Ami will like this. Others might too. (political)

[Roxanne Appleby]

August 29, 2006
The Secular Right
By Robert Tracinski

We all know the basic alternatives that form the familiar "spectrum" of American politics and culture.

If a young person is turned off by religion or attracted by the achievements of science, and he wants to embrace a secular outlook, he is told--by both sides of the debate--that his place is with the collectivists and social subjectivists of the left. On the other hand, if he admires the free market and wants America to have a bold, independent national defense, then he is told--again, by both sides--that his natural home is with the religious right.

But what if all of this is terribly wrong? What if it's possible to hold some of the key convictions associated with the right, being pro-free-market and supporting the war, and even to do so more strongly and consistently than most on the right--but still to be secular? What if it's possible to reject the socialism subjectivism of the left and believe in the importance of morality, but without believing in God?

That question has been raised, most recently, in a courageous article by Heather Mac Donald. In a symposium on the nature of the right, she argued on behalf of "skeptical conservatives" who "ground their ideas in rational thinking and (nonreligious) moral argument." For the past two weeks, this has touched off a debate on National Review Online (catalogued here), at the religious conservative magazine First Things, and elsewhere.

This is not the first time the right has had to search its soul on this issue--and it's high time they did so again, because now, more than ever, we need to discover what it would mean to have a secular right.

Mac Donald makes some terrific points in criticizing religion as a foundation for the right, but she is wrong to describe the secular right as "skeptical conservatives." A truly secular right should not be based on "skepticism," not in any fundamental sense.

Philosophically speaking, skepticism does not mean merely doubting the truth of one particular claim or idea. It means doubting all truths and all ideas, so that every fact or theory is just someone's opinion. It means doubting the power of reason as such. Skepticism is the natural ally of subjectivism--and it is, in actual fact, the guiding philosophy of the left.

One of the great myths spread by religious conservatives is the idea that the political left is founded on an overweening confidence in the power of reason. But any notions about a hyper-rational left can be refuted by ten minutes' conversation with an actual leftist. It can also be refuted by an examination of the ideas of the left.

Sure, the left used to cloak their views in the economic jargon of "scientific socialism." But beneath its pseudo-scientific veneer, the old Marxist left was contemptuous of the individual mind, regarding men's ideas and values and mere by-products of collective, materialist forces. They viewed man, not as a rational animal, but as a mindless brute--think of the muscle-bound, thick-browed workers portrayed in Soviet propaganda posters--and they embraced, or at best apologized for, the methods of the brute. Comrade Stalin didn't rule by reason; he ruled by force and terror.

It is no wonder that the charade of "scientific socialism" collapsed forty years ago with the emergence of the New Left "counterculture," whose symbol is the drugged-out, addle-brained hippie. And as for the high-brow academic left, today's philosophical trends on the left are Postmodernism and Multiculturalism--extreme forms of skepticism and subjectivism which deny that there is any rationally provable truth and tell us that all cultures are equally valid. Some on today's left even follow Multiculturalism to its logical conclusion, finding sympathy for Muslims who feel "oppressed" by our lack of "respect" for their religious strictures--a kind of unholy alliance between secular subjectivism and religious dogmatism.

There is more affinity between these two ends of the political and cultural spectrum that the adherents of either would care to admit. Heather Mac Donald notes that "The presumption of religious belief--not to mention the contradictory thinking that so often accompanies it--does damage to conservatism by resting its claims on revealed truth. But on such truth there can be no agreement without faith." In a long and rambling reply to Mac Donald, Catholic conservative Michael Novak keeps promising an answer to the question, "how can you actually prove that Christianity is true?"--and he can produce nothing better than, "it answers something deep in the human spirit." Which means: "because it makes me feel good." So what exactly is the difference, in practice, between faith and feelings, between religion and subjectivism?

This gives the lie to the central promise of the religious conservatives: that they will provide a solid foundation for morality. Subjectivism, they point out, unleashes men to commit any atrocity, while religion offers men the safety of unquestionable moral rules. But what protection is really offered by moral rules backed by faith--rules on which men cannot ever agree? History offers the answer, recent history most particularly. The headline of a brilliantly conceived satire from The Onion captures it nicely: "War-Torn Middle East Seeks Solace in Religion." The Middle East, and especially the Muslim world, is famous for the intensity of its religious belief--and also infamous for the intensity of its bloodshed and suffering.

Religious conservatives warn that a morality based on reason and observation is not sufficient, because men will not all agree on what reason and the evidence proves. But when have men ever agreed on religion? And without reason and evidence to settle the argument, they usually resort to force.

The real alternative to secular subjectivism is not religious faith, but observation of the natural world--the world that can be seen and understood through reason. Despite a confused dismissal of "natural law," Heather Mac Donald is correct when she suggests that "reason and a commitment to evidence provide ample grounds for leading a moral, responsible life." But she seems to have something of pragmatist view of morality, arguing, for example, that marriage should be encouraged because sociological studies say that children are better off with two parents.

But to derive a secular morality, we need more than narrow conclusions drawn from sociological studies. We need broad philosophical principles drawn from the grand lessons of history. For example, we can observe, in the rise of West since the Renaissance and in the corresponding decline of the Islamic world, what happens when men embrace reason, unfettered scientific inquiry, and technological progress--versus what happens when they cling to religious dogmatism and disparage secular learning. Or, alternatively, we can observe in the history of the Cold War what happens when one bloc of societies recognizes the individual rights of their citizens, allowing them to act on their own initiative in the pursuit of profit--versus what happens when another bloc imposes a totalitarian dictatorship, expunging private property and private profits and forcibly imposing central economic planning.

The lessons of history reveal the basic requirements set by man's nature for his survival, success, and happiness here on earth. That is the secular foundation for morality.

