User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 32

Thread: The Roots of American Polarization

  1. #11
    Points: 127,294, Level: 86
    Level completed: 39%, Points required for next Level: 1,956
    Overall activity: 21.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialVeteranTagger First Class50000 Experience Points
    Dr. Who's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    862126
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Gallifrey
    Posts
    52,233
    Points
    127,294
    Level
    86
    Thanks Given
    4,685
    Thanked 4,388x in 3,017 Posts
    Mentioned
    95 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris View Post
    We're not discussing cultural differences in morality, Who, but personal differences where each individual has his own moral view, complete subjectivity. Do try to stick to the topic. Plato debunked this Pythagorean nonsense long ago.
    Disregarding the boorish quality of your response, and inappropriate admonition, the morality of humans continues to evolve. Truth is not always truth, but perception or belief, both of which may be fundamentally flawed. Two people can see the very same thing and describe it very differently. Both are telling the truth based on their perception, their frame of reference and their biases. Life is full of these contradictions. Lying is morally reprehensible, yet we lie to children when we make them believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy. We also tell 'white' lies when the truth would cause more harm than good. Murder is morally reprehensible, but we distinguish between murder and killing. We execute murderers. We used to execute horse thieves and burn witches. There is a lot of moral relativism in our application of these absolutes and no Church or Religion has established what is moral and what is true for all eternity. Neither have the long dead Greek philosophers.
    Last edited by Dr. Who; 11-22-2019 at 01:42 PM.
    "The difference between what we do and what we are capable of doing would suffice to solve most of the world’s problems.”
    Mahatma Gandhi

  2. #12
    Points: 463,150, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 98.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    397535
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    150,172
    Points
    463,150
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    15,571
    Thanked 45,110x in 33,176 Posts
    Mentioned
    1724 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Who View Post
    Disregarding your boorish response, and inappropriate admonition, the morality of humans continues to evolve. Truth is not always truth, but perception or belief, both of which may be fundamentally flawed. Two people can see the very same thing and describe it very differently. Both are telling the truth based on their perception, their frame of reference and their biases. Life is full of these contradictions. Lying is morally reprehensible, yet we lie to children when we make them believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy. We also tell 'white' lies when the truth would cause more harm than good. Murder is morally reprehensible, but we distinguish between murder and killing. We execute murderers. We used to execute horse thieves and burn witches. There is a lot of moral relativism in our application of these absolutes and no Church or Religion has established what is moral and what is true for all eternity. Neither have the long dead Greek philosophers.
    ^^^
    Defends with indignity indefensible moral relativism. No clue what the principle of contradiction is. Oblivious in response.

    (Damn, forgot to mark this tPF!)
    Edmund Burke: "In vain you tell me that Artificial Government is good, but that I fall out only with the Abuse. The Thing! the Thing itself is the Abuse!"

  3. #13
    Points: 127,294, Level: 86
    Level completed: 39%, Points required for next Level: 1,956
    Overall activity: 21.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialVeteranTagger First Class50000 Experience Points
    Dr. Who's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    862126
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Gallifrey
    Posts
    52,233
    Points
    127,294
    Level
    86
    Thanks Given
    4,685
    Thanked 4,388x in 3,017 Posts
    Mentioned
    95 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris View Post
    ^^^
    Defends with indignity indefensible moral relativism. No clue what the principle of contradiction is. Oblivious in response.

    (Damn, forgot to mark this tPF!)
    And you presume that the principle of non-contradiction is universally accepted. Dialetheism would suggest otherwise.
    "The difference between what we do and what we are capable of doing would suffice to solve most of the world’s problems.”
    Mahatma Gandhi

  4. #14
    Points: 463,150, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 98.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    397535
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    150,172
    Points
    463,150
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    15,571
    Thanked 45,110x in 33,176 Posts
    Mentioned
    1724 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris View Post
    The logical law of non-contradiction existed in philosophy right up until about Hegel, and his best-known follower Marx, who rejected it, and the postmoderns followed suit.

    The Roots of American Polarization
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Who View Post
    And you presume that the principle of non-contradiction is universally accepted. Dialetheism would suggest otherwise.
    Dismissed in the OP, duh.
    Edmund Burke: "In vain you tell me that Artificial Government is good, but that I fall out only with the Abuse. The Thing! the Thing itself is the Abuse!"

