We often see bigotry when it's naked and on view, but the truth is, most bigotry is hidden. People will sometimes admit to a bias, but they will never admit to a bigotry, even though the two are related.
Bigotry is often paraded behind a mask. The mask lends respectability, and is therefore a lie.
In the middle ages, that mask was Christianity. Christianity itself was not the lie, just the way it was sometimes used. People wearing the mask of Christianity thus exercised their bigotry of Jewish bankers, poor people with their pagan revelling and foreign people with darker skin.
In the twentieth century, that mask was Science. Science itself was not the lie, just the way it was sometimes used. The targets thus were Jewish bankers and their inheritable cunning, poor people and their overt willingness to breed (sterilisation recommended) and dark skinned people with their scientifically proven inferior skull dimensions.
After World War II, all the above was debunked, yet somehow continued.
For instance, contemporary anti-capitalist protesters target bankers (the 1%, many Jewish and grasping), the poor (the dumb masses who are just consumerist slaves) and white skinned people (because white skinned people are naturally superior and should just lay off the dark skinned people, who are too stupid to help themselves). The mask in this case is Social Justice, and it can be used to hide any number of vengeful thoughts.
Social Justice is a virtuous cause, but then so was Christianity and Science.
Whenever you witness a self-righteous attack, whether from the Left, the Right, the Religious or the Secular, you can be sure that there is a form of bigotry behind it.
Some people think that the world is over-populated because the poor are eating too much and breeding too much (Environmentalists, Birth Control Advocates).
Some people think Muslims are violent terrorists and will always kill non-Muslims - because they hate them - and other Muslims - because they don't know any better (Islamaphobes, Evangelists, Secularists).
Some people think that urban cosmopolitans are superior, that rural religious people are inbred, over-bred and mentally deficient, and that the presence of scientifically created technologies like Twitter and Facebook will ensure that cosmopolitan values remain dominant, especially if adopted by brown skinned foreigners protesting their obviously inept and incompetent brown skinned governments (Smug People Generally).
Some people think that women are stupid and don't know how to run the world.
Some people think that men are stupid and don't know how to run the world.
Some people think that naked bigotry is ugly and that the donning of the right mask (and the right mask, as opposed to the wrong mask, is dictated by the fashions of the day) can make that which is ugly, virtuous and beautiful instead.
But the truth is, it remains bigotry. And all masks are just fashion accessories.
See behind the mask if you can.
Showing posts with label Philosophy and Ideals. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Philosophy and Ideals. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 13, 2014
Wednesday, November 20, 2013
Feelgood factor
Quote from Guderian in a Spiked article:
People in the Third World have never had it so good and it's thanks to heroes like me. Every espresso I have at Costa Coffee makes Guatemalan children very happy, I have seen the pictures and they always smile. I drink water from some company that vaccinates (or is it fumigates?, I forget) children in some African country, they also smile in the picture. My bananas make peasants in some other loser country very happy because a nice lady in London tells them how lucky they are to be paid a fair price. I am very precious and all the brown people know it. My mum was right.
Sunday, July 28, 2013
Hypocrisy
72 'activists' have now been killed in Egypt - protestors gunned down by State security forces.
And world leaders are queuing up to condemn the heavy handed suppression of democracy, aren't they?
Aren't they?
Oh wait, they aren't. Well what about sanctions then? Uh, no. No-fly zones? You must be joking.
Surely Human Rights campaigners and the President of the United States - a holder of the Nobel Peace Prize - are united in condemnation of the Egyptian Military's actions? Surely there must be outcry at the countries that supply Egypt with weapons? Surely our own parliament is being lobbied by all those who insist that weapons are supplied only to those regimes that don't use the weapons against their own people. Surely the very people who protested against the actions of the Gaddafi and Assad regimes are joined in condemnation of the suppression of an election and the 'will of the people'.
Don't be silly. There can't be an outcry against those countries that supply Egypt with weapons, because the aforementioned Nobel Peace Prize winner still pays the Egyptian military $3 Billion a year, and will continue to deliver its promised F16 fighters. And the 'will of the people' only counts when the protesters are young, english speaking, facebook using, secular liberals. With lots of women in the picture. And it helps if they are college educated, like the journalists who photograph them.
Otherwise, they can be gunned down with impunity.
What the dead needed, you see, was not their right to life, but a good public relations agency. This is why the Libyan rebels hired a US PR agency on day one, and it wouldn't surprise me if the Syrian rebels had done the same.