Today's academic philosophers--steeped in the subjectivist dogmas of the left--have not been up to the job of grasping and explaining these lessons. But astute readers may recognize which philosopher I think was up to the job. My own defense of the secular right is based on the ideas of Ayn Rand, the novelist, philosopher, and famous defender of capitalism who originated a secular philosophy she called Objectivism. Ayn Rand's ideas are hardly a secret--her novels still sell briskly, fifty years on--and the strangest part of the current debate about secularism and the right is that no one has yet seen fit to mention her.

The right needs to have a long, open, honest debate about the role of religion. We need it now more than ever because we are in the middle of a war with an enemy that is defined by his religious fervor and by his attempt to make his religion dominate the "public square," to borrow a catchphrase from the religious right. If we don't understand the real nature and value of Western, Enlightenment secularism, then we can't fully understand what is at stake in this clash of civilizations, and in the long run, we won't know how to win it.

Robert Tracinski writes daily commentary at TIADaily.com. He is the editor of The Intellectual Activist and TIADaily.com.
Page Printed from: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/08/the_secular_right.html at August 29, 2006 - 10:47:14 AM CDT

 

[English Lady]

I've read this, and will have to read it again, it's a bit wordy and needs to be read over to be digested.

But what I got this first time was that people don't fall into nicely defined groups *gasp* and I didn't see a massive amount of revelation in that.


I'll see what other folks say, and read it over again later.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I've read this, and will have to read it again, it's a bit wordy and needs to be read over to be digested.

But what I got this first time was that people don't fall into nicely defined groups *gasp* and I didn't see a massive amount of revelation in that.


I'll see what other folks say, and read it over again later.

Because you are English Lady ( ) it makes sense that you might not see the signifigance: In the U.S. two party system people are forced "into nicely defined groups." Those "groups" get to define themselves, and the article's point is that at least one of them is making some serious errors in how it does this. The political science term is that voters are "cross-pressured" to sign on to one side or another even thought that side may promote a lot crap the voter doesn't buy.

BTW, when the author uses the term "skepticism" he is actually is referring to the philosophical current that is also called "radical uncertainty," not using it in the common way.

 

[Pure]

in one way i agree with tracinsky. it would be nice to have a secular right.

alas y'all are few and far between. why? is it just that Atlas Shrugged is boring compared to the Book of Matthew (for most).

it seems like the 'right' is (almost) always getting in bed with religious authorities and their agenda (as witness amicus' endorsement of the pope's position on abortion and his commitment to electing religious right persons who will make that the law of the land.)

looking a bit of tracinski's argument:

T: Religious conservatives warn that a morality based on reason and observation is not sufficient, because men will not all agree on what reason and the evidence proves. But when have men ever agreed on religion? And without reason and evidence to settle the argument, they usually resort to force.

The real alternative to secular subjectivism is not religious faith, but observation of the natural world--the world that can be seen and understood through reason. Despite a confused dismissal of "natural law," Heather Mac Donald is correct when she suggests that "reason and a commitment to evidence provide ample grounds for leading a moral, responsible life." But she seems to have something of pragmatist view of morality, arguing, for example, that marriage should be encouraged because sociological studies say that children are better off with two parents.

But to derive a secular morality, we need more than narrow conclusions drawn from sociological studies. We need broad philosophical principles drawn from the grand lessons of history. For example, we can observe, in the rise of West since the Renaissance and in the corresponding decline of the Islamic world, what happens when men embrace reason, unfettered scientific inquiry, and technological progress--versus what happens when they cling to religious dogmatism and disparage secular learning.

Or, alternatively, we can observe in the history of the Cold War what happens when one bloc of societies recognizes the individual rights of their citizens, allowing them to act on their own initiative in the pursuit of profit--versus what happens when another bloc imposes a totalitarian dictatorship, expunging private property and private profits and forcibly imposing central economic planning.

===
P: However a couple points are worth making.

Notice that T is not actually keen on empirical studies, e.g., in sociology or psychology. He wants morality based on 'philosophical principles' drawn from history, to wit:

T: we can observe, in the rise of West since the Renaissance and in the corresponding decline of the Islamic world, what happens when men embrace reason, unfettered scientific inquiry, and technological progress--versus what happens when they cling to religious dogmatism and disparage secular learning.

P: the alleged 'observation' is tainted with Mr. T's prior allegiances. is he actually saying that England in the mid 19th century embraced 'reason'; or that America of latter 19th century did?

this is simply untrue. religion was quite important, and there is no shortage of famous capitalists (the ones whose pictures adorn your mantle) who had religous allegiances, for example Calvinism.

besides individuals, it's hard to find government embracing 'reason'; the only old example coming to mind is just after the French revolution (but i don't think that example suits you!) [On the newer examples, see below.).

looking at the present times, the last 50 years, when are the times when, in the US, capitalism most flourished? under Reagan? look at the rise of religious in those times, and Reagan's courting of the religious right despite his lukewarm religion


----

It is a grand vision to claim, like Mr. T, to discern what mankind *should be* by looking at the facts of nature. Even were we to grant Mr T's assumption that 'secular' capitalism has done very well, he has no basis for saying that's what mankind *should* aspire to. Indeed it's a broad lesson of history that humans keep turning to religion, by and large.

This is the central point i always make against Randism. It's not based in the facts of capitalist development, but in a vision of what should have been, and what allegedly should be ("the unknown ideal").

