propaganda.  To the extent that someone actually believes this, it is a case of  "communicating to the phenomena an intelligibility which they do not possess themselves."  In short, it is a paranoid delusion. 

Didn't get as far as I'd hoped, but we're out of time.      

49 comments:

Gagdad Bob said...

Another example: there is no rioting, and besides, it's just normal folks caught up in the moment.

Cousin Dupree said...

Who cares? It's just an idea anyway.

Andy said...

Sorry to change the subject, but this is also just an idea.

Dunning-Kruger is an effective stragedy because sometimes the truth hurts. Since being stupid is a bad thing and bad things usually hurt, being stupid is eventually gonna hurt.
Unless:

1. One figures out how to be less stupid
2. One can mentally defense themselves from the pain of being stupid

Since it can be hard to carry around the pain from being stupid all day every day, and #1 takes a lot of discipline and hard work, #2 winds up being the preferred option.

But sometimes, one determines that they have no choice but to go #1. This usually happens suddenly, after some traumatic situation leaves them no choice but to do the big WTF?! One realizes that avoiding the short term pain is worse than the long term consequence pain, and they make up their mind to discipline themselves to finding the cold, hard truth, painful as it may be.

It’s a little like powerlifting. There shall be after-workout pain, but it’s a good pain. There shall be pulled brain muscles requiring rehab. There may be serious injury requiring expensive psychotherapy and one could even be sent to a funny farm. But at least one can rest and learn valuable skills like basketweaving and the making of license plates. Maybe you’ll be able to bribe Red into having Brooks deliver forbidden how-to books to your cell. Maybe you can also get a set of spoons with which to dig through a twenty foot wall, into a sewer line filled with stinky foulness I cannot imagine, to true freedom on a bus to Mexico.

The point is, that it’s worth the effort. But only if you can open up a small fishing resort with the wardens money.

julie said...

Re. the Instapundit link, I do wonder what will happen if this election results not in a close battle, but rather a red landslide. Will they still be brazen enough to carry out their threats, or will they be too busy wailing and gnashing their teeth to cause any serious damage?

Anonymous said...

Even if the left cowers in a state of learned helplessness, there will be riots. We're just gonna have to deal with it. Or change the channel I suppose.

Gagdad Bob said...

If Trump wins, he'll be far more aggressive in putting down the fascist revolutionaries, since he won't be running for re-election. If he had done it prior to the election, you know how the enemy media would spin it.

julie said...

I certainly hope so. It would be wonderful to see even a hint of genuine justice being brought to bear.

Gagdad Bob said...

The public will love it. Who doesn't like to see bullies get what's coming to them? Social justice, good and hard.

Gagdad Bob said...

File under America Has Never Been Great:

Republicans haven’t flouted the constitutional order. They’ve made use of it. Things haven’t gone wrong because a system that was humming along fine until recently has been damaged in some fundamental way. The system is humming along essentially as it always has with increasingly dire results. The crisis is not that the American constitutional system is broken but that the American constitutional system is working...

ted said...

Maher has always been a smug ignorant man, but here he's just mirroring the insanity of the left.

Nicolás said...

Christianity would scandalize the Christian if it stopped scandalizing the world.

Cousin Dupree said...

What is it with these Catholic justices -- what makes them think their job is to preserve and hand on the same Constitution that was entrusted to them?

Anonymous said...

Ted,

Maher is like Buttigieg, a lefty of the libertarian-liberal flavor who cares nothing about “Marxism” “socialism” or even economic populism. For the laymen, that means allowing gayness and abortions, definitely immoral as far as the religious culture warrior is concerned. But I’ve seen both Maher and Buttigieg in debates. They’re hardly as insane or ignorant as is the common American man.

So we have Amy Coney Barrett, who when asked about the peaceful transition of presidential power, appears to know nothing about either Article 5 of the US Constitution, or the 20th Amendment. Should we blame her? She’s just a judge having nothing to do with congressional rules, right?

At the bottom of it all, the religious right wants a theocracy. Freedom and nationalism and economic patriotism are just secular things for somebody else to figure out. Defeating the powers of Satan, whether they be in the middle eastern desert or inside our borders, should be the very first duty of our representative leaders.

Maher just disagrees.

Nicolás said...

Militant irreligion gradually transforms the one possessed into a simple imbecile convulsed by hatred.

Gagdad Bob said...

The Founders were obviously conservative theocrats for believing our natural rights are inalienable and not granted by the state. Scary!

Cousin Dupree said...

In a sane world the Declaration of Independence would be ruled unconstitutional. As would the Constitution.

Anonymous said...

Militant irreligion gradually transforms the one possessed into a simple imbecile convulsed by hatred.

Good reply. Now is there one about hatred from the religious?

Nicolás said...

For the left the constitution is a shameful attack on the sovereignty of the people.

Anonymous said...

Judiciary committee hearings are supposed to be a job interview on behalf of the American people, for a very important job which impacts all American people.

