If defamation is justified by truth, then so should any political opinion, however offensive, if we do indeed have free speech.
Since political activism is about changing laws, and opposition to laws are based on whether they are necessary or fair, free speech is required to debate and challenge the moral basis of these laws.
It has come to my notice that even academic philosophers do not know what morality is, refuse to discuss it yet claim that they have "won" the argument, presumably because they have a job as a philosopher while I do not.
54 comments:
I believe you are talking about David Proud. If so, you have misunderstood and misrepresented him.
Here is what he said to you on another thread:
"I have really ruffled your feathers it would seem but you keep misrepresenting me. I have said I am not a nihilist."
"How's about before we go any further you concede I am not a nihilist? I prefer to go in deep into these kind of issues. That is hardly nihilism."
"My point is that morality is not something to be formulated into rules, regulations, laws, principles, imperatives, or whatever. If you think they can then tell me one of your moral principles."
Are you able to grasp how you have misunderstood and misrepresented David, or does someone have to explain it to you?
David has said to me that he has made a principle of not having any moral principles and said people with moral principles are like Hitler. When I asked him what moral principles he thought Hitler had, he declined to answer. When I asked him what he thought morality meant, he said he didn't know and then said I was being "a little obsessive" for pursuing the subject, suggesting that he has only contempt for the subject and people who discuss such matters. He even asserts that though he does not know what morality is and cares less while refusing to state his principles, he is not a nihilist. But that is precisely what a nihilist is: someone who does not have moral principles.
I tried to help him out by suggesting that perhaps he was confusing conscience with morality, but he has not responded, again showing his disdain for the subject.
Even now he disdains to engage in the discussion to show his contempt for the subject as a nihilist. What is one to think in the face of this mountain of evidence?
Er ... can you find a direct quote? That doesn't sound like me. I would never say I had contempt for anyone, I know that much.
I am saying that your contempt for the subject of morality was implicit rather than explicit. You did not use the word "contempt" but your attitude towards the subject and your frivolous responses suggested that you do not take the subject seriously and consider anyone who does so to be "a bit obsessed".
I recall asking you twice if you knew of any living moral philosophers. I interpreted your lack of a response to my request on both occasions as conclusive evidence of a complete lack of interest in the subject which is consistent with being a nihilist.
Believe it or not I do have a life outside LI. Anyway, Peter Singer, who bases his morality on Utilitarian principles. Which leads him to argue in defence of bestiality. This is where principles get you.
https://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/2001----.htm
Utilitarianism is a discredited liberal principle. Too bad Singer, an atheist Jew, wasn't aware of this.
“There are many competing moral systems but religions are the most efficacious in keeping the group in existence and apart from others.”
Do you believe that we humans need some moral system imposed on us from outside? Do you believe that moral authority is external to us?
What do you mean "imposed on us from outside"? What do you mean by a moral authority that is "external to us"?
Wwere is the source of moral authority located for you?
Do your moral principles come from some external source, like a Being that humans call "God" who exists in some supernatural dimension that humans call "heaven" or "paradise"?
Are your moral principles taken from holy scriptures that are presumed to be dictated or inspired by God?
Do you seek advice and information about moral decisions from God's earthly representatives, like religious clerics?
Do you belong to a religious community that gives you support and security and to whom you feel a sense of obligation and loyalty?
I make a point of submitting to truth, logic and morality and these are a combination of my own views in consultation with a range of sources eg books, people, the internet. I am not a member of any religious community.
How are *your* views distinct from the Koran?
Secular Koranism is a New School of Sharia as interpreted by me, a legally trained non-Muslim with an understanding of the West and who is a former liberal and feminist.
"Secular Koranism" is surely an oxymoron? Who belongs to this New School of Sharia other than you?
I suggest you have an impossible task ahead if you want to recruit Westerners. Although the trend is uneven throughout the West, the decline of Christianity is evidence of cultural evolution - a maturing out of the traditional religious worldview. I suspect most Westerners would see any version of Islam as a step backwards.
But you might appeal to second- and third-generation Muslims who have settled in the West and would like to modernize their religion while retaining its roots.
I am aware of the difficulties I face. If you say Christianity is kaput, Westerners wouldn't care because the overwhelming majority of them are not confirmed Christians and are in fact atheists. If you tell them Liberalism is "obsolete" as President Putin did in 2019, most Westerners would also be indifferent because they do not identify as members of the liberal elite.
However, if you tell them that the moral and political system of the West has broken down, they might sit up and take notice.