 

[Zeb_Carter]

I will say I fall into this category in my political beliefs. I don't hold with the rights stand on pro-life yet I am pro-free market. I don't hold with most of the social programs espoused by the left yet I am and always have been pro-choice. I hold on to my individualism with all my strength as I don't find anything inviting to be within the mob. I don't believe morality should be legislated but believe that certain crimes are morally wrong and should be. I believe in a strong defense of our country and believe we should defend those who cannot defend themselves without trying to impose our culture upon them. I also believe what is past is past and what is to come is that which is important, although some of us do learn from our mistakes.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

(Sketchy) response to Pure:

It's a good point about T's "'philosophical principles' drawn from history." That is a dicey game, which is not to say that it's not without any validity. In the final analysis it might be the only meaningful metric for human beings. But for reasons you cite it may have limited usefulness in judging what to do in the here and now.

We're a young species. We've never been here before, 200 years into an industrial revolution. Holding up "unknown ideals" in such a place is not a bad thing. Holding on to or reverting to dark age superstitions is not likely to be much help to us now.

 

[rgraham666]

LOL. Hilarious!

I'm a skeptical person. And I understand that almost everything is subjective. More so than most as I was insane once and you wouldn't believe what goes through your mind when your perception is that skewed.

But all I saw here was the same old same old accusations. If you're on 'the left' your morals are entirely subjective. Therefore people on 'the left' have no morals.

To which I can only reply, "Horseshit!"

 

[JamesSD]

And the growing schism in the Republican party widens...

 

[Pure]

i wish. isn't mccain making up with bush and falwell? no republican wants to kiss off the evangelical vote (or the southern vote).

 

[Darkniciad]

And the growing schism in the Republican party widens...

Same thing going on with the Democrats. The only glue holding them together is Bush. Once he's out of office, especially if a Democrat gains the White House, the Democrats are going to have a yawning chasm in the middle of the party as well.

 

[Pure]

url for the macdonald article on the secular right

http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_08_28/article14.html

---
symposium to which MacDonald contributed
http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_08_28/cover.html

-----

pakaluk's excellent response to Heather MacD (on politics and religion)

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OTYxZmFkNTk3MWI1NjU5ZTc4N2I5YzYxNDViMjYyNmU=
------

novak's reply to heather macd (on the evil permitted by God)

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZDAyZTkwN2MyMzdkMzgyMTVkYTkyZjc4M2UxYzkwZGU=





essentially MacDonald's original piece a rehash of the old 'problem' of evil, "How can the Christian God permit rampant evil?" she further says she's uncomfortable with Bush's God talk.

there are several interesting replies in the national review, including one by Novak, who deals with 'evil.' also there is the reply of pakaluk [see url above] who points out that conservatives (and liberals like Clinton) have routinely used 'God talk' to justify foreign policy-- so why is MacDonald complaining about Bush in particular?

here's a very simply question for Roxanne. do you plan to vote 'right' even if it's a religious conservative? followup, if the 'secular conservatives' are going to vote in the religious right, what the hell advantage is there to the 'secular' label. the rest of us have to treat you the same at Pat Robertson-- dangerous to liberty.

making it less personal; Let us presume that an alleged 'small government' and 'libertarian' like amicus is going to vote for according to his abortion views, i.e., for a pres who'll change the Supreme Ct. and try to have abortion outlawed, and who'll work for the *increase* the powers of the Pres. and the scope of federal powers.

What the hell difference does it make if amicus claims to be an 'atheist' and 'objecitivist' and free thinker? a theocratic and tyrranical agenda is going to be furthered, as far as his efforts can assist it.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_08_28/article14.html

essentially it's a rehash of the old 'problem' of evil, "How can the Christian God permit rampant evil?" she also says she's uncomfortable with Bush's God talk.

there are several interesting replies in the national review, including one by Novak. i believe it's he who points out that conservatives (and liberals like Clinton) have routinely used 'God talk' to justify foreign policy-- so why is MacDonald complaining about Bush in particular?

here's a very simply question for Roxanne. do you plan to vote 'right' even if it's a religious conservative? followup, if the 'secular conservatives' are going to vote in the religious right, what the hell advantage is there to the 'secular' label. the rest of us have to treat you the same at Pat Robertson-- dangerous to liberty.

making it less personal; Let us presume that an alleged 'small government' and 'libertarian' like amicus is going to vote for according to his abortion views, i.e., for a pres who'll change the Supreme Ct. and try to have abortion outlawed, and who'll work for the *increase* the powers of the Pres. and the scope of federal powers.

What the hell difference does it make if amicus claims to be an 'atheist' and 'objecitivist' and free thinker? a theocratic and tyrranical agenda is going to be furthered, as far as his efforts can assist it.

We're all cross-pressured in the U.S. system two party system. I haven't had time to read the "don't vote" thread, but that is about the only way out, because various institutional (not just political) elements ensure the two party system is here to stay. There are good and bad parts of that; over time it's served the country well, but that doesn't mean it always will.

I have not viewed the religious right as a serious threat to my values. I view most of the apocalyptic rhetoric from the left about "theocracy" as fevered hyperventilating. The pendulum swings both ways in this country, and the further it moves from the center, the greater the resistance. Let's be realistic about what the religious right has or realistically might achieve in this country: Repeal of Roe, which would make abortion legal in some states and illegal in others (and there are no checkpoints at state borders.) Watered-down "prayer" in school. Funneling welfare through faith based organizations that may import some proselytizing into their social services. Restricting the sale of porn in some localities. Possibly generating some prosecutorial excess in the pursuit of child porn. Opportunistically capitalizing on a backlash at (what I beleive was) over-reaching by homosexual activists with unfortunate marriage amendments at the state level. (My remarks on that last item are not normative, but purely descriptive of the political scene as I see it - please no nonsense about "Roxanne's against gay marriage.")

I think that's about it. I don't like those things, but they're a long way from a "theocracy." Are they bad enough to cross-pressure me into voting for a subjectivist, collectivist philosophy and agenda that I believe Tracinski accurately characterizes? I'm not going to say how I do or would vote.

