Okierredust and Paleocons

[Fade the Butcher]

I browsed Petr's link and come across this post by Okierreddust.

And grounded in no logical or ethical soil, we can see how transient their loyalties can be. One suspects that adherents of their positions would drop their alliances with the Anerican old right and and traditional paleoconservatives in a heartbeat.Speaking of transient loyalties, does anyone remember Pat Buchanan's glowing endorsement of DUBYA before the 2004 election in his book Where the Right Went Wrong? Does anyone remember his cry for the palecons to "return home" to the GOP and lock hands with the neoconservatives in order to prevent, OMG, John Kerry from being elected? I do. What about this little gem from Thomas Fleming; champion of "traditional American values"?

http://www.vdare.com/letters/tl_120201.htmJust like their adherents over here on these boards - the Phoran crowd - seem to do. Fade seems to capture their own personal flakiness and rootlessness perfectly - which is why that is wher they all seem to find their proper home, in spite of its outrageous defects. I hate to give Linder credit for anything, but he is right in his observation that paleoconservatism and cowardice are synonyms. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. The paleocons rant and rave about the 'War Party' for years and then go out and vote for it, like Walter Yannis, on election day. Four decades of 'conservatism' have brought nothing but retreat on all fronts. Paleoconservatism itself is an oxymoron. There was no such thing as paleoconservatism until the 1980s, when it was formed in reaction to neoconservatism. The two groups had previously been allies during the Cold War. So much for the 'Old Right'. Few Americans even identified themselves as 'conservatives' prior to the 1960s. Fewer still, thankfully, call themselves paleocons these days.

[Sinclair]

"Just like their adherents over here on these boards - the Phoran crowd - seem to do. Fade seems to capture their own personal flakiness and rootlessness perfectly - which is why that is wher they all seem to find their proper home, in spite of its outrageous defects."

Can somebody tell me what this means? Or is it one of those fun collections of phrases that are insulting, yet meaningless?

[Felix the Cat]

Fade, as someone who's been with the phora only a few months - why do those guys over at OD hate this place so much?

[Intrepid]

Fade, as someone who's been with the phora only a few months - why do those guys over at OD hate this place so much?

I think it stems more from Fade's ideological schizophrenia. In essence, this particular rambling tirade notwithstanding, he provides the Okies and il ragnos an ample target. I've never sensed an overwhelming disdain for the phora at OD. This place simply attracts younger folks with the philosophical and political bent being much more, to be kind, broad. OD's members are more uniform in thought, on the whole.

[Fade the Butcher]

Fade, as someone who's been with the phora only a few months - why do those guys over at OD hate this place so much?They have been obsessed with The Phora ever since a few of their more notable posters took refuge here a year or so ago. We had nothing to do with that.

[Petr]

They have been obsessed with The Phora ever since a few of their more notable posters took refuge here a year or so ago. We had nothing to do with that.

I don't think that other OD folks than Okie (and I) even really remember Phora's existence... :p


Petr

[Fade the Butcher]

I think it stems more from Fade's ideological schizophrenia. In essence, this particular rambling tirade notwithstanding, he provides the Okies and il ragnos an ample target. I haven't changed my views. I have spent several years searching for the most effective and efficient framework in which to rationalize and defend them. But I have always been a racialist and that has never changed. OTOH, several of the people responsible for spreading this canard a year ago have utterly transformed themselves since then. Eddy is the most notable example.

[jcs]

I have spent several years searching for the most effective and efficient framework in which to rationalize and defend them.
It would seem that this is all that (political) philosophy is used to do. No one wants to find truth, they want to make their opinions into truths.

[Petr]

No one wants to find truth, they want to make their opinions into truths.
I think this is a pretty deep viewpoint. Fallen men are indeed not interested in the truth for its own sake, even if they may flatter themselves that way.

Christianity does not flatter its recipients, telling them to rely on their inner strength or finding out their hidden divinity. Man can find the truth only outside of himself.

To become a true Christian, believer must first go through repentance, experiencing and accepting a very unpleasant truth, namely that he is in a fallen condition, that he has willfully lived in a state of brazen and stubborn rebellion against the lawful Creator and owner and this world, who could with perfect justification send him to an eternal damnation.

ONLY after having genuinely realized and swallowed this bitter pill can one begin to comprehend and appreciate the grace that Jesus Christ has shown towards mankind by voluntarily becoming the vicarious atonement for its sins.