It is interesting that even philosophers who identify as liberal don't feel able to defend liberalism which is why liberals prefer to sneer, censor and disengage rather than answer questions. Liberal philosophers in academia are now merely covering up for the failure of liberalism and those who do not identify as liberal would fear to challenge it because they don't want to be "cancelled". The point is there are no philosophers with any principles they are prepared to state or defend which means in practice most Western men are nihilists who are no better than cattle who can only be motivated by bribes or threats.
The people motivated to restore the patriarchy would be those who want legitimate children and grandchildren who care about the long term national interest and posterity. Those not motivated to restore the patriarchy would be immoral liars and nihilists who cannot even acknowledge that marriage is the rearing of the next generation in optimum conditions because they don't care what happens to the next generation or what happens to their society after they are dead. The unmarriageable are incapable of having legitimate children and would have no biological investment in the next generation. As for unmarried parents, they would be morally compromised and have a vested interest in not wanting to be treated as sex offenders prescribed the punishment at quran.com/24/2
It is perfectly possible to shame people into agreeing to restore the patriarchy using the principle of governing in the national interest, for only a patriarchy would enough good strong men be produced to defend the national interest.
Since liberalism only means sexual liberation from the rules of marriage and good parenting in the 21st century and not free speech, freedom of belief, freedom of association, or freedom of contract, it is clear that liberalism is the factory of degeneracy, fornication and bastardy. More and more victims of feminism are waking up to the fact that they have been lied to all their lives. Once they have decided that they want to have legitimate children and acknowledge the errors of Christianity and liberalism and be honourable custodians of the national interest for future generations, they will support restoring the patriarchy. It is entirely possible that most Westerners are so degenerate they would unashamedly state that they would be more interested in having no-strings sex with sex toys, sex dolls and sterile same sex encounters than in having legitimate children, in which case Western civilisation will rot away. It is up to them really and I am just the messenger.
“If you say Christianity is kaput, Westerners wouldn't care because the overwhelming majority of them are not confirmed Christians and are in fact atheists.”
Yes, that is the cultural evolution. Westerners are slowly but surely maturing out of the traditional religious worldview, moving beyond the need for “God”.
“If you tell them Liberalism is "obsolete" as President Putin did in 2019, most Westerners would also be indifferent because they do not identify as members of the liberal elite.”
If you find yourself on the same side as Putin in an argument, then you are surely in a bad place.
“However, if you tell them that the moral and political system of the West has broken down, they might sit up and take notice.”
Well, they might sit up, if only to tell you to stop talking nonsense. The West is in transition, and transitions can appear and feel messy.
“It is interesting that even philosophers who identify as liberal don't feel able to defend liberalism which is why liberals prefer to sneer, censor and disengage rather than answer questions.”
Evidence?
“Liberal philosophers in academia are now merely covering up for the failure of liberalism and those who do not identify as liberal would fear to challenge it because they don't want to be "cancelled".”
Evidence?
“The point is there are no philosophers with any principles they are prepared to state or defend which means in practice most Western men are nihilists who are no better than cattle who can only be motivated by bribes or threats.”
I think you need to take some classes in logic. Apart from the fact that you have made an evidence-free leap from “no philosophers” to “most Western men”, you persist with a misunderstanding of the construct of nihilism.
Why not migrate to Russia, another authoritarian state, where I’m sure your views would go down a treat.
Do you ever wonder at the irony of you embracing a religion, albeit one you wish you could wave a magic wand and reform, that would not allow you to express the sorts of opinions you are expressing in public here?
If you happened to be living in Islam’s homeland, your fake profile picture would be banned for immodesty, and you wouldn’t dare to suggest a secular form of the religion. Death for apostasy comes to mind!
It is only because you live in the liberal West, where your rights and freedoms are guaranteed, that you can get away with slagging off the very political and social systems that give you the right and freedom to slag them off. Oh, the irony!
What is your problem exactly with Putin? Are you a Russophobe?
The West is in transition from what to what?
You haven't noticed that a certain philosopher here refuses to answer my questions and only responds with frivolous comments? Do you know of any liberal philosophers prepared to engage with me? If so, please name just one.
What do you think is the nature of my "misunderstanding of the contract of nihilism"?
“The people motivated to restore the patriarchy would be those who want legitimate children and grandchildren who care about the long term national interest and posterity.”
