Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - BillHopkins

1 ... 17 [18]
256
Interzone / Re: Nihilism and Tradition
« on: April 15, 2012, 01:40:19 PM »
What is nihilistic about ontological belief in traditionalism?

If nothing exists outside of the forces that created me and you (energy), then how is this compatible with belief in a supernatural principle like traditionalism? Traditionalism must then be a purely pragmatic set of beliefs (along the lines of 'belief in something is better than belief in shopping,)... I mean it can't be chosen for reasons of correspondance, surely, for the view of the world given by physics is the view of reality that is least tainted by anthropomorphic projections obviously.

257
Interzone / Re: Eugenocide
« on: April 09, 2012, 02:03:34 AM »
No.

All 'types' have a place in a healthy culture. Try getting mathematical geniuses to be blacksmiths.

And the state system that would need to be in place to enact such a brutal policy would be menacing, dangerous and open to great abuse, to say the least

258
Interzone / Re: Liberalism
« on: April 07, 2012, 01:37:45 AM »
Liberalism as a political philosophy is, as the earlier poster stated, the idea that the self preceedes human society. The whole basis of social contract theory which is the underpinning of ALL big liberal philosophies in the last 400 years is that autonomous, self-contained individuals with preferences and goals already intact come and 'agree' on what society they would like. Because they apparently have all their goals in some 'state of nature' preceeding socialisation, they simply agree for a state which does fuck all (in terms of promoting the good) apart from making sure no one steps on another's toes. Liberty becomes defined negatively in terms exclusively of 'lack of contraint' and positive conceptions of liberty, or 'the ability to REALISE certain goods' (which may require impediments of some 'freedoms' (like the freedom to go through red lights, pollute or listen to electro-pop) is seen as fascist.

If you're into political philosophy, communitiarianism is the only one that exists in acedemia that is worthwhile.

If you're more inclined to science, Jonathan Haidt has recently done good psychological research on the evolutionary basis of liberalism and conservativism. Liberals are motivated by sensitivity to 'suffering' and 'justice' (equality) while conservatives have been found to be sensitive to 'purity' and 'heirarchy'. No shit, check it out.

With that, it's off to buy sweet things to give to my friends and family to celebrate the resurrection of some guy called Jesus.

259
Interzone / Help the DLA
« on: April 06, 2012, 03:29:12 AM »
Does deathmetal.org or the DLA need grunts?

(side question: is the DLA going to merge with deathmetal.org? I read something a while ago but I can't be sure)


260
Interzone / Re: Attention "nihilists"
« on: April 06, 2012, 03:10:01 AM »
I was 25

Really?  I had you pegged for being around 18.  I reckon I'm probably wrong about people's ages around here quite frequently, though.

Anyway, who the fuck are you arguing with at this moment?  All I can see is you setting up craploads of straw men.  What you call "arbitrary values" might be incredibly well worked out values.

I'm pretty sure the argument has to do with the following distinction:

a) Nihilism: going through a process of detached belief valuation and coming to the conclusion that 'value set x is the best'
b) Having believed, ontologically and absolutely, in value set x all along

b) is fine for the heard, as it's all about consequentialism on a social level, but can we really call ourselves nihilists if we're perennial/christians?

Bangarang roofio.

I edited since you quoted me to express these ideas a bit more clearly:

I'm pretty sure the argument has to do with the following distinction:

a) Nihilism: going through a process of detached belief valuation and coming to the conclusion that 'absolutist value set x is the best'
b) Absolutism: Having believed, ontologically, in value set x all along

b) is fine for the heard, as it's all about consequentialism on a social level, but can you really call yourself a nihilist, at the level of an esoteric elitist class, if you believe in chritianity/perennialism/etc ONTOLOGICALLY, and not pragmatically??

261
Interzone / Re: Attention "nihilists"
« on: April 06, 2012, 03:01:46 AM »
I was 25

Really?  I had you pegged for being around 18.  I reckon I'm probably wrong about people's ages around here quite frequently, though.

Anyway, who the fuck are you arguing with at this moment?  All I can see is you setting up craploads of straw men.  What you call "arbitrary values" might be incredibly well worked out values.

I'm pretty sure the argument has to do with the following distinction:

a) Nihilism: going through a process of detached belief valuation and coming to the conclusion that 'absolutist value set x is the best'
b) Absolutism: Having believed, ontologically, in value set x all along

b) is fine for the heard, as it's all about consequentialism on a social level, but can you really call yourself a nihilists, at the level of the esoteric elitist class, if you believe in chritianity/perennialism/etc ONTOLOGICALLY, and not pragmatically??