I could be wrong about the depth of the threat. Demographic trends - the religious have more babies than the secular - could change the picture, although you have to assume that all or most of the kinder will be good little fundamentalist volk for that to matter, which may not be a valid assumption. If the picture changes signifigantly then I would respond accordingly.

 

[Pure]

response to Roxannes assessment

Hi Roxanne,
you said in part,

Let's be realistic about what the religious right has or realistically might achieve in this country: Repeal of Roe, which would make abortion legal in some states and illegal in others (and there are no checkpoints at state borders.) Watered-down "prayer" in school. Funneling welfare through faith based organizations that may import some proselytizing into their social services.

Restricting the sale of porn in some localities. Possibly generating some prosecutorial excess in the pursuit of child porn. Opportunistically capitalizing on a backlash at (what I beleive was) over-reaching by homosexual activists with unfortunate marriage amendments at the state level. (My remarks on that last item are not normative, but purely descriptive of the political scene as I see it - please no nonsense about "Roxanne's against gay marriage.")

I think that's about it. I don't like those things, but they're a long way from a "theocracy." Are they bad enough to cross-pressure me into voting for a subjectivist, collectivist philosophy and agenda that I believe Tracinski accurately characterizes? I'm not going to say how I do or would vote.

P: I think that's hardly necessary, my friend.

I invite you to consider, however

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/28/senate.harris.ap/index.html

Dated August 28, 2006
Rep. Harris: Church-state separation 'a lie'

MIAMI, Florida (AP) -- U.S. Rep. Katherine Harris told a religious journal that separation of church and state is "a lie" and God and the nation's founding fathers did not intend the country be "a nation of secular laws."

The Republican candidate for U.S. Senate also said that if Christians are not elected, politicians will "legislate sin," including abortion and gay marriage.

Harris made the comments -- which she clarified Saturday -- in the Florida Baptist Witness, the weekly journal of the Florida Baptist State Convention, which interviewed political candidates and asked them about religion and their positions on issues.

Separation of church and state is "a lie we have been told," Harris said in the interview, published Thursday, saying separating religion and politics is "wrong because God is the one who chooses our rulers."

Electing non-Christians allows 'legislating sin'

"If you're not electing Christians, then in essence you are going to legislate sin," Harris said.
=====

P: As to your specifics.

P: First, you omit the already occurring breaches of due process, and questionable extensions of Presidential powers, as 'dinged' recently in Federal court.

RoxRepeal of Roe, which would make abortion legal in some states and illegal in others (and there are no checkpoints at state borders.)

P: There is federal legislation on partial birth abortion. There are proposed 'prolife' [Definition of Person] amendments to the constitution, and failing that, federal legislation attempting the same goals of definition.

Rox Watered-down "prayer" in school.

P But it will be recognizably Christian. I can envision egal exclusion of non-Xtian teachers.

I can even imagine a "Judaeo Xtian" heritage amenment to the constitution that says, "The First Amendment restrictions on federal actions 'establishing' relgion shall not be construed as limits on measures, taken by Congress or the Executive, which recognize and affirm the continued foundation of American rights and values in the Judaeo Christian traditions."

Rox Funneling welfare through faith based organizations that may import some proselytizing into their social services.

P: You omitted lessening funding for secular, health-related groups, e.g. those recommending condoms.

You omitted the restrictions on US funding to international groups in the fight against AIDS: the requirement to stress abstinence and marriage.

Rox Restricting the sale of porn in some localities. Possibly generating some prosecutorial excess in the pursuit of child porn.

There is already passed federal legislation outlawing 'material harmful to minors' (i.e., any porn, on the 'net--- why do you think Lit is worried?)

Rox Opportunistically capitalizing on a backlash at (what I beleive was) over-reaching by homosexual activists with unfortunate marriage amendments at the state level.

P: In the works: restrictions on the jobs homosexuals can hold; restrictions on publications 'promoting' (i.e discussing or depicting) the lifestyle; e.g. getting rid of some books used in high schools and elsewhere.

Lastly, Roxanne,

Assuming you're correct, ftsoa, you omit to mention that IF the relgious right's gains are limited, it will largely be because of grassroots 'liberal' and 'Democratic' efforts. (You won't be out there, since you dislilke 'collectivists' so much.)

The Republicans have already 'caved' (their few liberals and secular figures with any prominence are shutting up.)

===

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Hi Roxanne I'm not going to say how I do or would vote. [/i]

P: I think that's hardly necessary, my friend.

You must have seen my "Harry Brown for President" bumper sticker. Damn, I'm busted.

Lastly, Roxanne,
Assuming you're correct, ftsoa, you omit to mention that IF the relgious right's gains are limited it will largely be because of grassroots 'liberal' and 'Democratic' efforts. (You won't be out there, since you dislilke 'collectivists' so much.) The Republicans have already 'caved' (their few liberals and secular figures with any prominence are shutting up.)

My view about this is based on my understanding of American society and politics; you can't change it by throwing up shibboleths like the cynical pandering of politicians' speeches or bill introductions. On the latter, as you know all kinds of nonsense on all sides is introduced each year that will never even get a hearing, and the only effect is to provide juicy tidbits for the opposition fundraising letters.

I don't accept your hypothesis about what will limit the policy gains of the religious right. The real limiting factor will be the fact that no side can move very far from the center in the U.S. without generating a backlash. If anything, the excesses of the left will allow the pendulum to swing a little further in the other direction, not limit it. I cited one unfortunate example of this kind of dynamic in my post - the backlash against overreaching on gay marriage. (BTW, as you probably know, opinion polls over time show the "center" on that issue is moving steadily in the direction of gay rights, notwithstanding recent setbacks.)