They want nothing of the sort. Rather, they want to oppress women. But, seriously, you should migrate to some Islamic theocracy and enjoy the patriarchy, if that is what you fancy. Knock yourself out!
“Those not motivated to restore the patriarchy would be immoral liars and nihilists who cannot even acknowledge that marriage is the rearing of the next generation in optimum conditions because they don't care what happens to the next generation or what happens to their society after they are dead.”
Sigh! Did you think this up all by yourself?
“As for unmarried parents, they would be morally compromised and have a vested interest in not wanting to be treated as sex offenders prescribed the punishment at quran.com/24/2”
Pretty sick, don’t you think? But the best way to demonstrate you have the courage of your convictions is to take yourself off to an Islamic theocracy. I’m sure there’d be some Westerners who’d be happy to chip in for a one-way ticket for you 😊.
“It is perfectly possible to shame people into agreeing to restore the patriarchy using the principle of governing in the national interest, for only a patriarchy would enough good strong men be produced to defend the national interest.”
You cannot “shame” people into acting against their best interests. This is why Islamic theocracies use oppression as a tool for social control. It is also why your ideas would be abhorrent to Westerners.
Let us know when you are heading off to some authoritarian state or Islamic theocracy.
You do know that both men and women find marriage oppressive, don't you? Other than telling me to leave the West, do you actually have a counter-argument to the points I have raised? Whether I stay or go, the West is still faced with the problem of degenerate nihilistic men incapable of defending a principle because they have made a principle of having none as well as a shrinking population of ageing snowflakes being warehoused for extinction by their politicians and government who do not govern in the long term national interest.
If dogs are capable of feeling shame, then so too are degenerate unprincipled men if you reward principled men and punish unprincipled men equating principled men to marriageable men and deny access to sex and legitimate children with a marriageable woman to unprincipled unmarriageable men.
“Since liberalism only means sexual liberation from the rules of marriage and good parenting in the 21st century and not free speech, freedom of belief, freedom of association, or freedom of contract, it is clear that liberalism is the factory of degeneracy, fornication and bastardy.”
Do you really believe this? Or has someone been filling your head with anti-West propaganda?
“More and more victims of feminism are waking up to the fact that they have been lied to all their lives.”
Golly gosh, are they?
“Once they have decided that they want to have legitimate children and acknowledge the errors of Christianity and liberalism and be honourable custodians of the national interest for future generations, they will support restoring the patriarchy.”
Of course! I can just see crowds of Western women begging for the burka. And everyone knows that, whereas Christianity is error-prone, Islam is error-free 😉.
Would you like to tell us what you think are the errors of Islam?
“It is entirely possible that most Westerners are so degenerate they would unashamedly state that they would be more interested in having no-strings sex with sex toys, sex dolls and sterile same sex encounters than in having legitimate children, in which case Western civilisation will rot away.”
Can I take it you have some hang-up with sex?
“It is up to them really and I am just the messenger.”
Yes, well, I doubt many Westerners are going to be beating a path to your door.
I don't think I can take myself off anywhere until I am satisfied I have delivered my message to the West. It is exasperating that there are no public intellectuals prepared to discuss any of the issues I raise and the only philosopher in academia I have ever encountered is a nihilist who does not know that he is a nihilist and even now denies that he is a nihilist while being unable or unwilling to declare his principles. I need to my message officially acknowledged and a considered response to the points I raise. Presumably this philosopher who does not know he is a nihilist will have access to other philosophers who might be able to formulate a considered response to the points I raise. And then I will get out of your hair.
Indeed, the fact that I can find no public intellectual prepared to engage with me on any of the points I raise suggest that liberal philosophers are running and hiding and that none of the important institutions of the West eg academia are functioning properly or at all. Perhaps liberal philosophers can hold a conference to defend liberalism against the points I raise about it being kaput and corrupt.
Perhaps you can think of a liberal philosopher prepared to defend liberalism?
There is nothing in the Koran that prescribes the burkha.
"Other than telling me to leave the West, do you actually have a counter-argument to the points I have raised?"
I think your arguments are specious and not worth countering.
I really don't think you have made one sound argument against any of the points I raise about the moral imperative of choosing patriarchy if we care about the national interest, and the national interest requires enough good strong men to defend the national interest that can only be produced by a patriarchy. Clearly, Western Man as he is currently parented has no idea what a principle is, so he cannot be expected to defend it, even if he calls himself a philosopher and has a position in academia. Indeed, he does not even know he is a nihilist though he at least knows that to be a nihilist is something to be ashamed of, since he denies that he is a nihilist. However, the fact remains that the philosopher in question has not stated his principles after so many days, so we must assume that he either does not have any, or does not know what they are.