262
Interzone / Jonathan Bowden
« on: April 04, 2012, 04:00:40 PM »
Introducing Right-wing intellectual heavy-weight J. Bowden. The left have always drawn their inspiration from the far left, and have had hardcore theories at their disposal. The right has no vitality because it is largely disconnected from any intellectual bastion. This guy is someone on the right who is completely at home in the philosophy of the left, can engage in dialectics with the left on their own terms, and who also brings the isolated and disperate currents of far right wing thought together. And he is a powerfull orator to boot. Enjoy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qBexMg56uA - On Nietzsche and his (Bowden's) own political ideas
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InPrRssceqs - On Traditionalism & Evola
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rueTF5x2t84 - On The Frankfurt School and the transitio of lefism from Scientific Marxism (old left) to Cultural Marxism (new left)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwwxKL4Cylw - On Heidegger, death, philosophical essentialism, culturalal belief
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0QgKoNBpfI - On Savitri Devi, and the politics of guilt in the west
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6sho3-Ow10 - On the ideological war of the left on the west

263
Interzone / Re: What will quantum physics research do to Atheism?
« on: April 04, 2012, 03:32:47 PM »
Hi All.

These 'evolutionary explanations' posted above are vague and outdated. These newer naturalistic explanations are much more sound and are more theoretical in that they are clearly testable and falsibiable: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_science_of_religion. They have been emerging only in the last 15 years by a group of psychologists and cognitive scientists, but dawkins and dennett include their theories in their works on the origin of religion, not in detail. The debunking implications from these theories will probably be felt in the future, as the theories are still young. Already there are theistic scientisits and theolgians responding in the academic literature, trying to argue against the debunking implcations (http://www.amazon.com/The-Believing-Primate-Philosophical-Theological/dp/0199557020)

For instance, the notion of the God gene. There are so many flaws in this idea (or more specifically, the conclusions typically drawn from it), it's hard to address them all. Of COURSE religiosity is governed by genetic factors, and of COURSE it has a neurological component - like everything else we do and think. Reasoning that religion is 'wrong/bad/dumb/fake' because it is biological is like reasoning that the world of mechanical interactions described by mathematics is without substantial reality because our ability to measure it is conditioned by our genetics (which it is).

There is a fundamental asymmetry between the case of mathematics and the case of religion. You can't come up with a geneology for your evolutionary belief in 1+1=2 in which the practical success granted by the belief (the reason it evolved) was not bound up in its accuracy. You can for the case of religion. Religious belief needs no property of correspondence with the reality for it's evolution to have made sense. The evolution of mathematical belief, on the other hand, just makes no sense without presupposing it's accuracy. Belief in God is being debunked

Additionally, isolating religious experience to one set of genes, or isolating it to a specific neurological phenomenon ignores something important: religious experience is not uniform. The perspective and experience of Thomas Aquinas is completely different from the perspective and experience of a modern-day 7th Day Adventist who goes into a fit of religious ecstasy and starts speaking in tongues. And both of these are completely different from a Buddhist or Hindu Tantrika who spends decades of his life finely tuning his 'subtle physiology' for various purposes.

While I agree, in part, with the traditionalist/perennialist perspective that all religions refer to the same truths, I have a fairly broad view of what that means, and I also believe that it takes radically different forms, which certainly cannot be reduced to a singular genetic (and by extension, neurological) factor.

This sounds like postmodern anti essentialism to me. "downplay the similarities and focus on how different we all are". Religion has an essential structure, which is being reveled by the research above. This is belief in supernatural agents (persons/intentionality). All other properties of religion are superstructural on belief in supernatual agents. And, low and behold, we have dedicated parts of the brain which evolved to posit agency in the evironment based on insufficient perceptual cues and to make inferences about the internal mental states of agents which we never really directly experience (i.e. I adduce your pissed off when you frown and clench your fist).

I'm a nihilist when it comes to religion. Religion is simply innaccurate on the level of representational correspondence with reality (its beliefs do not pick out anything that actually exists). But I don't expect that just because reason can't vindicate a religious ontology, society shouldn't. Nor to I believe mere ontological truth or falsity is the be all and end all. Who was it that said If God didn't exist we would have to invent him?  I'm not queezy about recognising the pragmatism of religion but at the same time being faithful to evidence and reason and saying clearly theism, as a set of ontological beliefs, is wrong. I don't think a society will ultimately survive if it can't give death a meaninig, but I don't expect to be included among the people who need religion. Esoteric atheism, exoteric theism.

1 ... 17 [18]