  5. #15
    Points: 463,150, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 98.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    397535
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    150,172
    Points
    463,150
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    15,571
    Thanked 45,110x in 33,176 Posts
    Mentioned
    1724 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    The borader topic here and its consequences is described by CS Lewis:

    Edmund Burke: "In vain you tell me that Artificial Government is good, but that I fall out only with the Abuse. The Thing! the Thing itself is the Abuse!"

  6. #16
    Original Ranter
    Points: 228,674, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 63.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Mister D's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    397463
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    91,637
    Points
    228,674
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    18,223
    Thanked 34,406x in 24,394 Posts
    Mentioned
    924 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    I can't say I'm surprised that "spiritual" folks would embrace a such a contradiction. That's not a shot at Dr. Who because we have at least half a dozen members who fit that description and they fall on both sides of the political spectrum. On the one hand, morality is ultimately subjective whether we mean that on the individual level, the level of civilization or culture or that of the entire species (e.g. the species ethic of Habermas). It is man-made. Man is both subject and object. They are adamant about this and that's fine. The cosmos may indeed be amoral with no order, no justice, no good and no evil. As a Christian I don't believe that. As a reasonable creature I think it decidedly unreasonable that men inhabit such a cosmos but I can't definitively say I am right and others are wrong. That said, this is the logical conclusion you would reach holding such a position. What bugs me is that virtually no one is willing to accept that conclusion. That's why see repeated references to a standard, a goal or an ideal with terms such as "evolution", "progress" and "advancement" but these terms could have no possible meaning in such a cosmos. Where are we going? What is the goal? What truth could this proposed standard or ideal possibly correspond to? It could only be what a group of men think in a particular time and place. In moral terms there could be no distinction between this morality and that of any other person or group past, present or future but, as I said, no one really accepts this let alone lives as if it were true. The atheists of yesteryear (e.g. Sartre) who, unlike the New Atheists, understood where their ideas led and were not afraid to say so. Who does that today? As I see it, the crux of the matter is human autonomy. There is 1) resistance to allowing it to be compromised in any way (Lucifer's sin IIRC) and 2) refusing to acknowledge what it entails.
    Last edited by Mister D; 11-22-2019 at 06:14 PM.
    Whoever criticizes capitalism, while approving immigration, whose working class is its first victim, had better shut up. Whoever criticizes immigration, while remaining silent about capitalism, should do the same.


    ~Alain de Benoist


  7. The Following User Says Thank You to Mister D For This Useful Post:

    Chris (11-22-2019)

  8. #17
    Points: 463,150, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 98.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    397535
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    150,172
    Points
    463,150
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    15,571
    Thanked 45,110x in 33,176 Posts
    Mentioned
    1724 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mister D View Post
    I can't say I'm surprised that "spiritual" folks would embrace a such a contradiction. That's not a shot at Dr. Who because we have at least half a dozen members who foot the bill and they fall on both sides of the political spectrum. On the one hand, morality is ultimately subjective whether we mean that on the individual level, the level of civilization or culture or that of the entire species (e.g. the species ethic of Habermas). It is man-made. Man is both subject and object. They are adamant about this and that's fine. The cosmos may indeed be amoral with no order, no justice, no good and no evil. As a Christian I don't believe that. As a reasonable creature I think it decidedly unreasonable that men inhabit such a cosmos but I can't definitively say I am right and others are wrong. That said, this is the logical conclusion you would reach holding such a position. What bugs me is that virtually no one is willing to accept that conclusion. That's why see repeated references to a standard, a goal or an ideal with terms such as "evolution", "progress" and "advancement" but these terms could have no possible meaning in such a cosmos. Where are we going? What is the goal? What truth could this proposed standard or ideal possibly correspond to? It could only be what a group of men think in a particular time and place. In moral terms there could be no distinction between this morality and that of any other person or group past, present or future but, as I said, no one really accepts this let alone lives as if it were true. The atheists of yesteryear (e.g. Sartre) who, unlike the New Atheists, understood where their ideas led and were not afraid to say so. Who does that today? As I see it, the crux of the matter is human autonomy. There is 1) resistance to allowing it to be compromised in any way (Lucifer's sin IIRC) and 2) refusing to acknowledge what it entails.
    See CS Lewis on the Poison of Subjectivism, text or video. He raises some of the same points. He points out not only the resultant self-annihilating contradictions in moral relativism but the fact that and ideological moralism has as its basis the very traditional moralism modernism tried to eradicate.
    Edmund Burke: "In vain you tell me that Artificial Government is good, but that I fall out only with the Abuse. The Thing! the Thing itself is the Abuse!"

