Categories
Epistemology

If you are one

of those hacks who just mindlessly takes in and believes what the MSM tells you, you are a damned fool!

But again, it is stunning ignorance to have a person say, “Well, I read the NY Times and while everything may not be true, much of it is.”

Oh really? So just how do YOU identify what is true and what isn’t? Do you simply go by your pre-judged notions? So IF you like it, it is true? How do YOU know?

What safeguards are there for “truthiness?” Are there external “bumpers?” And if so, what are they? Or is it ALL just whether you like it or not?

Because it sure seems like you are defending mere preference!

Or are you claiming to be God and are able to discern Truth from error? Just what are you claiming? Please explain…

Categories
Epistemology

Ain’t that

just the way?

Now I know a lot of people who say that they just don’t believe everything they read in the times, but most of it is good. Really? Just how do you know? And how do you know what is true and what isn’t? Just who are you claiming to be?

Yeah, they’ve never been able to answer that question: Just how do you know what is good and what is not. And they run away when I ask…

It is a willful blindness. It is the angry bleating of a mindless sheep just following the Lefty crowd. And it is intellectually revolting!

Categories
Epistemology

The problem with

Post-Modern thought: Radical Relativism.

See, modern Democrat thought is deeply Post-Modern and relativistic. There IS no Truth, only truth.

In other words, there are no facts, only opinions that are themselves socially constructed and thus not fundamentally real, only socially accepted.

That door is green? Well, that’s just your opinion, man! I mean, there are tons of people out there who do not perceive the “green-ness” because their rods and cones in their eyes can’t perceive it!

And just how do you know that they are perceiving it “wrong” and not YOU? Maybe YOU are the one with a “disorder.” So one has to appeal to some kind of Platonic “World of Forms” to make that work.

Sure, Democrats might rear like a spooked stallion at this, but it is totally logical. Inescapable.

So for the Post-Modernist, all you can say is that many perceive the door as what we have decided to call “green.” But there IS no absolute truth-value to that! We have, most of us, just decided it–it is socially constructed.

So I think we ALL have to decide whether there is actually Truth, or only truth.

Democrats have bought whole-hog into this relativism. Their beliefs, then, are easily dismantled and are merely an imposition of force, not something that is actually True. So the hammer that built Caesar’s house can also demolish Caesar’s house!

Lefties, be careful about what you argue, because your assertions are at least as vulnerable to the criticisms of Post-Modernism as anything else. Moreso, actually. They are, at heart, self-refuting!

If I am a Post-modern, there IS no truth, including THAT one! There is ONLY opinion and the power to impose that opinion. Including THAT one…

In short, despotism and denial of Truth are baked into the Post-Modern cake!

Categories
Epistemology Political philosophy

It’s important to

know that there are two main differences between Conservative and Liberal ideology: One is that Conservatives are basically British Empiricists while Liberals are at heart Continental Rationalists.

That is something I have talked about before, and you can bet that I will again. Not now, however. I’m focused on something else. But without that basic understand the whole intellectual endeavor is fraught with anger and misunderstanding.

But there is another: Conservatives seek a restoration of things that have, in the past, been known to work. Broadly, Conservatives want to keep what has been demonstrated in the past to be good. THAT is what is being conserved. Liberals, on the other hand, want to destroy everything and start anew.

It’s related, since we have empirical evidence about what has worked in the past and what hasn’t. But it’s not really the same thing as Empiricism as a foundational ethic. But the Conservative impulse is indeed to keep what has been shown to work, and avoid thinking that you know so much that you can (and should) re-create society according to your lights.

Modern Liberals almost always see themselves as iconoclasts, and seek to utterly destroy the things of the past and start again. The wrecking ball and sledge hammer are never far from their hands. Thus, their focus is famously on the “new man” and “Heaven on earth.”

In other words, modern Liberals are not interested in remodeling society. Their goal is not to “bring it up to code,” it is to tear down the whole thing and build anew (most often in their own image). 

Whereas the Conservative says, “Yeah, it needs some sprucing up but the ‘bones’ are good,” the Liberal says, “Nothing is worth preserving—let’s just tear the whole thing down and build it anew. We’ll build it better this time, because we are so dang smart and awesome that we can do that sort of thing, while the benighted racists/sexists/homophobes/morons/bigots of the past got it all wrong–WE know better now!”

This “take” is not at all controversial. I really doubt even hard Leftists would disagree. It is merely a statement of fact–there IS no value-judgment necessarily attached to it. Liberals want to tear the whole thing down and build anew, while Conservatives want to preserve the historical basic structure.

Hence, the Leftist impulse is to destroy in many areas (such as abortion, BLM, reliance on force, etc.), because such destruction is part and parcel of the whole Lefty worldview. On the other side, the Conservative impulse is to preserve (preserve life, peace, moral agency/freedom, etc.).

Categories
Epistemology Political philosophy

OK, history geek time!

I know you’ve all been waiting with ‘bated breath for it…

The Declaration of Independence was written by Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson was very much in the tradition of Continental Rationalism. And that really stands out in the Declaration. And that was totally appropriate for the Declaration.

But the Declaration was much more a work of persuasion and explanation and ideals, while the (future) Constitution was a nuts-and-bolts manual for how the government should work. So a different animal entirely.

