09-18-2018, 05:59 AM
(This post was last modified: 09-18-2018, 06:28 AM by Bill the Piper.)
(09-17-2018, 04:09 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Skeptical of classical liberalism is good. It's really the economic neo-liberalism that deserves the most skepticism. A moderately left position would work well in a European or other non-American setting. In the USA, "freedom" has come to be used as a tempting, deceptive slogan for what is really meant: freedom for the bosses to do whatever they want at our expense. That means lower taxes, fewer regulations, dismantling social programs, etc. It has become the religion of the Right-wing, along with fundamentalist Christianity.
I don't believe there is such a thing as neo-liberalism. It was just classical liberalism in 1980s setting. Thatcher and Reagan are dead, and few people would like to see their policies back. So I'm not worrying about that. But today's "classical liberals" like Sargon of Akkad are more sinister, even if they don't have influence comparable to the 1980s market fundamentalists. Types like Sargon seem to operate with the same "mental map" the alt-right uses. They believe leftist elites are the greatest threats to freedom. Also, they appeal to the same demographic: socially awkward millennials whose worldview was shaped by video games and internet porn. Sargon, for example, called Weinstein's victims whores. I don't think Reagan or GW Bush would ever resort to that.
Quote:I don't see what is wrong with being a warrior for social justice. Social justice is a good thing, and political correctness is fine as long as it just means not offending people of color and such. Admittedly, people who are fanatics can be annoying, especially if they are stuck on one or two issues; we need to see that the interests of diverse races, genders cultures, sexual preferences AND the interests of non-rich white and other working people are the SAME interests; and as Obama said, just focusing on one group over another is not the way to win elections and serve the people. In that sense, identity politics is not wise. But people do need to stick up for how society identifies them, when that identity is used oppressively against them.
What I dislike about PC and SJWs is that they can recognize evil only when it's done by white men. For example, they defend Islam despite its violent nature. They claim that tribal societies lived in "peaceful anarchy", even if the reality was incessant tribal warfare. They also deny innate differences between men's and women's brains. To some extent, this is well-meant, because women were subjugated in traditional societies and this was rationalized by "natural law" (like in Thomistic Christianity, but also in Judaism, Islam, and many indigenous societies)
But progress can only be pursued by those who see the world as it is.
Quote:Drug dealing can be toxic to the extent that the drugs are toxic, but I don't see that pornography and prostitution, though they can be irritating, can really threaten civilization; they are the world's oldest profession, so they say. But there needs to be a culture of respect for real energy and fulfilling, creative work, I think; not just mere pleasure.
Because of Internet porn, many young men all over the world struggle with porn addiction and compulsive masturbation. They have problems to achieve erection during normal sex. I'm not a puritan, but Internet porn is a real problem:
https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/
Quote:To the extent that "neo-conservatism" was support for USA empire building, as for example in the invasion of Iraq, it was very toxic and deadly.
To the extent it was about ridding the world of monstrous criminals like Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, it was noble. Iraq was in a rather good state around 2010, until Obama pulled the troops out, which caused the rise of ISIS.
Quote:The New Age is a very valuable worldview. It has declined, unfortunately, largely because of determined propaganda and derision directed against it, and some commercialization of it; but I don't think the world can prosper and progress now without it. Those who took it on, won't forget it, although many millennials and Xers might. But it will be back, because it is our real destiny going forward, and it's worldview is largely correct and useful. The transhumanist views, on the other hand, cannot work unless they are balanced with the New Age views that understand spirituality, free from the outdated dogmas of the past, both scientific and religious. The consciousness revolution's revolution in consciousness WILL continue. And it has its place in science revolutions as well. Science itself has moved beyond materialism in many respects, and thus, to that extent, is itself "new age." But many boomers, millennials and Xers are blithely unaware of these trends today. As Trump might tweet, "sad"
I would say science and technology need philosophy above all. To the extent New Age philosophy was "cosmic humanism", it WAS a good thing, but I'm against its superstitious and anti-technology parts, as well as against hippies' sexual licentiousness.
My favourite philosopher is Missionary generation Briton, Olaf Stapledon, known as the author of "Last and First Men" and "Star Maker", considered by many as classics of science fiction. Stapledon believed that the goal of life is to advance in intelligence and creativity so that we could advance harmony and complexity in the universe. This is the cornerstone of philosophy called extropianism, invented by Max Moore in the 1980s (probably under the influence of Stapledon). Transhumanism is a logical result of it, since there are limitations of the natural human mind.
(Thank, Eric. You've made me write a description of my worldview)