  9. #18
    Points: 27,499, Level: 40
    Level completed: 43%, Points required for next Level: 751
    Overall activity: 23.0%
    Achievements:
    25000 Experience PointsVeteran
    The Sage of Main Street's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    14746
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    11,276
    Points
    27,499
    Level
    40
    Thanks Given
    7,318
    Thanked 1,986x in 1,707 Posts
    Mentioned
    52 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris View Post
    The logical law of non-contradiction existed in philosophy right up until about Hegel, and his best-known follower Marx, who rejected it, and the postmoderns followed suit.

    The Roots of American Polarization
    Dogmatic Leashes. Be a Can-Do Instead of a Canine


    I do desire the present unpleasantness, so Horvat is pushy and preachy right from the get-go. He's repeating the babble we are bombarded with by the self-appointed but well-paid professional opinionists. Polarization is a lot more healthy than apathy and its boring and depressing self-imposed helplessness.

    It's time to stand up to the decadent cults and put them down. Polarization? Stick a pole up where their butt-hurt hasn't reached yet.
    On the outside, trickling down on the Insiders
    The born-rich hate and fear all other White people.

  10. #19
    Points: 463,150, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 98.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    397535
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    150,172
    Points
    463,150
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    15,571
    Thanked 45,110x in 33,176 Posts
    Mentioned
    1724 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by The Sage of Main Street View Post
    Dogmatic Leashes. Be a Can-Do Instead of a Canine


    I do desire the present unpleasantness, so Horvat is pushy and preachy right from the get-go. He's repeating the babble we are bombarded with by the self-appointed but well-paid professional opinionists. Polarization is a lot more healthy than apathy and its boring and depressing self-imposed helplessness.

    It's time to stand up to the decadent cults and put them down. Polarization? Stick a pole up where their butt-hurt hasn't reached yet.
    The topic is not really political.
    Edmund Burke: "In vain you tell me that Artificial Government is good, but that I fall out only with the Abuse. The Thing! the Thing itself is the Abuse!"

  11. #20
    Points: 27,499, Level: 40
    Level completed: 43%, Points required for next Level: 751
    Overall activity: 23.0%
    Achievements:
    25000 Experience PointsVeteran
    The Sage of Main Street's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    14746
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    11,276
    Points
    27,499
    Level
    40
    Thanks Given
    7,318
    Thanked 1,986x in 1,707 Posts
    Mentioned
    52 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris View Post
    ^^^
    Defends with indignity indefensible moral relativism. No clue what the principle of contradiction is. Oblivious in response.

    (Damn, forgot to mark this tPF!)
    In Our Time, Anyone Who Gets Paid for His Opinions Is of the Same Ilk As Those Who Get Paid to Have Sex


    Why didn't the Protestant Reformation have people wandering around bumping their heads against the wall and whining, "Gee, I don't know what to believe any more"? Because the reformers went back to the original tenets of their faith. Likewise, American pioneers had no use for the lazy, the violent, or the stupid. Their just treatment of unfit races is what made us go from a wilderness occupied by savages to a civilization more advanced and prosperous than any country on earth.

    Likewise, just as the original Christians reacted to the decadent behavior of the Roman patricians, those who emigrated here from Europe were reacting to the totalitarian tyranny of birth privileges back in the senile Old World. Yet they initiated that here, which is the well-hidden cause of our present downward spiral. Yet it is never questioned, so it will continue to promote those who are as destructive as the mooching mob. Even the dependency word "entitlement" shows the Terminal American hereditary ruling class's fondness for titles of nobility.
    On the outside, trickling down on the Insiders
    The born-rich hate and fear all other White people.

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Single Sign On provided by vBSSO