As for the Constitution, Jefferson thought the Constitution should be re-written every 20 years or so. You know, a “living” document. Jefferson’s position has been espoused by and blown up by the Left at least since 1900 or so.

He and Thomas Paine were very much that in that Rationalist tradition. But most of the other founders of the nation were absolutely not–they leaned toward Hume–and they modeled the government on a more ideal form of the British government (though, of course, without a King). They were Empiricists, not Rationalists. They wanted what had been shown to work, not some amalgam of airy-fairy suppositions.

So the Articles of Confederation were too loose, and we needed to turn to Federalism rather than to the previous CONfederacry (just why that is and why it was necessary in order to get all 13 colonies to get on board is a discussion for another day).

So in 1887, the Constitution was adopted. But Jefferson was gone–he was the ambassador (in France?) by then. So it was written by the empiricists who were there. Had Jefferson been involved, it would have looked very different!

So let’s take a moment and be thankful that Jefferson was there to write the sublime Declaration but was gone and therefore couldn’t muck up the Constitution.

Categories
Epistemology

Let me say it again:

You are either a Theist or a Nihilist. There really IS no other approach that makes a lick of sense.

For example, a person can say, “I think it is wrong to brutally murder someone.”

OK, fine, but why?

Maybe you don’t like it or approve of it, but WRONG? Just how do you know.

Because if there is no God, ALL is mere opinion–just an expression of preference and a will-to-power! There simply IS no morality of any kind if there is no God. There IS no existence as moral entities, any more than a hammer exists as a moral entity (a HUGE problem for biological reductionism, but that is a discussion for another day).

There is no more morality than saying that blue is “better” than orange. That’s all there is–a metaphorical stomping of one’s foot and saying, “It just IS!”

The best there can be is social niceties. But even then, the meaning of “nice” is personally and idiosyncratically derived! I say, “tomayto” and you say, “tomahto” and all that.

And Deism just can’t cover that theoretical/philosophical/logical ground. ONLY Theism can!

So one is either a Theist and can incorporate morality into one’s thinking, or one is a Nihilist and ALL is preference and a will-to-power. There simply IS no logical middle ground!

Categories
Anti-scientific stance Epistemology

The “science”

fanatics just don’t understand what they are talking about. They are swimming in water that is FAR too deep for them!

Let’s start back at the beginning. If everything is reducible to physics and chemistry, then so is your brain. There is no mind, only brain. It functions entirely on material and efficient causation foundations. There is no such thing as creativity or free will. Those are merely illusions.

So then, how does the mind transcend its own materialist state in becoming an “outside observer” and get to any objective Truth? How does it get transcendent? By Post-Modern definition, it can’t. That is simply not possible. So then just why would you trust your brain to lead you to Truth? If it is made up of material and efficient causes only, it would be stupid and self-negating to do so!

And in fact, that is the crux of all post-modernism. It is a radical reductionism that destroys all Truth. It is why Post-Modernism denies even the possibility of Truth. See, only if you deny the very possibility of truth does this radical Post-Modern reductionism make any sense at all.

But then is Post-Modernism True? Ahhhh! How the worm turns!

But here’s the kicker: The very possibility of Truth simply does not make any sense at all in ANY reductionistic system. Because if “mind” can be reduced to “brain,” and your brain functions only on what particular material and efficient causes happen to come along and work on it (material causation), there is no way to get any Truth out of it. The very possibility of Truth is gone. It is a fairy tale. There simply is no Truth, and there is no God. Welcome to the Pleasure Dome! ALL is merely preference and a Nietzschean will to power.

So in such a system, my opinion is every bit as valid as yours. There simply is no way to judge between which explanation is better. There is no “right” and there is no “wrong.” There is only opinion.

There is no “mind.” There is only mechanical causation. You do not have a mind you have only a brain. And like a hammer, the brain functions according to whatever material thing impinges upon it. In short, you are as smart as a sack of hammers. But no smarter. Maybe more complex, but not really different. Any difference is quantitative, not qualitative!

And THAT is Leftism, now. THAT’s why, at heart, it is impossible to be both a Lefty and believe in morality. Them pretending otherwise is merely crass advertising. Just conceptual boob bait for Bubba.

Categories
Epistemology Psychopathology

Yes, daddy

issues.

In 2018, according to the Pew data, college graduates — of both sexes — voted for Biden over Trump by a 26-point margin. Much of the male portion of that group is ruing their Biden votes, as the new NBC numbers show. So why are lots of men willing to admit that they were wrong in 2020, while the college-educated women as a group are not only not sharing regrets but doubling down?

And THIS is exactly it for Democrat women and also for many dyed-in-the-wool Democrat male voters:

And if college-educated women admit they were wrong about Trump and Biden in 2020, where does it stop? Once “fierce women” admit they could be wrong about something so big as their selection of the president of the formerly free world, that opens the door for being wrong about other big things that contradict their conception of always being right to follow their feelings.

In other words, it’s narcissism. It’s malignant self-esteem. See, a Leftist admitting they were wrong about one thing sends that whole political house of cards tumbling down! Leftists in general can’t tolerate being wrong about anything, because naturally, if they are not rooted in facts and reason about one thing, do they have reliable knowledge about other things?

And just how would you know?