A nihilist does not have to be an atheist.The term atheism is being stretched too far.
Do you know of a nihilist who is not also an atheist?
Your reasoning is fallacious.
I don't know any nihilists, but I do know lots of atheists. They are arguably the majority classification in Australia, and they are very much on-purpose living purposeful lives and contributing positively to our society. The same can be said for many other Western democracies.
If you want people to listen to what you have to say, you will need to cultivate the habit of first listening to them and not making false and derogatory assumptions about them.
How would you define a nihilist?
I would define a nihilist the way the dictionary does: a person who believes that life is meaningless and rejects all religious and moral principles.
As I said, I don't know any nihilists. And I'll wager nor do you.
And you are a nihilist if you have no principles so you don't have to defend them. David Proud has explicitly declared that he has made a principle of having no principles and has refused to discuss morality after saying he does not know what it is.
Are you a nihilist?
I have the principle of submitting to Truth, Logic and Morality.
Nihilism could subscribe to a chaotic/entropic state of affairs in relation to any system.It has nothing to do with theism/atheism. Ms Claire needs to refurbish her understanding of concepts which often seem to be weird.
@CM If you had a daughter you loved, would you let her marry a nihilist?
Do you identify as nihilist?
"And you are a nihilist if you have no principles so you don't have to defend them."
Do you know someone who has no principles? And why are you so concerned with nihilism? Which, I might add, is a somewhat complex topic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism
"I have the principle of submitting to Truth, Logic and Morality. "
And, just which versions of "Truth, Logic and Morality" do you subscribe to?
Absolutely nothing wrong in marrying a nihilist.Nihilism is only a world view and might pertain only to some aspects of the social system.
@CM Are you a nihilist?
I do not have to be a nihilist to know that nihilism and atheism are not co-extensive.
@CM Nihilism is a product of atheism.
@Dr H
There is only one truth, isn't there?
no! Your interactions here should tell you there are different perspectives on the same topic.
Science is the best tool we have for testing reality and getting as close to "the truth" as we can.
"Nihilism is a product of atheism."
No, it isn't. Nihilism and atheism are different constructs. There are religious and non-religious versions of nihilism.
You seem to be stuck on this subject. You should educate yourself to avoid offending people unnecessarily and making yourself look foolish.
Why are you so determined to draw a link between atheism and nihilism? What is your motivation?
Science is the study of material objects as well as physical laws and natural phenomena. Science tells us what is and isn't and what can and can't be done while philosophy tells us what we should or shouldn't do. Analytical philosophy is metaphysics and metaphysics is the study of ideas and the meaning of words. Philosophers seem to be asleep on the job, neither asking nor answering the important questions of the day because they are mostly nihilistic atheists who don't give a damn about posterity as long as they can go to their graves with their liberal beliefs unchallenged.
Please explain how nihilism is not a product of atheism.
Obviously I am saying that nihilism is a bad thing because it is obviously a bad thing when you have unprincipled politicians and unprincipled philosophers who are nihilists with no principles to defend. Nihilists, having no principles, won't even follow their own principle of doing what they are supposed to do if they really believed that life is meaningless: kill themselves. They are unprincipled liars who should already have killed themselves but haven't, presumably because they would rather stay around and vandalise whatever that is left of civilisation. Nihilists don't even care about their own legitimate children and would let even their only daughter marry another nihilist without warning or advising her against it because they are basically selfish cowards who pride themselves on making a principle of having no principles.
Claire, if you are referring to moral (or ethical) nihilism, which states that there is no such thing as objective morality, there is no link to atheism.
Not accepting objective morality literally means that there is no such thing as right or wrong and no action is preferred to another based on morality.
Many theists believe that their god is a source of morality. Believing that morality comes from god often leads theists to believing that atheists do not possess moral values.
This is untrue! Believing in god and having moral values are philosophically unrelated. Most atheists have moral values. They just do not think these are god-given.
Similarly, disbelieving objective morality is not related to the existence of any god. If I wanted to be an theistic moral nihilist, I could simply believe in a god that is not a source of objective morality, i.e. one that does not prescribe what is right or wrong. This would disqualify all existing human religions as far as I know (even the Flying Spaghettimonster is a source of morality to some extent). However, one does not need to adhere to an existing religion in order to be a theist, simply believing in the existence of one or more gods makes one a theist.