 

[Pure]

partial response to roxanne,

you ignored all my examples as to restrictions coming into force.

in general, your response is appears naive in view of such items as the the items posted below (already passed but blocked by the 'liberal' SC). indeed you are simply incorrect that we're talking about speeches and bill intros.

Rox: Pure, you can't scare me with shibboleths like the cynical pandering of politicians' speeches or bill introductions. On the latter, as you know all kinds of nonsense on all sides is introduced each year that will never even get a hearing, and the only effect is to provide juicy tidbits for the opposition fundraising letters.

media coalition website:
Two Significant Decisions Issued by the Supreme Court In April 2002, the Supreme Court found overbroad and unconstitutional the Child Pornography Prevention Act. The law passed in 1996 radically expanded the definition of child pornography to include images that depict adults who “appear” to be minors and computer generated or other visual images that appear to be of a minor.

Justice Kennedy writing for the majority stated, “where speech is neither obscene nor the product of sexual abuse, it does not fall outside the protection of the First Amendment.” He added that the suggestion that speech would cause unlawful acts without showing direct causation is not an acceptable basis to ban the speech.

While the members of Media Coalition strongly oppose child pornography, in June 2001, they filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court to reiterate their concerns with the CPPA’s criminalization of visual depictions of material ranging from the movies Titanic and Traffic to drawings and sculptures to ads with the Copportone baby.

In May 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that inability to determine community standards with respect to the Internet is not sufficient reasonto find the Child Online Protection Act unconstitutional. There was strong language in the opinion suggesting that the law has serious constitutional flaws. COPA is a second attempt at a broad federal restriction on using the Internet to transmit non-obscene material with sexual content. Members of Media Coalition joined the suit as plaintiffs and as signatories to a friend of the court brief, along with a wide range of groups

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

you ignored all my examples as to restrictions coming into force.

in general, your response is appears naive in view of such items as the the items posted below (already passed but blocked by the 'liberal' SC). indeed you are simply incorrect that we're talking about speeches and bill intros.

Maybe I'm naive, but my best judgement now is that I'm correct. I'm open to changing my mind as events unfold over time, but nothing you've presented convinces me. My response to the specifics you offer is that American politics and governance are dynamic, and the parts interact in ways that prevent the whole from moving very far from the center. For example, you cite two pandering bills overturned by the SC. When those bills passed most congresscritters knew very well that this would be the result, and that affected their voting behavior. They knew they could pander to the right without having to fear any backlash from the "soccer-dads" whose local porn shop might be closed. Imagine if the court was not one that would have reversed them. They might have passed a less sweeping bill. Or imagine that the thing actually went into effect. The right would be content, and get lazy. Joe Sixpack would grumble about cable porn getting weaker. Eventually (years, not decades) the dynamics of all this would empower porn lovers like us, and the pendulum would swing back. (I'm speaking in general terms about the kind of bills you cite, btw - I understand I have not characterized the specifics of those bills.)

Like I say, maybe I'm wrong in my understanding of this, or maybe something has changed. You are rubbing your hands together at the prospect of the Roxannes of the world - "South Park Conservatives" is a label I might accept, but haven't yet - all running over to vote for the collectivst-subjectivist party. What if we did? Well, there's that "dynamic nature of U.S. politics" again - we might shift the center of that party from its current location in all kinds of interesting dimensions: "Democratic leaders in the House today urged caucus members to vote 'yes' for the tax cut, citing poll numbers showing that they would lose the 'SP-con' vote if they fail to let the measure pass, which could cost their majority in November."

 

[Pure]

no, not hardly

RA You are rubbing your hands together at the prospect of the Roxannes of the world - "South Park Conservatives" is a label I might accept, but haven't yet - all running over to vote for the collectivst-subjectivist party.

P: no, as i already said, i expect the 'freethinking objectivists' and the 'secular right,' mostly, to go with the religious right, all the way. you'll bed with them, despite the fleas (some with the plague). objective, historical analysis dictates this prediction.

hatred of the alleged 'collectivist subjectivists' will override all else and dictate alliance with the 'witch doctors', church dogmatists (like the present and last pope), and enslavers of men's minds (theocrats like Bob Jones).

i have some hope that traditional conservatives like Colly, will find themselves suddenly 'liberal Republicans' and sometimes vote with liberals regarding such things as abortion access, due process, limitations of executive power (Specter); not having the 'objective' truth, but having a sense of history, such people may sometimes support humane and sensible alternatives.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

i have some hope that traditional conservatives like Colly, will find themselves suddenly 'liberal Republicans' and sometimes vote with liberals regarding such things as abortion access, due process, limitations of executive power (Specter); not having the 'objective' truth, but having a sense of history, such people may sometimes support humane and sensible alternatives.

You've changed the subject. We were talking about the dilemma a "cross-pressured" voter faces, not support or opposition of particular policies. What makes you think you and I are on different sides of any of the issues you cited?

"P: no, as i already said, i expect the 'freethinking objectivists' and the 'secular right,' mostly, to go with the religious right, all the way. you'll bed with them, despite the fleas (some with the plague). objective, historical analysis dictates this prediction."

Pure, is it not possible for you to ever set aside your sneering, insults, ridicule, dismissiveness, patronizing, sarcasm, and similar rhetorical devices, and just engage in reasoned and civil discourse? Tacking a little rose at the end doesn't undo the damage, either.




(Let's leave Colly out of it. I'm sure you will agree that we wouldn't want to establish a precedent that might allow less careful, less scrupulous sorts to use Colly's name in vain.)

 

[Pure]

"P: no, as i already said, i expect the 'freethinking objectivists' and the 'secular right,' mostly, to go with the religious right, all the way. you'll bed with them, despite the fleas (some with the plague). objective, historical analysis dictates this prediction."