Western Liberals are only interested in people who are just like them, and the claims that they see all people as the same, with no discrimination, are in fact just plain lies.
If you're 'just like us', or beautiful or young, then we'll like you.
If you're not like us, or ugly (and bearded), or the wrong (political) colour, then we don't want you.
That's the reality of Enlightened Western Morality. It's just a crock of shit.
The world knows we are hypocrites. It's just us that don't.
And world leaders are queuing up to condemn the heavy handed suppression of democracy, aren't they?
Aren't they?
Oh wait, they aren't. Well what about sanctions then? Uh, no. No-fly zones? You must be joking.
Surely Human Rights campaigners and the President of the United States - a holder of the Nobel Peace Prize - are united in condemnation of the Egyptian Military's actions? Surely there must be outcry at the countries that supply Egypt with weapons? Surely our own parliament is being lobbied by all those who insist that weapons are supplied only to those regimes that don't use the weapons against their own people. Surely the very people who protested against the actions of the Gaddafi and Assad regimes are joined in condemnation of the suppression of an election and the 'will of the people'.
Don't be silly. There can't be an outcry against those countries that supply Egypt with weapons, because the aforementioned Nobel Peace Prize winner still pays the Egyptian military $3 Billion a year, and will continue to deliver its promised F16 fighters. And the 'will of the people' only counts when the protesters are young, english speaking, facebook using, secular liberals. With lots of women in the picture. And it helps if they are college educated, like the journalists who photograph them.
Otherwise, they can be gunned down with impunity.
What the dead needed, you see, was not their right to life, but a good public relations agency. This is why the Libyan rebels hired a US PR agency on day one, and it wouldn't surprise me if the Syrian rebels had done the same.
Western Liberals are only interested in people who are just like them, and the claims that they see all people as the same, with no discrimination, are in fact just plain lies.
If you're 'just like us', or beautiful or young, then we'll like you.
If you're not like us, or ugly (and bearded), or the wrong (political) colour, then we don't want you.
That's the reality of Enlightened Western Morality. It's just a crock of shit.
The world knows we are hypocrites. It's just us that don't.
Thursday, November 1, 2012
Modernisation
To Americans, modernisation means Americanisation. To the Chinese, modernisation will likely mean Sinasation. To the Indians it may mean Hinduisation.
It all rather depends on who gets to rise to the top to propagate their ideas through empire.
The term modernisation is, therefore, quite meaningless.
It all rather depends on who gets to rise to the top to propagate their ideas through empire.
The term modernisation is, therefore, quite meaningless.
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
What is history really made of?
"For [Hitler's]
sake a great nation has been willing to overwork itself for six years and then
to fight for two years more, whereas for the commonsense, essentially
hedonistic world-view which Mr Wells puts forward, hardly a human creature is
willing to shed a pint of blood.
"Before you can even talk of world reconstruction, or even of peace, you have got to eliminate Hitler, which means bringing into being a dynamic not necessarily the same as that of the Nazis, but probably quite as unacceptable to "enlightened" and hedonistic people.
"What has kept England on its feet during the past year? In part, no doubt, some vague idea about a better future, but chiefly the atavistic emotion of patriotism, the ingrained feeling of the English-speaking peoples that they are superior to foreigners. For the last twenty years the main object of English left-wing intellectuals has been to break this feeling down, and if they had succeeded, we might be watching the SS men patrolling the London streets at this moment.
"Similarly, why are the Russians fighting like tigers against the German invasion? In part, perhaps, for some half-remembered ideal of Utopian Socialism, but chiefly in defence of Holy Russia (the "sacred soil of the Fatherland", etc etc), which Stalin has revived in an only slightly altered form.
"The energy that actually shapes the world springs from emotions–racial pride, leader-worship, religious belief, love of war–which liberal intellectuals mechanically write off as anachronisms, and which they have usually destroyed so completely in themselves as to have lost all power of action.
George Orwell, 1941, 'Wells, Hitler and the World State'.
"Before you can even talk of world reconstruction, or even of peace, you have got to eliminate Hitler, which means bringing into being a dynamic not necessarily the same as that of the Nazis, but probably quite as unacceptable to "enlightened" and hedonistic people.
"What has kept England on its feet during the past year? In part, no doubt, some vague idea about a better future, but chiefly the atavistic emotion of patriotism, the ingrained feeling of the English-speaking peoples that they are superior to foreigners. For the last twenty years the main object of English left-wing intellectuals has been to break this feeling down, and if they had succeeded, we might be watching the SS men patrolling the London streets at this moment.
