Mister Mister Posted November 9, 2014 Posted November 9, 2014 Thank you Josh, that was some very insightful and helpful explanation of the mind of the leftists/relativists, I particularly found it interesting that they are skeptical of absolutism because they associate it with fundamentalist religion and other fascist ideologies. I have been called "totalitarian" for unilaterally rejecting using the State to "solve" social problems. I tried to explain the definition of totalitarian, and how I am anything but, he only doubled down. Mind you this is from someone who I now don't talk to and believe to have a personality disorder, but this mentality makes more sense to me. We can seem (and perhaps some of us are) religious about the NAP, and many liberals consider this an impediment to "practically" getting things done. Another thing that comes to mind is the excuses, and calls of racist, when facts/statistics about race are brought up, like for example the violence within the black community. The same is true of what you said about "Islamophobia". They fear that facts like this, without being qualified, will lead to violence against certain groups. I think the answer to this mindset,instead of the objectivist approach which just asserts absolutes - "violence is wrong", is the UPB approach, which points out ways in which the leftist framework itself is absolutist. I was recently in an argument where someone said that "a rational consistent morality" is unrealistic because there are a plurality of views in society, therefore democracy. I pointed out that libertarianism allows for far more plurality than democracy - allowing for multiple approaches to family, to drug addiction, to charity, to race, to currency, and so on, while any variety of Statism imposes one view on everyone else, be it sanctioned by the majority of people or not. If morality is relative then how do we justify millions of laws which apply to millions of people? This gave him pause I think. I remember in the Bomb in the Brain pt. 4, "The Death of Reason", Stef mentioned the study where they compared the brain of the conservative to the liberal, that conservatives are hardwired to respond to threats, i.e. terrorists, foreigners, drug-users, criminals, and so on, as well as an appreciation for clear structures, whereas the liberal brain could accomodate more complexity. There was obviously a liberal bias in how the results were presented, to which Stef presented a slight criticism - that more structure is not necessarily bad, that leftists tend to get lost in the fog of endless relativism. This is the only time I've heard him mention this. Does anyone have any thoughts or can point me to a podcast which goes in more depth on the origins of this kind of relativism - possibly verbal/emotional manipulation?
StylesGrant Posted November 9, 2014 Posted November 9, 2014 Brett had done elaborate critiques of Kant actually. He was sort of neutral towards him, and not keen on Hegel.
Sal9000 Posted November 9, 2014 Posted November 9, 2014 Veinotte argues that Kant's or Hegel's interpretation together with the Bismarck social reforms led to Nazism. This is pretty ludicrous.
Josh F Posted November 9, 2014 Author Posted November 9, 2014 Veinotte argues that Kant's or Hegel's interpretation together with the Bismarck social reforms led to Nazism. This is pretty ludicrous. Hegel did make a hierarchical argument for the different races. Brett wouldn't be the first to argue that Hegel brought some racism into the Nazi philosophy. Brett had done elaborate critiques of Kant actually. He was sort of neutral towards him, and not keen on Hegel. Ahhh okay, I missed that. Well I think Kant is critiquable but without knowing the criticism I can't comment. Thank you Josh, that was some very insightful and helpful explanation of the mind of the leftists/relativists, I particularly found it interesting that they are skeptical of absolutism because they associate it with fundamentalist religion and other fascist ideologies. I have been called "totalitarian" for unilaterally rejecting using the State to "solve" social problems. I tried to explain the definition of totalitarian, and how I am anything but, he only doubled down. Mind you this is from someone who I now don't talk to and believe to have a personality disorder, but this mentality makes more sense to me. We can seem (and perhaps some of us are) religious about the NAP, and many liberals consider this an impediment to "practically" getting things done. Another thing that comes to mind is the excuses, and calls of racist, when facts/statistics about race are brought up, like for example the violence within the black community. The same is true of what you said about "Islamophobia". They fear that facts like this, without being qualified, will lead to violence against certain groups. I think the answer to this mindset,instead of the objectivist approach which just asserts absolutes - "violence is wrong", is the UPB approach, which points out ways in which the leftist framework itself is absolutist. I was recently in an argument where someone said that "a rational consistent morality" is unrealistic because there are a plurality of views in society, therefore democracy. I pointed out that libertarianism allows for far more plurality than democracy - allowing for multiple approaches to family, to drug addiction, to charity, to race, to currency, and so on, while any variety of Statism imposes one view on everyone else, be it sanctioned by the majority of people or not. If morality is relative then how do we justify millions of laws which apply to millions of people? This gave him pause I think. I remember in the Bomb in the Brain pt. 4, "The Death of Reason", Stef mentioned the study where they compared the brain of the conservative to the liberal, that conservatives are hardwired to respond to threats, i.e. terrorists, foreigners, drug-users, criminals, and so on, as well as an appreciation for clear structures, whereas the liberal brain could accomodate more complexity. There was obviously a liberal bias in how the results were presented, to which Stef presented a slight criticism - that more structure is not necessarily bad, that leftists tend to get lost in the fog of endless relativism. This is the only time I've heard him mention this. Does anyone have any thoughts or can point me to a podcast which goes in more depth on the origins of this kind of relativism - possibly verbal/emotional manipulation? I can't really offer more on that subject, I tend to always be a bit skeptical of those kinds of studies because there is a plurality of them that contradict each other, and rarely is there an unbiased non-political goal. Getting politics out of science is as important as it was to get religion out of politics, in my opinion. I am glad to have provided some more insight into the 'lefty' perspective, because I feel like it is the best potential ally in our causes (and Stef has even mentioned that a few times). When it comes to privacy laws, war, child abuse, and the revolving doors of the states with the largest corporations libertarians and liberals are all on the same page. Now, I understand how the muddied waters of lefty horse shit is disturbing, its relativism may even be the cause. I take this approach to criticizing the left; does the argument fit within the left paradigm itself. So for example, things like "all white people are racist" is a racist statement. Or feminism's intolerance, since tolerance is a liberal virtue feminism fails within the lefty paradigm itself. One doesn't necessarily need to explain its failures from outside its own context (ie objectivism). Like you said above about how forcing laws on people doesn't support multiculturalism or relativism, and is in fact inherently a system based on NORMS enforced by majorities on minorities (and they love defending minorities, right?).
Sal9000 Posted November 9, 2014 Posted November 9, 2014 Brett had done elaborate critiques of Kant actually. He was sort of neutral towards him, and not keen on Hegel. Can you provide a link? Hegel did make a hierarchical argument for the different races. Brett wouldn't be the first to argue that Hegel brought some racism into the Nazi philosophy. I'd be surprised if this was the case. According to Hegel, the history of the world is a history of ideas. Ideas begin to develop in humans, once they don't have to fight for their living. The mental process that emanates, the Weltgeist, does not care for the carrier, ie races don't play a role in this intellecutal history. In addition, I am sure that Hegel speaks of humanity (Menschengattung) instead of his races. At least that is how I understood his philosophy of law.
Josh F Posted November 11, 2014 Author Posted November 11, 2014 Can you provide a link? I'd be surprised if this was the case. According to Hegel, the history of the world is a history of ideas. Ideas begin to develop in humans, once they don't have to fight for their living. The mental process that emanates, the Weltgeist, does not care for the carrier, ie races don't play a role in this intellecutal history. In addition, I am sure that Hegel speaks of humanity (Menschengattung) instead of his races. At least that is how I understood his philosophy of law. I dont honestly know, I just read that somewhere
Recommended Posts