Pure, is it not possible for you to ever set aside your sneering, insults, ridicule, dismissiveness, patronizing, sarcasm, and similar rhetorical devices,

six 'devices in one sentence. do i hold a record?

i thought i was just neutrally stating a fact: though you and I might agree that, yes, it would be nice if charges were laid rather than secretly detaining someone for a year, when it comes time to vote, and it's Hillary, a rightwing liberal ("subjectivist") agreeing about detainments and Santorum, a conservative (with 'objective values) disagreeing, you would vote Santorum, imho. Hatred of the left overrides all else. Oddly enough the Bushes, Gonzales', Santorum who favor unlimited Presidential powers [and spending]escape the "collectivist" label, the Clinton who favor more limited powers [and spending], do not.

It's not an insult, just a statement of fact and a prediction about the behavior of most of those on the 'secular right.' Nothing you've said about the mild effects of the religious right's agenda makes me think you'd be voting with the civil rights favoring minority (of the right).

 

[amicus]

Hmmmm and argh....quite a lot to digest in one sitting. Intimidating to most, I would think and even a little to me as the scope is no wide, the references professional and well seasoned and again, wide in scope.


Roxanne is too much the lady to accurately describe the philosophical, psychological and sociological corruption and evil expressed by Pure.

Pure as usual is adept at quick research and clever to always only criticize reason and rationality and human individual liberty and the democratic process and as sadly lacking, always, in offering any foundation for the hideous smoldering cauldron of evil he subtly offers.

One can forgive most who just dabble in these things, but the pure Pure, unadulterated evil of the collectivists, reeks of human degradation from the words and implicatons of Pure.

Roxanne and other gentle souls with a measure of naivete' and a hope for amelioration, logic and rationality, have not yet identified the true enemy of human kind.

Ayn Rand did, in one of her novels, when she described being locked in a cage with a slathering, mindless beast whose only imperative was to rend and destroy and consume you. No possibility of reason or rationality exists and yet you hope, somehow to convince the mindless beast not to take your life.

Such is the native of subjectivism qua the left, those who sacrifice the individual to the greater good. You cannot reason with them, you can neither contain nor control them, you must eliminate them, there is no middle ground.

Reading through the exchanges between Roxanne and Pure, Roxanne made a point that I feel should be repeated. I paraphrase, being to lazy to go back; it had to do with the young age of the species following the industrial revolution, i.e. the development of modern rational man.

We are indeed infants at this business of a rational life. Although there is a thread, go back beyond the Greeks, to the Egyptians, to the Chinese, for you history purists, there is a thin and tenous thread of rational thought from the time of Thales and Archimedes and Aristotle that was silenced for the thousand years of the dark ages and reborn again during the Renaissance.

A thin and narrow and very tenous thread of reason and logic, rationality and ethical and moral behavior; but it survived and exists nonetheless.

Those of Pure's ilk have been around forever and always in the majority and most always living off the flesh and blood of others.

Philosophically there is a small smidgen of difference between those who would control men through a religious ideology and those who would control through a political or economic ideology. Psychologically, there is no difference at all, they each and both wish to sacrifice the individual human being to either a supreme being or the good of the whole. They are mutually evil and totally destructive of individual human life.

Religion has been around forever, since the first man felt the compelling need to give thanks that the beast ate someone else and not him. If it meant painting his body or dancing around a fire or sacrificing young girls, as long as he believed it saved his ass, he was quite willing to do the necessary. Modern fundamalists of all ilks are quite the same, they promise salvation and an endless life.

The true Witch Doctors, like Pure, have always looked down there pointy noses at the pandering of such priests and convinced the masses that THEY knew the true answers to life forever...just follow them...they come in all colors and disguises, be it Ghengis Khan, or his little brother Kubla Kahn and all the barbarians that followed up through Hitler and Stalin.

A democratic or republic form of government has a long history of fits and starts and staggering progress by trial and error. It is still in its infancy and experimenting with the right of women to vote and other such amazing procedures.

And the mind of man, the science of man, those continuing attempts to understand who we are and the reality we occupy, goes forward, day to day will small measures of progress and many set backs.

And what does the future hold? If somehow, man can hold on to the few bastions of human liberty and defend the rational objective and absolute principles by which rational men pursue their lives, then the future looks bright ahead.

But it takes the likes of Roxanne and a pitiable small number of others, to confront the subjectivists and the witchdoctors and with stern and harsh words, call a spade a spade.

Thank you Roxanne...for the posts and for the information...as I read, I was wondering if they would mention Ayn Rand as they seemed to be regurgitating her philosophy without saying so.

Free men in free and open debate, deciding issues of mutual importance, seldom manage those affairs without being a little bit messy. I think one has to get ones hands a little soiled to really appreciate a democracy.

amicus....

 

[Oblimo]

The real alternative to secular subjectivism is not religious faith, but observation of the natural world--the world that can be seen and understood through reason.

I am amazed at many objectivists' muddling of basic philososophical concepts. To anyone considering objectivism, I always suggest reading David Hume's An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding for a philosophy of secular empiricism (as opposed to religious essentialism) that, unlike some objectivism, is not self-contradictory or naive about the scientific method.

 

[amicus]

Oblimo]I am amazed at many objectivists' muddling of basic philososophical concepts. To anyone considering objectivism, I always suggest reading David Hume's An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding for a philosophy of secular empiricism (as opposed to religious essentialism) that, unlike objectivism, is not self-contradictory or naive about the scientific method.

[/I]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I seriously doubt that you are 'amazed' as you put it.

Objectivism is neither self contradictory or naive. Don't know you from Adam, but your supercilious, mightier than thou, know it all attitude, can be wearing.