"Similarly, why are the Russians fighting like tigers against the German invasion? In part, perhaps, for some half-remembered ideal of Utopian Socialism, but chiefly in defence of Holy Russia (the "sacred soil of the Fatherland", etc etc), which Stalin has revived in an only slightly altered form.
"The energy that actually shapes the world springs from emotions–racial pride, leader-worship, religious belief, love of war–which liberal intellectuals mechanically write off as anachronisms, and which they have usually destroyed so completely in themselves as to have lost all power of action.
George Orwell, 1941, 'Wells, Hitler and the World State'.
Tuesday, October 2, 2012
What is Conservatism?
Conservatism, with regards to our political system, owes its origins to Edmund Burke's insightful and prophetic critique of the French Revolution. Conservatism basically said, don't pin your hopes on magical solutions, throwing away all tradition in favour of everything new. It embodies a wary scepticism of human, and humanity's, ability to always get things right. It urges us not to put all our eggs in one basket, so to speak.
Conservatism, then, urges Moderation. Moderation in progress, in government, in economics, etc.
Or rather, that's what it used to mean, for conservatism, like liberalism and socialism, has been shorn of its roots and changed almost beyond recognition.
In the US, for instance, conservatism means wildly unfettered markets, business without boundaries, and the bombing of Iran.
These are not conservative values.
Today, political philosophies are just convenient colours that one dons in order to have permission to dirty someone else's colours. They are team colours, to be worn in the arena.
One can only wonder at the wisdom of the Romans, who employed competing gangs of colours in the games. The reds and the greens, and their supporters, would fight it out, sometimes in violent street battles.
Politics is not only a substitute for fighting, it is an excuse for fighting, so why bother with complex ideologies that only philosophers understand when you can simply fight for a colour?
Any colour will do as long as you get to metaphorically punch someone's face in.
Conservatism, then, urges Moderation. Moderation in progress, in government, in economics, etc.
Or rather, that's what it used to mean, for conservatism, like liberalism and socialism, has been shorn of its roots and changed almost beyond recognition.
In the US, for instance, conservatism means wildly unfettered markets, business without boundaries, and the bombing of Iran.
These are not conservative values.
Today, political philosophies are just convenient colours that one dons in order to have permission to dirty someone else's colours. They are team colours, to be worn in the arena.
One can only wonder at the wisdom of the Romans, who employed competing gangs of colours in the games. The reds and the greens, and their supporters, would fight it out, sometimes in violent street battles.
Politics is not only a substitute for fighting, it is an excuse for fighting, so why bother with complex ideologies that only philosophers understand when you can simply fight for a colour?
Any colour will do as long as you get to metaphorically punch someone's face in.
Monday, September 10, 2012
Moral Socialism
As Orwell has implied in the quote I posted before, the concept of Socialism, as a moral good, has more to do with religion than politics.
Indeed, these days politics has more to do with religion than politics. This is possibly due to the decline of Christianity in the West. People turn to something else to believe in, and believe in fervently. Hence politics becoming more fundamentalist and less debatable.
The first political Socialists were Protestant Christians in the English Civil War. The first communists were the Anabaptists in Germany in 1534.
The dream of a classless society, of an end to scarcity, of justice for all, is the same as the dream of the Kingdom of Heaven, or Nirvana. It is a profoundly human dream that has been with us since the beginning of history - we are social animals who wish to rise forever from the pain of nature's limits and social strife.
Paradoxically, within that dream of a classless society is the dream of the collective, of brotherhood (or sisterhood) and the bonding with other humans that, as social creatures, we crave. Bonding requires more than friendship. It requires 'being', a sense of being in a group, like a baby in a womb.
Which brings us to Nationalism. Again, like Socialism (and all the other 'isms') it is a moral, rather than political force. It arouses the passions and inspires sacrifice and martyrdom, among other things.
Clausewitz said that war is politics in another form.
Politics is religion in another form. It all stems from the passions. Reason is used in its arguments, but it is not reason that inspires rallies and demonstrations, and it is not reason that holds a political or religious group together as a band of believers.
Schopenhauer believed that humans were motivated by primal urges, and that Reason was just the clothing used to cover our naked passions when out in public.
He was right.
Indeed, these days politics has more to do with religion than politics. This is possibly due to the decline of Christianity in the West. People turn to something else to believe in, and believe in fervently. Hence politics becoming more fundamentalist and less debatable.