Ever heard about presuppositional apologetics, jcs?

"The Futility of Non Christian Thought"

http://www.reformed.org/apologetics/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/apologetics/jones_martin.html


Petr

[jcs]

Ever heard about presuppositional apologetics, jcs?
I only read the first few paragraphs of the article. Only if I can be assured the problems I find with it are addressed, I'll read the rest (I spend too much time on the computer; I think it may have resulted in ADD :p ).

This Christian critique is radical in the sense that it challenges the very core of non-Christian pretensions and demonstrates that non-Christian thought, whether atheistic, agnostic, or religious, ultimately destroys rationality, science, ethics, and every other aspect of human experience.
I have no problem with pure absurdist nihilism. If all reason is destroyed by non-Christian thought--so be it! To turn to Christianity because we like to cling to reason seems cowardly.

Moreover, since a properly Biblical critique ought to attack the heart of non-Christian thinking, it may not assume the very standards it demonstrates as futile (a lá Aquinas, Swinburne, etc.) or capitulate to relativism or fideism (a lá Plantinga; Kierkegaard, etc.) or subserviently argue that the Christian worldview is merely "probable" (a lá Clark, Montgomery, Geisler, Moreland, etc.).
'Futile assumptions' obviously make an insufficient apology, and a probability argument would still amount to a clinging-to an idea with certainty even though one recognizes uncertainty, which from a probable world-view doesn't work. But what if all we are left with is relativism and faith? I kind of like Kierkegaard.
Anyway, why must such views be rejected? This sounds like philosophizing to support one's presuppositions...

A properly Biblical critique will not only demonstrate the utter futility of non-Christian thought, it will positively demonstrate that the Christian view of reality is intellectually inescapable. As Cornelius Van Til has argued, "Christianity can be shown to be, not `just as good as' or even `better than' the non-Christian position, but the only position that does not make nonsense of human experience."
And again, why embrace something just because an opposing position makes 'nonsense of human experience'?--that seems nonsensical! Is nonsense so unbearable?

Christianity does not flatter its recipients, telling them to rely on their inner strength or finding out their hidden divinity. Man can find the truth only outside of himself.
Well, firstly, yes, yes it does, in a sense at least.
And if man must 'find truth,' even if that truth is outside himself, it is man's inner strength that leads him toward this external truth.

To become a true Christian, believer must first go through repentance, experiencing and accepting a very unpleasant truth, namely that he is in a fallen condition, that he has willfully lived in a state of brazen and stubborn rebellion against the lawful Creator and owner and this world, who could with perfect justification send him to an eternal damnation.
On the one hand, there is something admirable in facing 'unpleasant truths,' but on the other, this is basically a myth of negativity. I'm of the opinion that one should confront oneself, not some myth that says, "Man, thou art shit."
And this is probably the worst thing one could teach the masses, who are unable to grasp such truths.
Millenia of self-mortification--thanks, Jesus. :p

ONLY after having genuinely realized and swallowed this bitter pill can one begin to comprehend and appreciate the grace that Jesus Christ has shown towards mankind by voluntarily becoming the vicarious atonement for its sins.
Promises of hope to not help one to 'go under.'

[Petr]

And again, why embrace something just because an opposing position makes 'nonsense of human experience'?--that seems nonsensical! Is nonsense so unbearable?
The point is that it is a self-refuting idea. If all human experience were indeed "nonsense," you wouldn't even be bothering to write those words. Your actions belie your confession.

If "all that is, is right," then why are we even capable of thinking that things could or should be different or better than they are now?

Even nihilists instinctively know that this world is not meaningless - that is why they are constantly and nervously denying it. They are effectively telling to the moral law that God has implanted to our soul: "la-la-la, I can't hear you."

You yourself declared that you'd be willing to abandon and destroy reason just to avoid submitting to the will of one true God:

"If all reason is destroyed by non-Christian thought--so be it! To turn to Christianity because we like to cling to reason seems cowardly."


One way of acknowledging the existence of moral law is to get perverse pleasure from defying and breaking it - have you ever heard about E. Michael Jones and his theory of suppressed morality?

"How's this for a Grand Unified Theory of horror: All horror monsters (including aliens, vampires, plagues, and slashers) are the personification of the guilty conscience that punishes unrepentant sinners (especially those who've transgressed God's sexual code). The Monster is Remorse, which author E. Michael Jones defines as regret without repentance.

