Monday, September 26, 2022

Social Justice and Antisocial Injustice

  • Modern stupidities are more irritating than ancient stupidities because their proselytes try to justify them in the name of reason. --Dávila

Woke up wondering about the relationship between things that can't be and things that can and must be, i.e., the impossible, possible, and necessary, respectively.

In particular, I wonder if impossibilities can nevertheless yield positive metaphysical knowledge. Bear in mind that we don't yet know the answer, but I suspect there's something to my suspicion.

Among the most consequential impossibilities are called beings of reason. A being of reason is a rational concept that nevertheless cannot properly exist; it is essence deprived of existence, for example, a unicorn. We can describe what the word means, even though it has no referent in the real world. In fact, even "triangle" or "circle" are beings of reason, since we never find a perfect example in the real world.  

Circle and triangle are formal beings of reason, but there are also purely logical or mathematical examples, such as, say, the square root of negative one. 

So, some things that really exist can exist only in the head, hallucinations being another example. But if there are hallucinations and beings of reason, this is only because there is Being, full stop. If this weren't the case, then we could never distinguish between existence and fantasy, reality and tenure.

The Yves Simon Reader has a helpful chapter on The Distinction of Thing and Object. In the parlance of our times, these two are used synonymously, but in reality, things come first, objects second. In other words, things have to first exist before we conceptualize them as objects of thought. For example, a woman must exist before a man can pretend to be one. 

Now, some objects relate to things, others only to other objects. I don't yet want to descend into the insultainment portion of our program, but consider "the patriarchy," "white privilege," or "equity." Each of these is a being of reason -- an object of thought -- which refers only to other objects within a certain ideological framework, but not to actual things, AKA reality (the same goes for "trans" man or woman).

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that ideology as such is a complex being of reason with more or less tenuous relations to the Thingdom of Reality. Many more such examples come to mind, and you could say that this is one Hayek's biggest big ideas -- that the term "social justice" isn't even wrong, just nonsense:

Look, I've got certain information, certain things have come to light, and uh, has it ever occurred to you, man, that given the nature of all this new shit, that, uh, instead of running around blaming me, that this whole thing might just be, not, you know, not just such a simple, but uh -- you know?

Wait. Wrong nonsense. That sounds like Biden's babbling spokestoken, who is Diversity Hire Incarnate. 

All three volumes of Hayek's Law, Legislation and Liberty are on the permanent syllabus, so it's difficult to narrow it down. Volume 2 is called The Mirage of Social Justice, and it is indeed a mirage because it is an ideological being of reason with no connection to the real world. It is an idea, and may even be a beautiful idea, but it

is simply a quasi-religious superstition of the kind which we should respectively leave in peace so long as it merely makes those happy who hold it, but which we must fight when it becomes the pretext of coercing other men.  

But progressives always exempt themselves from the separation of church and state. 

Bottom line: social justice "does not belong to the category of error but to that of nonsense, like the term 'moral stone.'" 

Moreover, it is used as a pretext to impose an order from on high, so it is neither social nor just. "Antisocial injustice" is more like it. And if you don't have time to read Hayek, just reach for this aphorism when they try to bash you over the head with their idea of Justice, and you won't go wrong:

“Social justice” is the term for claiming anything to which we do not have a right (Dávila).

In case you were wondering how Biden, the Obamas, the Clintons, et al, became wealthy. It certainly wasn't by creating anything of value, least of all justice! 

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

Biden, the Obamas, the Clintons, etc… are neoliberals (neoliberalism is a well-intentioned road to hell which results in grifting for the rich, if not outright looting instead of capitalistic creating), wealthy because of the media they sold with after their fame. Worse should be considered the likes of Trump, Alex Jones, and Rupert Murdoch, etc… who are outright grifters. Ye shall know them by the quality of their lies. The quality of our leadership says far more about the Genesis 3 nature of most of our politicians, but not of all politicians as a few do actually mean well.
But with the majority, social justice as an ideology becomes folly. But as fixes for failed reactionary policies, history proves maybe not so much…

Cousin Dupree said...

Obviously you're not a golfer.

julie said...

In particular, I wonder if impossibilities can nevertheless yield positive metaphysical knowledge. Bear in mind that we don't yet know the answer, but I suspect there's something to my suspicion.

In math today, we pondered impossibilities, to whit:

"Fred knew he was being asked to do something that he really couldn't do. ... Find a value for the question mark in: 0 x ? = 14."

It can't be answered, of course, but being able to even ask and consider the question is both important and useful.

Gagdad Bob said...

Possibilities and impossibilities but no certainties per se.

Gagdad Bob said...

Actually, no possibilities.

Gagdad Bob said...

To ask "why is it impossible?" is to already understand the possible and necessary.

julie said...

Re. "social justice," there's a real life example of what happens when you try to divide by zero.

John Venlet said...

This post brings to my mind The Scriptures' relating to us the times The Messiah healed individuals whom we can assume were mentally disturbed because we are told an "evil spirit" is cast out of them. Think of the pigs drowning themselves. Though the Greek word utilized in The Scriptures is often interpreted as some unknown "unclean" thing/object, I believe it was an evil spirit The Messiah was banishing from these individual minds.

How does this thinking relate to this post? Well, when you consider the way delusional individuals are treated nowadays, pharmaceutically in large part, with limited success, and if an individual stops taking the pharmaceuticals, they seem to quickly succumb to the previously held delusions, it makes me consider that the nonsense mentioned in this post is due to some type of evil spirit possessing control of certain portions of individuals' minds, even if they are not running around naked and/or chained. At times I think this hypothesis makes much more sense than blaming it on a chemical imbalance in the brain.

Gagdad Bob said...

Definitely.

Nicolás said...

Modern man thinks that the devil disappeared, when he only became subtler, disguised as man.