The first political Socialists were Protestant Christians in the English Civil War. The first communists were the Anabaptists in Germany in 1534.
The dream of a classless society, of an end to scarcity, of justice for all, is the same as the dream of the Kingdom of Heaven, or Nirvana. It is a profoundly human dream that has been with us since the beginning of history - we are social animals who wish to rise forever from the pain of nature's limits and social strife.
Paradoxically, within that dream of a classless society is the dream of the collective, of brotherhood (or sisterhood) and the bonding with other humans that, as social creatures, we crave. Bonding requires more than friendship. It requires 'being', a sense of being in a group, like a baby in a womb.
Which brings us to Nationalism. Again, like Socialism (and all the other 'isms') it is a moral, rather than political force. It arouses the passions and inspires sacrifice and martyrdom, among other things.
Clausewitz said that war is politics in another form.
Politics is religion in another form. It all stems from the passions. Reason is used in its arguments, but it is not reason that inspires rallies and demonstrations, and it is not reason that holds a political or religious group together as a band of believers.
Schopenhauer believed that humans were motivated by primal urges, and that Reason was just the clothing used to cover our naked passions when out in public.
He was right.
Monday, August 13, 2012
Moral Relativism
I confess that I had some trouble understanding this concept at first. It's not a term used often in UK political debates, though it crops up frequently in US debates in the 'culture wars', usually as an attack on the left, from the right wing of politics, and especially the 'religious right'.
As far as I can see, moral relativism can be linked to the Utilitarian strand of Liberalism, which states that the best way to be is that which benefits the majority, or which is accepted in some way by the majority. All very democratic, as befits the work of John Stuart Mill, who helped popularise Utilitarianism. It means that, in essence, there is no absolute right value. If the majority accepts one value, then it is right. Should the majority change their mind, then so be it, the old value is now wrong and the new value is now right. What matters is not what is right, but what works. It's a philosophy that actually eschews values, or rather, denies that they are set in stone for all time. It says, let the people choose, then go with the flow.
This differs from, say, the moral absolutism of a religion, which declares what is right and what is wrong according to its creed, not according to what the people want. If the people disagree, then they must be converted.
In the Chick-fil-A furore recently, the CEO of the company, in an interview, declared that same-sex marriage was wrong, because of his Christian beliefs. This is moral absolutism. It says same-sex marriage is wrong, regardless of whether it is practised happily in other cultures, or whatever. It is considered wrong, and there is no negotiation possible on the position, even if the same-sex couple are not Christians themselves. It would be wrong anywhere in the world - anywhere in the universe, in fact.
The same stance of moral absolutism is taken by those who criticised the CEO for daring to declare this belief, and who protested against it by boycotting Chick-fil-A and holding protests outside their restaurants. To the protesters, any declaration against same-sex marriage is wrong, and non-negotiable. The fact that it's a long standing Christian doctrine is not accepted as a mitigating factor. The fact that many in the US agree with the stance is not accepted either. It's wrong, and that's that.
Both stances of moral absolutism are examples of intolerance and illiberalism. Both stances are also supportive of monoculturism - with their own culture dominant - rather than multiculturism.
They are also examples of how religions, and civic religions, are formed. All that is required is a set of ideals, and the power to enforce those ideals, with the opposition being soundly defeated.
The 'culture war' is not about relativism versus absolutism. It is a civil war between two diametrically opposed forms of absolutism.
As far as I can see, moral relativism can be linked to the Utilitarian strand of Liberalism, which states that the best way to be is that which benefits the majority, or which is accepted in some way by the majority. All very democratic, as befits the work of John Stuart Mill, who helped popularise Utilitarianism. It means that, in essence, there is no absolute right value. If the majority accepts one value, then it is right. Should the majority change their mind, then so be it, the old value is now wrong and the new value is now right. What matters is not what is right, but what works. It's a philosophy that actually eschews values, or rather, denies that they are set in stone for all time. It says, let the people choose, then go with the flow.
This differs from, say, the moral absolutism of a religion, which declares what is right and what is wrong according to its creed, not according to what the people want. If the people disagree, then they must be converted.
In the Chick-fil-A furore recently, the CEO of the company, in an interview, declared that same-sex marriage was wrong, because of his Christian beliefs. This is moral absolutism. It says same-sex marriage is wrong, regardless of whether it is practised happily in other cultures, or whatever. It is considered wrong, and there is no negotiation possible on the position, even if the same-sex couple are not Christians themselves. It would be wrong anywhere in the world - anywhere in the universe, in fact.