Maybe you don’t understand because you’ve never had a job interview? My own brother is a very well-connected megachurch elder who ensured that his 3 adult kids would never have to undergo that process either. In fact, unless they do something incredibly stupid, they'll likely have a job as long as their employer can provide one. Under such conditions I’d certainly understand any ignorance about job interviews.

But if I was an ethical employer, say… for an engineering firm, I’d start the interview with a very basic question, such as “How would you limit crippling on an axially loaded structural member which must endure continuous compression?” If he replied anything like: “Well I’d have to review that with my peers and support staff” I’d try again, asking them to describe what they think the general direction of his peers would be, on a mechanical, dynamics level. I’m obviously not just checking for good verbal comprehension and communication skills, but for basic educational knowledge. If he still couldn’t answer I wouldn’t waste my time further and call in the next applicant.

These days judiciary committee hearings are nothing like that. They’re more like a game, to see whose ‘side’ can bullshit the best.

Nicolás said...

--is there one about hatred from the religious?

Nothing is more dangerous for faith than to frequent the company of believers. The unbeliever restores our faith.

Gagdad Bob said...

"Judiciary committee hearings are supposed to be a job interview on behalf of the American people."

Not remotely true.

julie said...

In the morning rant over at Ace's today, there's a cromulent observation:

"I was quite amused by the hubris on display in this paragraph: [quoting some self-important idiot over at New Republic]

It is beyond debate that we are their [referring to America's founders] moral superiors; after over two centuries of democratic experience here and of observing the democracies that have bloomed across the globe, we know infinitely more about the institutions that they built and democratic governance than they did.

You know what? I don't think this is true. Our founders all possessed deep knowledge understanding of classical antiquity. They knew Latin. Greek, and perhaps even Hebrew. And because they were either serious Christians or influenced by Christian thinking, they held no illusions about human nature, the perfectibility of man, and simply did not trust one man or one small group of men being entrusted with great power. They trusted no one. They didn't even trust themselves. So they tried to break up governmental power into small bits held by different groups (our three branches of government) and set them against each other.

So listening to this guy brag about his moral superiority is like having my 5-year-old son ask to drive the family car. It's obvious he has no clue what he's talking about."

Nicolás said...

The modern man is the man who forgets what man knows about man.

Nicolás said...

With the categories admitted by the modern mind, we do not manage to understand anything but trifles.

Nicolás said...

The falsification of the past is how the left has sought to elaborate the future.

Anonymous said...

Which brings us to a theocracy. I know that Iran is certainly one. I've seen in Rick Steve travel shows that most of the citizenry seems quite pleasant. Now would I want my wife to go around dressed very modestly with hair covered, lest she be arrested? I know a few Iranians, who tell me that under all that modest covering is Victoria's Secret, and that secret is half the fun.

So maybe it wouldn't be so bad. But should I be worried about inquisitions or witch trials or any of that? Remember, the judges are having God tell them how to judge.

Nicolás said...

Liberals describe a past that never existed and predict a future that is never realized.

Cousin Dupree said...

--under all that modest covering is Victoria's Secret, and that secret is half the fun.

Could be, but you never know. Hence the necessity of polygamy. "One and done" doesn't work without full transparency.

Anonymous said...

Not remotely true.

Explanation?

Anonymous said...

Does a constitutional originalist despise all the Amendments?

Gagdad Bob said...

The only question for a Supreme Court justice is whether he can interpret the Constitution as written, not whether he can work "on behalf" of anyone. If the people want to go to hell in a handbasket, it is the job of the Supreme Court to help them do so, so long as it is constitutional.

Gagdad Bob said...

--Does a constitutional originalist despise all the Amendments?

No, the opposite, being that the amendment process is written into the Constitution. Indeed, that is the whole point: to proceed legally rather than by judicial fiat.

Anonymous said...

You do realize that Amy Coney Barrett didn't appear to know, or care, about the Constitution as written? What was her point?

Gagdad Bob said...

Correction: I despise the 18th amendment, but that's because I don't see how the denial of my right to beer could possibly be considered constitutional.

Anonymous said...

Maybe the Constitution was written "on behalf" of a future machine society?

Gagdad Bob said...

Google and Facebook certainly think so.

julie said...

Tangentially, studying history and historical narratives with my kids it is almost astonishing how well wise men of the past understood human behavior. Keith Olberman's unhinged rant about people who need to be prosecuted comes straight from the pages of John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress:

Then the Judge called to the jury (who all this while stood by, to hear and observe): Gentlemen of the jury, you see this man about whom so great an uproar hath been made in this town. You have also heard what these worthy gentlemen have witnessed against him. Also you have heard his reply and confession. It lieth now in your breasts to hang him or save his life; but yet I think meet to instruct you into our law.

There was an Act made in the days of Pharaoh the Great, servant to our prince, that lest those of a contrary religion should multiply and grow too strong for him, their males should be thrown into the river. There was also an Act made in the days of Nebuchadnezzar the Great, another of his servants, that whosoever would not fall down and worship his golden image, should be thrown into a fiery furnace. There was also an Act made in the days of Darius, that whoso, for some time, called upon any god but him, should be cast into the lions' den. Now the substance of these laws this rebel has broken, not only in thought, (which is not to be borne), but also in word and deed; which must therefore needs be intolerable.