There are those of us who have read Hume and Bentham and many other philosophers, either as formal students or on a personal quest for understanding.

Rather then criticize and claim 'muddling' by objectivists, why not be a man of principle and tell us what the hell you think rather than remain the skeptical cynic, providing links or name dropping; Pure already occupies that space.


amicus...

 

[Pure]

flattering tribute

AmiOne can forgive most who just dabble in these things, but the pure Pure, unadulterated evil of the collectivists, reeks of human degradation from the words and implicatons of Pure.

Roxanne and other gentle souls with a measure of naivete' and a hope for amelioration, logic and rationality, have not yet identified the true enemy of human kind.

Ayn Rand did, in one of her novels, when she described being locked in a cage with a slathering, mindless beast whose only imperative was to rend and destroy and consume you. No possibility of reason or rationality exists and yet you hope, somehow to convince the mindless beast not to take your life.

Such is the native of subjectivism qua the left, those who sacrifice the individual to the greater good. You cannot reason with them, you can neither contain nor control them, you must eliminate them, there is no middle ground.

P: I thank you for the recognition, ami.

Because you [Ami:] 'cannot reason with them... you must eliminate them', it follows that it's appropriate, in the case of these people -- me and Osama-- to suspend due process. indefinite detention without charges, as per the Patriot act. or perhaps shot on sight. ("dead or alive" as the saying goes).

Isn't it odd how an alleged foe of 'collectivism' favors untrammeled exercize of executive power. (which means, despite any reservations, he'll be voting for the Republicans supporting the Patriot Act).

The alleged foe of Stalin says, A: "you must eliminate them [leftists]."

P: With a few fillips and perversions, a philosophy of 'reason' and 'objective truth' becomes a rationale for authoritarianism. It's a pattern going back to the French Revolution and the Russian.

The forthrightness of your expressions of hatred is appreciated, amicus.

 

[Oblimo]

Objectivism is neither self contradictory or naive.

As a reader of Hume, then, how do you reconcile objectivism's reliance on empiricism for rationality when Hume demonstrated that empiricism cannot be proven rationally?

why not be a man of principle and tell us what the hell you think

Well, I think that the subjective/objective dichotomy (not just as presented in objectivism but as typically defined in epistemology) is false, that I much prefer a model based on input, output, and points of view, and that the Mind/Body problem can be resolved by positing a duality between the two.

 

[amicus]

Well...shucks...I have posted sufficient threads on this site to usually do it right, but today for some reason, posts are appearing in the wrong place or not at all, this is the second attempt at this one:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Empiricism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

In philosophy generally, empiricism is a theory of knowledge emphasizing the role of experience. Experience may be understood to include all contents of consciousness or it may be restricted to the data of the senses only.[1]

In the philosophy of science, empiricism is a theory of knowledge which emphasizes those aspects of scientific knowledge that are closely related to experience, especially as formed through deliberate experimental arrangements.

It is a fundamental requirement of scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world, rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation. Hence, science is considered to be methodologically empirical in nature.