The same stance of moral absolutism is taken by those who criticised the CEO for daring to declare this belief, and who protested against it by boycotting Chick-fil-A and holding protests outside their restaurants. To the protesters, any declaration against same-sex marriage is wrong, and non-negotiable. The fact that it's a long standing Christian doctrine is not accepted as a mitigating factor. The fact that many in the US agree with the stance is not accepted either. It's wrong, and that's that.
Both stances of moral absolutism are examples of intolerance and illiberalism. Both stances are also supportive of monoculturism - with their own culture dominant - rather than multiculturism.
They are also examples of how religions, and civic religions, are formed. All that is required is a set of ideals, and the power to enforce those ideals, with the opposition being soundly defeated.
The 'culture war' is not about relativism versus absolutism. It is a civil war between two diametrically opposed forms of absolutism.
Monday, April 16, 2012
Good vs Reason
Gerrard Winstanley once wrote; "Let Reason rule in man and he dares not trespass against his fellow creature, but will do as he would be done unto..."
Gerrard Winstanley died in 1676, but the idea that Reason equates to Goodness comes to us in a long trail from the Ancient Greeks, through early Christianity, then radical Protestant Christianity, on through secular humanism and into modern Atheism, Anarchism, Liberalism and Marxism.
And if you think that Reason's journey looks kind of weird and contradictory, it's because it is. History is nothing if not ironical.
Anyway, it's from there that we've inherited the idea that Reason equals Niceness. From the time of the first philosophers, Reason was held to be a lofty principle, recognised by lofty people. And lofty people are nice people, and believe in nice things, like manners. Hence the term Reasonable.
But Reason has nothing to do with niceness, though it's understandable why its come to be understood this way. Reason, for all its qualifications and pontifications, is just intelligence. Really intelligent people, like philosophers, tend to be softies who don't want to be pushed around by the local brute. So it's no surprise that they should advance their own traits as being better for society and encourage everyone to do the same. It's also where we get nonsense ideas like 'the pen is mightier than the sword' - it's the kind of thing that intellectuals need to believe is true. It lets them feel superior rather than afraid.
To understand why Reason has no moral preference, let's look at one example I've taken from Ioan Grillo's book; El Narco. In this book, which is about drug cartels and the narcotics trade in Mexico today, Grillo interviews a young hitman and reveals a story that's become very familiar now. The hitman grew up in a poor district. His father was an honest man who worked hard to feed his family, but the hours he worked were long, the pay poor and whenever he was unemployed the family struggled to survive. Meanwhile, in the district, the drug gangsters recruited young men for the violent drug trade. Other young men who joined them soon appeared on the streets with lots of cash, nice clothes, a car, a string of girls wanting to make their acquaintance and a reputation of being someone to respect. Now the father didn't want his son to join the drug trade, even though the family were often hungry. He believed in being honest. Inevitably however the son succumbed and eventually became a motorcycle hitman. Compared to what his father did, it was easy work and paid far, far more.
Now lets examine this situation from the point of view of Reason. The father believed in being an upright and honest citizen, even though it meant he could not always provide. The hard manual labour probably meant an early death too. From the son's point of view, if the benefits of becoming a narco outweighed the costs, if in fact he looks at the facts and deduces that the chances of being caught for doing something illegal are low, while the chances of living a more comfortable life are high, is he not employing the higher faculties of Reason in doing so?
And if his father insists, against all the odds, on staying Good, then is his choice not, in fact, irrational?
If I am poor, and you have something nice that I want, and if I calculate that I can take it from you without fear of retribution or even discovery, then by taking it I am being rational.
This kind of thinking is characterised as low cunning, rather than high Reason, but in truth there is no difference at all.
Goodness, virtue, honour - these are nebulous things that can neither be touched nor proven. Like the existence of God in fact. This is why nearly all religions posit them.
If you employ Reason, and only Reason, you will eventually discard that which cannot be seen and respect only the material and the concrete. This is why the Marxists made a big deal about materialism and used their Reason to bash the religions who had brought them Reason in the first place. Liberalism also comes to a similar place with its concept of Utilitarianism, which essentially says that there are no real values anywhere, only advantages.
The idea then that the Rational is good while the Irrational is bad is nonsense.
Good is a nebulous principle. It cannot be measured, seen or felt. Pleasure can be felt, good cannot, though you may feel pleasure in doing good. But good exists only in so far as we make it up. It stands to reason then that, in order to live in the kind of communist grouping that Winstanley is in fact alluding to in the above quote, a certain irrational belief must be accepted among its members.