For that of Pharaoh, his law was made upon a supposition, to prevent mischief, no crime being yet apparent; but here is a crime apparent. For the second and third, you see he disputeth against our religion; and for the treason he hath con

julie said...

*confessed, he deserveth to die the death.

Oops. Copypaste fail.

Gagdad Bob said...

If you want to know what a Persecutory Delusional Disorder looks like, just watch one of those Olbermann rants. He is literally psychotic.

julie said...

It's rather sad what he's become. Don't think I ever liked him, but at least he used to be able to appear sane. Now he just looks like a victim of demonic possession.

Gagdad Bob said...

In the case of Persecutory Delusional Disorder one can be completely sane outside the boundaries of the delusion. Although Olbermann certainly appears to have serious issues beyond just the political delusion.

Anonymous said...

Iranians pose as Proud Boys, Russian troll farms are doing Qanon drops, the Pope props our trannies, Borat punks Giuliani, Cohen and the Mooch (sounds like a kid show) are spilling their guts about Trump, and our supreme court pick doesn’t even know the constitution.

At least they don’t hate us for our freedoms anymore. All our other stuff is far too amusing.

Anonymous said...

Olberman dated Laura Ingraham once, which of course pales in comparison to Maddow dating Ailes, or Kelly Anne being married to George Conway. Steve Bannon stole Build the Wall money and the other guy, Parscale, is on suicide watch. To be fair, Hunter is a real piece of work himself, which takes us right back to Giuliani.

What a mess. For us what may be serious business, is for the Powers That Be one slapstick comedy after another, trying to keep one step ahead of keystone cops or the mental home. But at least they’re rich.

I propose a TV series called “America!?!”

Anonymous said...

Great post and comments! Very lively, very germane!

I'll add to the discussion-

The blog author is a fan of reality and the Constitution.
I'm a fan of whiteboards. I find them re-markable. 🤦‍♀️

Many progressives won't eat meat.
Neo-cons say becoming a vegetarian is a big missed steak.😁

Dinah's in the kitchen cooking up a storm.
Missy sez RIP boiled water, you will be mist. 😒

Well, hoodyah think is gwanna win the election? I'm taking book on it right about now.


Tha Funk Soul Brothah.






Anonymous said...

Check it out now, Funk Soul Brothah:

I'm finding that predictions for the election are divided very neatly along partisan lines.

Nate Silver (a marxist) says Biden by a bunch with the possibility of senate bloodbath.
Meanwhile, my man Steve Turley (a real doctor!) says that the Biden campaign is imploding.

Now, one problem with these two predictions, is there's been so many surprises in each of this years previous months, that it'll be really, really hard to find an October surprise that'll match any of that. My top ideas:

* The Pope goes full MAGA. He rides all over the place in the Popemobile, xcept instead of the boring old outstretched hand blessing-bob while wearing the tired old old papal tiara routine, he's doing the okie-dokie hand sign wearing a legendary red MAGA cap.

* Kim Jung un accidentally nukes DC and we gotta do the whole thing all over again.

* Trump accidentally nukes Pyongyang and gets pulled off stage with the crooked hook.

* Playboy releases the Melania centerfold.

* Qanon was right and pedophile-crazed satanists crown Biden our Dear Leader. And just when they get fought off by our heroic military, police, and #ProudBoys, bunches of these Russian soldiers pour of all the parade floats and Putin goes up to the stage and says in bad english: "Nyet. We win!"

ted said...

The idea of a religious right getting anything close to a theocracy is ludicrous.

I have conceded the left has won the media, the academy, Hollywood, the administrative state, the arts, and even most of Western Civilization (if we bring in Europe). The only thing they don't have is the White House and the Senate, and that can change soon. We don't vote for conservatives these days to restore anything. We do it to slow down the insanity.

Gagdad Bob said...

The totalitarian impulse is intrinsic to the left (which they project into us in the form of imaginary theocratic desires), so they are driven to capture the last redoubt of resistance -- not just the senate & presidency, -- which are exterior -- but the interior as well, AKA the intellect & soul. We see this with breathtaking transparency vis-a-vis big tech manipulation and censorship. Tonight a lot of Americans are going to find out for the first time about the Biden crime family. Gonna be fun!

Dougman said...

“Sense-making from below. Now that is a bingo. For it is literally the imposition of meaning instead of its discovery, ...”

The gates of hell have proven no match for the Rock.
And hell came with him.

👋

Anonymous said...

Biden crime family? Perhaps. But that would mean that the Bidens have converted folks with names like Romney, Steele, Bolton, Kristol, Scaramucci, Flake, Kasich, Schwarzenigger, Boot, Frum, Schmidt, Will, Cupp, McCain, Fiorina… to marxism.

I hope they'll be tuning in. It may not be too late to save them.

Theme Song

Theme Song