The term "empiricism" has a dual etymology. It comes from the Greek word εμπειρισμός, the Latin translation of which is experientia, from which we derive the word experience. It also derives from a more specific classical Greek and Roman usage of empiric, referring to a physician whose skill derives from practical experience as opposed to instruction in theory.[2]


~~~~~~~~~~

British empiricism

Earlier concepts of the existence of "innate ideas" were the subject of debate between the Continental rationalists and the British empiricists in the 17th Century through the late 18th Century. John Locke, George Berkeley, and David Hume were the primary exponents of empiricism.

Responding to the continental "rationalism" most prominently defended by René Descartes (a type of philosophical approach which should not be confused with rationalism generally), John Locke (1632-1704), writing in the late 17th century, in his An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1689) proposed a new, and ultimately very influential view wherein the only knowledge humans can have is a posteriori, i.e., based upon experience. Locke is famously attributed with holding the proposition that the human mind is a tabula rasa, a "blank tablet," in Locke's words "white paper," on which is written the experiences derived from sense impressions as a person's life proceeds. There are two sources of our ideas: sensation and reflection. In both cases, a distinction is made between simple and complex ideas. The former are unanalysable, and are broken down into primary and secondary qualities. Complex ideas are those which combine simple ones and are divided into substances, modes and relations. According to Locke, our knowledge of things is a perception of ideas that are in accordance or discordance with each other, which is very different from the quest for certainty of Descartes.


Bishop George Berkeley

A generation later, the Irish Bishop George Berkeley (1685-1753) determined that Locke's view immediately opened a door that would lead to eventual atheism. In response to Locke, he put forth in his Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge (1710) a different, very extreme form of empiricism in which things only exist either as a result of their being perceived, or by virtue of the fact that they are an entity doing the perceiving. (For Berkeley, God fills in for humans by doing the perceiving whenever humans are not around to do it). In his text Alciphron, Berkeley maintained that any order humans may see in nature is the language or handwriting of God. (Thornton, 1987) Berkeley's approach to empiricism would later come to be called subjective idealism.[14][15]

The Scottish philosopher David Hume (1711-1776) added to the empiricist viewpoint an extreme skepticism that he brought to bear against the accumulated arguments and counterarguments of Descartes, Locke and Berkeley, among others. Hume argued in keeping with the empiricist view that all knowledge derives from sense experience. In particular, he divided all of human knowledge into two categories: relations of ideas and matters of fact. Mathematical and logical propositions (e.g. "that the square of the hypotenuse is equal to the square of the two sides") are examples of the first, while propositions involving some contingent observation of the world (e.g. "the sun will rise tomorrow") are examples of the second. All of man's "ideas", in turn , are derived from his "impressions". For Hume, an "impression" corresponds roughly with what we call a sensation. To remember or to imagine such impressions is to have an "idea". Ideas are therefore the faint copies of sensations.[16]


David Hume's empiricism led to numerous philosophical schools
Via his skeptical arguments (which became famous for the tenacity of their logic) he maintained that all knowledge, even the most basic beliefs about the natural world, cannot be conclusively established by reason. Rather, he maintained, our beliefs are more a result of accumulated habits, developed in response to accumulated sense experiences. Among his many arguments Hume also added another important slant to the debate about scientific method — that of the problem of induction. Hume argued that it requires inductive reasoning to arrive at the premises for the principle of inductive reasoning, and therefore the justification for inductive reasoning is a circular argument.[16] Among Hume's conclusions regarding the problem of induction is that there is no certainty that the future will resemble the past. Thus, as a simple instance posed by Hume, we cannot know with certainty by inductive reasoning that the sun will continue to rise in the East, but instead come to expect it to do so because it has repeatedly done so in the past.[16]

Hume concluded that such things as belief in an external world and belief in the existence of the self were not rationally justifiable. According to Hume these beliefs were to be accepted nonetheless because of their profound basis in instinct and custom. Hume's lasting legacy, however, was the doubt that his skeptical arguments cast on the legitimacy of inductive reasoning, allowing many skeptics who followed to cast similar doubt.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

(search: mind/body Dichotomy)

Objectivist metaphysics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This article is about Ayn Rand's Objectivist philosophy. For articles about the philosophical perspective in general, see instead Objectivism (metaphysics).

This article is part of the
Objectivism series
Objectivism
Important groups Objectivist movement
Ayn Rand Institute
Nathaniel Branden Institute
The Atlas Society

Important figures
Ayn Rand
Nathaniel Branden
Alan Greenspan
Leonard Peikoff
Harry Binswanger
Peter Schwartz
Yaron Brook
David Kelley
George Reisman
Special topics
Neo-Objectivism Libertarianism
Homosexuality
This box: view • talk • edit

All of Objectivism rests on Objectivist metaphysics and Objectivist epistemology: the study of what is and how we know it. The key tenets of the Objectivist metaphysics are (1) the Primacy of Existence, (2) the Law of Identity ("A is A"), and (3) the Axiom of Consciousness. In addition, (4) the Law of Causality is a corollary of the Law of Identity. The Primacy of Existence states that reality (the universe, that which is) exists independently of human consciousness. The Law of Identity states that anything that exists is qualitatively determinate, that is, has a fixed, finite nature. The Axiom of Consciousness is the proposition that consciousness is irreducible. The Law of Causality states that things act in accordance with their natures. These propositions are all held in Objectivism to be axiomatic. According to Objectivism, the proof of a proposition's being axiomatic is that it is both (a) self-evident and (b) cannot coherently be denied, because any argument against the proposition would have to suppose its truth.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~

(Random House Unabridged)

“…1. Empirical method or practice. 2. Philos, the doctrine that all knowledge is derived from experience. 3. Undue reliance upon experience, as in medicine; quackery. 4. An empirical conclusion [ empiric + -ism]”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The formal study of philosophy is not for the faint of heart, even for the informal student, it requires a great deal of focus, dedication and even patience as one struggles through the original writings and then the biographies and then the opponents and critics and then to absorb the passage of time.

The ‘duality’, the so called mind/body dichotomy, occupied philosophers for many, many decades, and as you can read above, still troubles many a mind with a philosophical bent.

For many centuries, the finest minds in science worked their fingers to the bone in a field called Alchemy, wherein they struggled to transmute base metals into precious ones.

We know now of their basic errors and assumptions, but then, like now, a vast amount of knowledge was required to even begin the process of learning about the nature of metals and chemistry.

Quite the same held true with religion and then philosophy, as men struggled to comprehend the Universe and the human mind.

There is seldom, in any field, a ‘light bulb turning on in the brain’ sort of example to clarify sticky issues, especially in philosophy, qua metaphysics and epistemology. However, whilst sitting on the back deck, inhaling a fine Virginia tobacco and some not so fine coffee, I felt the warmth of the sun beating down on my face.

Science figured it out and one can understand the ‘physics’ of a nuclear reaction on the sun, the creation of Ultra Violet rays and a journey of over 98 million miles that occurred so that I could ‘feel’ that warmth on the surface of my skin. It is a little more a stretch to encompass that this event took only a short amount of time at the speed of light to transit the vast distance from sun to earth, through the atmosphere to the surface of our little blue ball in space.

The operative words here are: “I felt.”

The duality of the mind/body dichotomy, that ‘feelings’ and ‘thoughts’, ideas derive from different sources, some even maintain that one cannot ever ‘know’ either feelings or ideas, that the body, our senses, are beyond comprehension and possessed of no ‘empirical’ evidence that can be communicated. Quite the same holds true with abstract ideas; there are those philosophers who held that the human species is not capable of knowledge and cannot comprehend the workings of the mind or the body, thoughts and/or sensations.

Now you can sit and bask in the same sunlight as anyone else and never give a thought to the feeling of warmth on your skin. You can accept god or the gods without question, you can go through your entire life and never question the nature of love and hate or values. No one will criticize you for just having ‘faith’ in any particular mantra of acceptance.

Well this has wandered on long enough. Suffice it to say that the pursuit of human knowledge has never been and never will be an easy path. Rather always one filled with pitfalls and blind alleys and contradictions that need be resolved.

Even the late Ayn Rand, who is considered a ‘popular’ philosopher and not to be taken seriously by the snobbish effete elite and sophisticated moral relativists, can be a chore to digest, e.g., her partial article from wikipedia pasted above.

Enough for this morning…off to putter amongst the hens & chicks.

Toodles….

Amicus…