Good is irrational. Irrationalism is good. Or it can be in some circumstances. A inconvenient fact that was well understood by philosophers right up until recent times (and a lot of ink has been spilt trying to circumnavigate that particular conundrum), but which is ignored or simply not understood by mainstream thinkers (and I use the term loosely) today.
Ryszard Kapuscinski once wrote that, if men were not irrational, would history even exist? Well, if man allowed Reason to rule, then history would be a catalogue of intrigue, plotting, betrayal and calculations.
Which, oddly enough, is almost exactly how it looks like. Especially among the 'reasonable', higher, 'intelligent' classes.
Gerrard Winstanley died in 1676, but the idea that Reason equates to Goodness comes to us in a long trail from the Ancient Greeks, through early Christianity, then radical Protestant Christianity, on through secular humanism and into modern Atheism, Anarchism, Liberalism and Marxism.
And if you think that Reason's journey looks kind of weird and contradictory, it's because it is. History is nothing if not ironical.
Anyway, it's from there that we've inherited the idea that Reason equals Niceness. From the time of the first philosophers, Reason was held to be a lofty principle, recognised by lofty people. And lofty people are nice people, and believe in nice things, like manners. Hence the term Reasonable.
But Reason has nothing to do with niceness, though it's understandable why its come to be understood this way. Reason, for all its qualifications and pontifications, is just intelligence. Really intelligent people, like philosophers, tend to be softies who don't want to be pushed around by the local brute. So it's no surprise that they should advance their own traits as being better for society and encourage everyone to do the same. It's also where we get nonsense ideas like 'the pen is mightier than the sword' - it's the kind of thing that intellectuals need to believe is true. It lets them feel superior rather than afraid.
To understand why Reason has no moral preference, let's look at one example I've taken from Ioan Grillo's book; El Narco. In this book, which is about drug cartels and the narcotics trade in Mexico today, Grillo interviews a young hitman and reveals a story that's become very familiar now. The hitman grew up in a poor district. His father was an honest man who worked hard to feed his family, but the hours he worked were long, the pay poor and whenever he was unemployed the family struggled to survive. Meanwhile, in the district, the drug gangsters recruited young men for the violent drug trade. Other young men who joined them soon appeared on the streets with lots of cash, nice clothes, a car, a string of girls wanting to make their acquaintance and a reputation of being someone to respect. Now the father didn't want his son to join the drug trade, even though the family were often hungry. He believed in being honest. Inevitably however the son succumbed and eventually became a motorcycle hitman. Compared to what his father did, it was easy work and paid far, far more.
Now lets examine this situation from the point of view of Reason. The father believed in being an upright and honest citizen, even though it meant he could not always provide. The hard manual labour probably meant an early death too. From the son's point of view, if the benefits of becoming a narco outweighed the costs, if in fact he looks at the facts and deduces that the chances of being caught for doing something illegal are low, while the chances of living a more comfortable life are high, is he not employing the higher faculties of Reason in doing so?
And if his father insists, against all the odds, on staying Good, then is his choice not, in fact, irrational?
If I am poor, and you have something nice that I want, and if I calculate that I can take it from you without fear of retribution or even discovery, then by taking it I am being rational.
This kind of thinking is characterised as low cunning, rather than high Reason, but in truth there is no difference at all.
Goodness, virtue, honour - these are nebulous things that can neither be touched nor proven. Like the existence of God in fact. This is why nearly all religions posit them.
If you employ Reason, and only Reason, you will eventually discard that which cannot be seen and respect only the material and the concrete. This is why the Marxists made a big deal about materialism and used their Reason to bash the religions who had brought them Reason in the first place. Liberalism also comes to a similar place with its concept of Utilitarianism, which essentially says that there are no real values anywhere, only advantages.
The idea then that the Rational is good while the Irrational is bad is nonsense.
Good is a nebulous principle. It cannot be measured, seen or felt. Pleasure can be felt, good cannot, though you may feel pleasure in doing good. But good exists only in so far as we make it up. It stands to reason then that, in order to live in the kind of communist grouping that Winstanley is in fact alluding to in the above quote, a certain irrational belief must be accepted among its members.
Good is irrational. Irrationalism is good. Or it can be in some circumstances. A inconvenient fact that was well understood by philosophers right up until recent times (and a lot of ink has been spilt trying to circumnavigate that particular conundrum), but which is ignored or simply not understood by mainstream thinkers (and I use the term loosely) today.