Only the Abrahamic God is worthy of worship because it is the most powerful God conceivable. What other supreme being is there there apart from the Abrahamic God? And what would be the point of worshipping a supreme being less powerful than the Abrahamic God?
One truth about what, precisely?
Weren't you saying that there is more than one truth? You implied that holding that there is only one truth was rather narrow minded. I accept that there can be more than one opinion about one fact, but I am not sure what you mean about there being more than one truth. Are you perhaps confusing opinion with fact?
First you make an unfalsifiable claim that makes no sense, because the fact that something cannot prove false does not imply it is true.
And if your claim belong to a system of thought using a logic in which being unable to prove something is false is a proof that it is true, it is a very good reason by itself to reject this claim.
Secondly to your question: "what other supreme being is there apart from the abrahamic god?" The answer is that it is not a valid question as it implies the existence of a supreme being, in other words you repeat your unfalsifiable claim times 2.
So you admit that the existence of the Abrahamic God cannot be falsified?
Claire, what I have said is that your reasoning is not reasoning at all, for the simple reason that if a hypothesis does not make any claims that can be tested or verified, on the other hand, it is considered to be non falsifiable. It is also considered to be not worth discussing, since any hypothesis for which there can be no evidence for or against is utterly useless.
We can acknowledge that the idea of the Abrahamic God exists in the same way that the idea of unicorns, fairies, elves, leprechauns etc exist.
“Only the Abrahamic God is worthy of worship because it is the most powerful God conceivable. What other supreme being is there apart from the Abrahamic God? And what would be the point of worshipping a supreme being less powerful than the Abrahamic God?”
Ah, the human imagination is both a blessing and a curse, and human history is littered with the godly products of our imagination.
As for the Abrahamic God, arguably the most recently conceived version of a Supreme Being living in some Supernatural Dimension, there seem to be at least three, incompatible versions: Yahweh, Trinity and Allah. Each version has different proscriptions for acceptable earthly behavior, and different consequences for noncompliance.
Perhaps believers should get these anomalies sorted before trying to appeal to non-believers?
“Obviously I am saying that nihilism is a bad thing because it is obviously a bad thing when you have unprincipled politicians and unprincipled philosophers who are nihilists with no principles to defend…………………………...”
And I am saying that this conversation is pointless in that you are having it in your head. I don’t know any nihilists, and you are, as usual, making unsubstantiated claims about nihilists who presumably people the society in which you live.
If this topic really of concern, you would do better to identify some nihilists and have a chat to them about how/what they think, feel and behave.
I suspect you know and understand as little about nihilism as you obviously do about atheism. If so, that is not a good basis from which to preach about a supposedly superior moral philosophy.
You do understand that I am agnostic, don't you?
There are three Abrahamic faiths worshipping the same Abrahamic God. One is particular to Jews, the other two is for gentiles. One of them has inferior scripture which is the hearsay evidence of mortal fallible men guilty of the sin of the idolatry and blasphemy through worshipping a man executed for blasphemy as the co equal of the eternal and supreme Abrahamic God who created the Universe. If you do want to worship the Abrahamic God as a gentile, Islam has an official handbook and book of rules believed by Muslims to come from God. I have only stated fact and expressed no personal opinion at all.
“There are three Abrahamic faiths worshipping the same Abrahamic God. One is particular to Jews, the other two is for gentiles.”
What century are you living in? Note that Gentiles is a proper noun, like Jews, Muslims and Christians.
“One of them has inferior scripture which is the hearsay evidence of mortal fallible men guilty of the sin of the idolatry and blasphemy through worshipping a man executed for blasphemy as the co equal of the eternal and supreme Abrahamic God who created the Universe.”
This doesn’t make much sense. You seem to be freelancing your way through ancient religious history with little regard for the belief systems of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam on the one hand, and religious scholarship on the other hand.
Do you know why Jesus was tried and condemned to death under Roman law? Death by crucifixion was applied in the case of capital crimes. What capital crime did Jesus commit?
I am living in the 21st century. What have I said makes you think I think anything else?
What have I said does not make sense? You have understood it enough to disagree with it. What do you mean I have been "freelancing" through "ancient religious history with little regard for the belief systems of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam on the one hand, and religious scholarship on the other hand"? Did I say anything Jews, Christians or Muslims would disagree with?
I am well aware that the penalty for blasphemy is death for Jews and Jesus the Jew was convicted of blasphemy.
Post a Comment