...

"Wood believes horror monsters are the personification of suppressed sexual desires. Jones believes horror monsters are the personification of suppressed sexual morality."

http://www.communistvampires.com/horror/Monsters%20From%20the%20Id.htm


God has planted "eternity to our hearts" (Ecclesiastes 3:11). There is no point in trying to explain it away. Nihilists are actually basking in delusional Pharisaical pride by thinking that they are somehow immune to this human condition.


Petr

[Fade the Butcher]

It would seem that this is all that (political) philosophy is used to do. No one wants to find truth, they want to make their opinions into truths.I am not a nihilist.

[Fade the Butcher]

The point is that it is a self-refuting idea. ^^ for that reason.

[jcs]

If all human experience were indeed "nonsense," you wouldn't even be bothering to write those words. Your actions belie your confession.
Or I may write my words because my whims dictate I do so for the time being. You don't make much sense here.

If "all that is, is right," then why are we even capable of thinking that things could or should be different or better than they are now?
Because we're delusional. Is that hard to admit?

Even nihilists instinctively know that this world is not meaningless - that is why they are constantly and nervously denying it. They are effectively telling to the moral law that God has implanted to our soul: "la-la-la, I can't hear you."
Can a meaningless world still be affirmed? Could I deny my delusions while embracing them?

They are effectively telling to the moral law that God has implanted to our soul: "la-la-la, I can't hear you."
Psychology demonstrates that some people legitimately lack a conscience. I guess God didn't love me enough to give me morals. :p

You yourself declared that you'd be willing to abandon and destroy reason just to avoid submitting to the will of one true God
Incorrect. I was criticizing a retreat to the comforting idea of God instead of confronting an absence of reason. Conceivably, one could retreat from God into absurdism, and many probably do, but that isn't what I was addressing. You seem to imply that any embrace of the God-concept is wholly acceptable, while any turning-from it is dreadful. Contrarily, I say, any embrace of a comfort is heresy, and those who confront that which their souls find most difficult to bear should be exhalted.

One way of acknowledging the existence of moral law is to get perverse pleasure from defying and breaking it - have you ever heard about E. Michael Jones and his theory of suppressed morality?
An interesting thesis, and if we combine it with a universal 'ought,' it becomes more interesting: if those who shun and fear monsters out of bad conscience want to grow, they should face their fears rather than run. So, too, should Christians perhaps face their demons rather than cower behind a God whom they beg to lead them away from temptation. I say, be tempted! Face your temptations! Perhaps you will learn something.
(Eckhart himself said that he who is most tempted, yet abstains from his temptations, is closer to God than those who do not feel or completely avoid their temptations)

How's this for a Grand Unified Theory of horror: All horror monsters (including aliens, vampires, plagues, and slashers) are the personification of the guilty conscience that punishes unrepentant sinners (especially those who've transgressed God's sexual code). The Monster is Remorse, which author E. Michael Jones defines as regret without repentance.
'A bad conscience is the consequence of one's actions not being in accord with one's character.' (to half-quote Nietzsche)
Fortunately, I don't think I've ever felt anything resembling remorse. If I had to guess, I'd say demons and such represent Christian remorse--they regret their choice in faith which scolds them for their actions. What is it you said about forbidden fruits?

God has planted "eternity to our hearts" (Ecclesiastes 3:11). There is no point in trying to explain it away.
I disagree with your moralizing interpretation. This inner eternity, especially considering the heart symbolism, probably refers to something without a moral message. Again, I'll mention Eckhart...
You might want to look into Hindu heart-symbolism as well.

Nihilists are actually basking in delusional Pharisaical pride by thinking that they are somehow immune to this human condition.
Some nihilists find it quite difficult to tell themselves that there is no right or wrong. Is that pride or despair?
You cannot quantify 'nihilists' as some universal without running into problems here.

I am not a nihilist.
Good for you. Doesn't really do away with the problem, though, unless you mean to imply that you were somehow from the inception of your life absolutely right in your views. ...and that seems implicitly nihilistic, no?

^^ for that reason.
it's not absolutely self-refuting; one can still affirm that which has no logical grounding--you already do so, but your tool of affirmation is some contrivancy of reason. That is to say, you have said that you have held your own views, which you seemingly embrace as inherently true, while searching for 'effective'' rationalizations, your means of affirmation. What is this reason, but a form of embrace of the absurd?--but it is an affirmation which avoids the reality of these views, which brings comfort with its assurances of truth.
why can you not endure self-refutation?