Ryszard Kapuscinski once wrote that, if men were not irrational, would history even exist? Well, if man allowed Reason to rule, then history would be a catalogue of intrigue, plotting, betrayal and calculations.
Which, oddly enough, is almost exactly how it looks like. Especially among the 'reasonable', higher, 'intelligent' classes.
Thursday, March 8, 2012
Reason redux
In the US, the American Atheists organisation is busy promoting its beliefs in an attempt to fight off the perceived influence of the religious Right. Various atheist and humanist groups will stage a 'Reason Rally' in Washington DC on March 24th.
Instead of worshiping God, they prefer to worship Reason.
This idea that Reason should be venerated as the path to truth is becoming something of a parody. Sherlock Holmes embodies this parody perfectly, with his demonstration that deductive thinking (the hallmark of Reason) would solve any mystery. It was a compelling vision, and a great story, but too many people seem to forget that Holmes was a fantasy figure. Ask any detective.
In Star Trek Spock became the post-war embodiment of Reason in action, with his inelegant and decidedly wooden invocation of deductive thinking. Fans seem blissfully unaware that Spock was a clumsy parody of a parody.
The idea that one can reach a solution entirely in one's head promotes the idea of magical thinking - that simply by a process of deduction and will, and a po-faced manner, one can cut through the chaos and confusion and create order and understanding and, ultimately, harmony.
The post-modern embodiment of this idea currently is Yoda. The journey from Sherlock Holmes to Yoda indicates the slippery slope that a worship of Reason entails.
Reason is just thought. To say that an idea is reasonable is to say that it sounds great, but it remains untested.
It is the testing that uncovers the truth, not the idea. Humanists today risk turning Reason into a superstition.
Instead of worshiping God, they prefer to worship Reason.
This idea that Reason should be venerated as the path to truth is becoming something of a parody. Sherlock Holmes embodies this parody perfectly, with his demonstration that deductive thinking (the hallmark of Reason) would solve any mystery. It was a compelling vision, and a great story, but too many people seem to forget that Holmes was a fantasy figure. Ask any detective.
In Star Trek Spock became the post-war embodiment of Reason in action, with his inelegant and decidedly wooden invocation of deductive thinking. Fans seem blissfully unaware that Spock was a clumsy parody of a parody.
The idea that one can reach a solution entirely in one's head promotes the idea of magical thinking - that simply by a process of deduction and will, and a po-faced manner, one can cut through the chaos and confusion and create order and understanding and, ultimately, harmony.
The post-modern embodiment of this idea currently is Yoda. The journey from Sherlock Holmes to Yoda indicates the slippery slope that a worship of Reason entails.
Reason is just thought. To say that an idea is reasonable is to say that it sounds great, but it remains untested.
It is the testing that uncovers the truth, not the idea. Humanists today risk turning Reason into a superstition.
Friday, January 13, 2012
Science versus Reason
Ideologies are exactly like Religions. They are both rationalist. They rationalise their perceived realities. Rationality and Reason are, in fact, simply methods of persuasion. Once persuaded, you are then meant to believe.
Ideologies argue the same way Theologies argued. And both sought to persuade large groups of followers to join them by the power of persuasion.
Science is different. It does not rely on Reason, as many mistakenly believe. It is empirical. It relies on evidence. The force of your argument, no matter how reasonable or logical, means nothing. Only evidence does. Without evidence, any argument is only a theory, and thus not allowed to be called fact, or reality.
The Ideologies of today that pit science against religions, and who claim to align themselves on the side of science and progress because they trumpet rational thinking are completely missing the point.
They are in fact engaging in Sophistry. Which is the ancient art of persuasion through Reason.
This is why sophistry is often equated with lying. Because it frequently is. Reason is no more likely to be truthful than irrationality.
Reason belongs in the realm of politics, not science.
Ideologies argue the same way Theologies argued. And both sought to persuade large groups of followers to join them by the power of persuasion.
Science is different. It does not rely on Reason, as many mistakenly believe. It is empirical. It relies on evidence. The force of your argument, no matter how reasonable or logical, means nothing. Only evidence does. Without evidence, any argument is only a theory, and thus not allowed to be called fact, or reality.
The Ideologies of today that pit science against religions, and who claim to align themselves on the side of science and progress because they trumpet rational thinking are completely missing the point.
They are in fact engaging in Sophistry. Which is the ancient art of persuasion through Reason.
