Wednesday, November 11, 2009

Reflections: Conservatism

X
American political conservatism is populated by a compliant mob of the intellectually-challenged, all desperately seeking leaders who will condone the acting-out of their fear and hatred of anything that looks "different" to them, and which they don't understand. The conservative mob is to be pitied, as are all the confused and disoriented.

The leaders who exploit the weakness and disability of this sorry herd cannot be called "conservative," since the substance of their purposes and agendas transcends political definition by entering into the spiritual arena of Evil.

The strength of such men is derivative of the failure of our age to recognize the objective reality of Evil. This moral vacuum has allowed them to corrupt even religion, twisting and manipulating sacred doctrine to serve their perverse ends.

Ultimately, it must be understood that even these leaders, influential and powerful as they may become, are also to be pitied. No mortal being serves Evil knowingly. We therefore understand that each of these rabble-rousing plutocrats and power-brokers is radically ignorant of the reality of his world, as well as of the nature of his essential self.

One day, men such as these--each in his own time--will come awake to an awful terror, as a shield against which all of his worldly status, riches, and power over little men will be of no avail.
X

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

"The strength of such men is derivative of the failure of our age to recognize the objective reality of Evil."

1. Any claim is moral, if and only if it is objective
(Let gravity be an example of objectivity. Gravity is built in to the universe no matter what humans think. A moral claim is also built into the universe and doesn’t depend or rely on what humans may think.)
2. There is no claim that is subjective and moral
(“I think that x” or “I think you ought not do x” isn’t moral because it isn’t objective)
3. All humans are subjects with a point of view (subjective)
(No human can see all points of view)
4. No human can make an objective claim (be objective)
Therefore: no human can make a moral claim
1. (x)(MxΞOx)
2. ~(∃x)(Sx›~Mx)
3. (x)(Hx›Sx)
4. ~(∃x)(Hx&Ox)
[Δ~(∃x)(Hx&Mx)
5. asm~~(∃x)(Hx&Mx)
6. Δ(∃x)(Hx&Mx) from 5 DN
7. Δ(x)~(Hx&Ox) from 4
8. Δ(x)~(Sx›Mx) from 2
9. Δ(Ha&Ma) from 6 UI
10. ΔHa from 8 SIMP
11. ΔMa from 8 SIMP
12. Δ(MaΞOa) from 1 UI
13. Δ(Ma›Oa) from 8
14. Δ(Oa›Ma) from 8
15. Δ~(Ha&Ma) from 6 UI
16. Δ~Ma from 9, 14
17. Δ~Oa from 15, 13 MT
18. Δ~(Sa›~Ma) from 8 UI
19. ΔSa from 18 NI
20. ΔMa from 18 NI, 16
Δ~(∃x)(Hx&Mx) from 5 (RAA) lines 5-20, 20 contradicts 16.

Rob Dakin "All of that is true. That is why all thinking people should become existentialists. One has to posit moral values and then act upon them AS IF they were as objectively "out there" as gravity."

Well, which is it? As if or real? Can't have it both ways Sparky.

Anonymous said...

I think Mr. Derbyshire would at least agree with you. As I mentioned before, it's amazing how "conservatism" has gone from the erudition of the Buckleyites to the chimpanzee-intelelctual-scat-swinging of the current crop.

It's no wonder that the Junior Buckley hauled intellectual ass and stays the hell away from the very magazine that his own father started.

---MS

Rodak said...

Well, which is it? As if or real? Can't have it both ways Sparky.

Existentialism is not incompatible with religion. No one is saying that the objective values that one posits must be the projected inventions of the subject. One can acquire and incorporate into one's value system objective truths learned by education and/or experience. It is making one's actions compatible with one's values that testifies to one's moral and philosophical integrity and his existential authenticity.
One acts "as if" where one's beliefs, although perceived as objectively true are not susceptible to proof. You, for instance, cannot prove that your significant other loves you, even though in your every act w/r/t that person, you try to act as though that love were as real as gravity.

Rodak said...

Yes, Madscribe, the current crop represents a precipitous fall from the heights achieved by their fathers. That said, however, conservatism has always (imho) been at odds with the Christianity that most conservatives claims to profess.
Or, maybe it's that "Christianity" has always been at odds with the message of Jesus?

Anonymous said...

It's the latter. Thus, my intense hatred for organized religion but respect for Jesus. Or as I always say, Christianity should really be called "Paulianity" as he fabricated most it. I'll stick with the Gnostics.


---MS

Rodak said...

I like the Gnostics, too. That is why I am such a devotee of Simone Weil. She seems to me to combine the best of Plato with the best of Jesus, which is the essence of Gnosticism. And she does so, almost uniquely, as a 20th century thinker. And, finally, she walked her talk to an unprecedented degree.

Anonymous said...

"It is making one's actions compatible with one's values that testifies to one's moral and philosophical integrity and his existential authenticity."

What if the conservatives you rail against do exactly this?

I'm sure the guys that flew the planes into the buildings experienced no dissonance. How could they and complete their own death?

Existentialism is incompatible with christianity. In the big c man has a priori meaning; not so in the big e.

I would love to go on but gravity is weighing me down.

Rodak said...

The existentialism of Heidegger and Sartre is not compatible with Christianity, that's quite true.
But the existentialism of Kierkegaard, Marcel, Jaspers, Tillich, et al., is.
Perhaps what I should have said is "existentialism is not incompatible with a priori meaning in man?"