This is why sophistry is often equated with lying. Because it frequently is. Reason is no more likely to be truthful than irrationality.
Reason belongs in the realm of politics, not science.
Friday, June 10, 2011
The Greens
The Green instruction to 'lower your carbon footprint' is an exhortation to heat less, consume less, travel less, spend less. This is how the poor live. Green exhortations therefore are for wealthy people to live like the poor - by choice.
It's a nice idea, but I don't think it will catch on. Jesus preached something like this, as did Buddha. Confucius did too. Religions have, for millennia, tried to get humans to live within limits - moral limits, limits to hubris, to ego, to extravagance. Considering all the effort that went into these religions, holding back natural human impulses is clearly hard work, like a child trying to hold back a 600 pound rhino.
It's a nice idea, but I don't think it will catch on. Jesus preached something like this, as did Buddha. Confucius did too. Religions have, for millennia, tried to get humans to live within limits - moral limits, limits to hubris, to ego, to extravagance. Considering all the effort that went into these religions, holding back natural human impulses is clearly hard work, like a child trying to hold back a 600 pound rhino.
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Enlightenment humanists have maintained, and continue to maintain, that social affairs can be managed with the same rational tools that are used in science. Reason, enlightened by education, can better manage human affairs than the manipulative, irrational fumblings of history's ancient regimes.
The problem is that this has all been tried before, and Reason was found wanting. Kennedy's presidency was famed for its administration of the 'best and the brightest' - highly educated specialists applying 'modern' methods of analysis to the complex problems of foreign policy. Reason and rational analysis were applied with full force to the war in Vietnam. Computer programs were unleashed for diagnosis, with streams of incoming data updating the picture day by day and fresh orders being sent to Generals and Aid programs. And it all failed spectacularly.
Lenin and the Bolsheviks too thought that the application of scientific reason could be applied to modernise the State, with an emphasis on education, careful central planning and staged five year plans. The Jacobins sought to use cold rationality to mould the State when they unleashed The Terror during the French Revolution - Mao sought to do the same with the Cultural Revolution. Pol pot went even further with the concept of Year Zero. And neoconservative planners predicted what they thought would be a rational outcome to the 'liberation' of Iraq.
What all these ideologues had in common was that they sought to simplify complexity. Reason is thought to be the device by which complexity can be understood, reduced and tamed. But complexity, which is to say Reality, cannot be so easily pinned down. It defies simplification. It makes a mockery of even the most elaborate of human ideologies.
Human beings are products of nature, and nature is not reasonable. Human reason is really just a parochial delusion. It is a tool, not a key. A specialised yet limited tool.
The problem is that this has all been tried before, and Reason was found wanting. Kennedy's presidency was famed for its administration of the 'best and the brightest' - highly educated specialists applying 'modern' methods of analysis to the complex problems of foreign policy. Reason and rational analysis were applied with full force to the war in Vietnam. Computer programs were unleashed for diagnosis, with streams of incoming data updating the picture day by day and fresh orders being sent to Generals and Aid programs. And it all failed spectacularly.
Lenin and the Bolsheviks too thought that the application of scientific reason could be applied to modernise the State, with an emphasis on education, careful central planning and staged five year plans. The Jacobins sought to use cold rationality to mould the State when they unleashed The Terror during the French Revolution - Mao sought to do the same with the Cultural Revolution. Pol pot went even further with the concept of Year Zero. And neoconservative planners predicted what they thought would be a rational outcome to the 'liberation' of Iraq.
What all these ideologues had in common was that they sought to simplify complexity. Reason is thought to be the device by which complexity can be understood, reduced and tamed. But complexity, which is to say Reality, cannot be so easily pinned down. It defies simplification. It makes a mockery of even the most elaborate of human ideologies.
Human beings are products of nature, and nature is not reasonable. Human reason is really just a parochial delusion. It is a tool, not a key. A specialised yet limited tool.
Monday, February 7, 2011
It is said that modern technology like the Internet has the capacity to bring the people of this world closer together, just as it was claimed during the Industrial Revolution that canals and trains would bring people closer together by breaking down the barriers of distance, and therefore of estrangement. Mass distributed technology however does not make the masses more humanist, more reasonable or more cooperative - it simply amplifies what is already there, and that includes the animal and the base, as well as the noble. Mass technology and mass society brings humans out into sharp relief, and it is an image that will increasingly overload the senses with a combination of admiration and revulsion.
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Monday, January 31, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)