[albion]

Hail Petr, full of space
The Word is with thee;
Blessed art thou amongst posters
And blessed is the fruit of thy loom, exegesis.
Holy D-FENS, Pius and Stan,
Pray for us Phorans and
Bless us Nihilists in the hour of our postings.

In the name of the Fader, the Petr,
and the Holy Geist.

Librium, Valium, ad hominem

____________________ albion
"basking in delusional Pharisaical pride"

[Billy Score]

Hail Petr, full of space
The Word is with thee;
Blessed art thou amongst posters
And blessed is the fruit of thy loom, exegesis.
Holy D-FENS, Pius and Stan,
Pray for us Phorans and
Bless us Nihilists in the hour of our postings.

In the name of the Fader, the Petr,
and the Holy Geist.

Librium, Valium, ad hominem

____________________ albion
"basking in delusional Pharisaical pride"

hehehe you should have gone for a Nicene Creed instead of a hail mary.

[Petr]

Or I may write my words because my whims dictate I do so for the time being. You don't make much sense here.
You don't get it. If you would really truly believe that everything in "nonsense", or illusion, maya as Hindus put it, you wouldn't be even reaching for your keyboard, not being sure whether it exists or not.

American philosopher Charles Pierce wrote that in their everyday life, even the most dogmatical skeptics behave very credulously, like assuming that if you exit your room through window instead of door, you will fall down. Our instincts take over and the brain-ghost of skepticism vanishes.

Ancient Greeks already liked to make joking anecdotes about "consistent skeptics" in this manner:

"And his life corresponded to his principles; for he never shunned anything, and never guarded against anything; encountering everything, even waggons for instance, and precipices, and dogs, and everything of that sort; committing nothing whatever to his senses. So that he used to be saved, as Antigonus the Carystian tells us, by his friends who accompanied him."

http://classicpersuasion.org/pw/diogenes/dlpyrrho.htm


Because we're delusional. Is that hard to admit?
A non-answer, and also a mere personal opinion. That "delusion" about this world being somehow abnormal, somehow being not-good exists nevertheless, and you cannot explain it. Animals are incapable of idealism, which is a yearning to somehow make this world a better place or exchange it for some better world.


Can a meaningless world still be affirmed? Could I deny my delusions while embracing them?
What are you talking about?


Psychology demonstrates that some people legitimately lack a conscience.
Care to explain how?


Incorrect. I was criticizing a retreat to the comforting idea of God instead of confronting an absence of reason. Conceivably, one could retreat from God into absurdism, and many probably do, but that isn't what I was addressing. You seem to imply that any embrace of the God-concept is wholly acceptable, while any turning-from it is dreadful. Contrarily, I say, any embrace of a comfort is heresy, and those who confront that which their souls find most difficult to bear should be exhalted.
You are not being consistent enough with your skepticism and relativism. Just why exactly is (for the sake of argument) a courageous solution preferable to a cowardly one? :p

Truly, as G.K. Chesterton said, a proper method of dealing with doubt is not telling people to quit doubting, but rather tell them start doubting more and more consistently until they finally begin to have doubts about their own doubt.


Fortunately, I don't think I've ever felt anything resembling remorse.
Frankly I don't believe you, you are merely flattering yourself. Even the simple feeling of regret is unique to humans. Have you ever spoken to someone in the manner that you even slightly regretted later, for whatever reason? I'm sure you have.


I disagree with your moralizing interpretation. This inner eternity, especially considering the heart symbolism, probably refers to something without a moral message. Again, I'll mention Eckhart...
You might want to look into Hindu heart-symbolism as well.
Disagree with my interpretation all you like, but apparently even you cannot deny its existence. You instinctly feel that you were made for something bigger than this life.


Some nihilists find it quite difficult to tell themselves that there is no right or wrong. Is that pride or despair?
Irrelevant. The very fact that such question can even be asked (whether good or evil really exists) proves its existence. If all that is would indeed be right, then there would be no need to make arguments for it. Do you see animals engaging in discussions about right and wrong? Our ancestors have eaten from the Tree of Knowledge.


Petr

[Fade the Butcher]

Good for you. Doesn't really do away with the problem, though, unless you mean to imply that you were somehow from the inception of your life absolutely right in your views. ...and that seems implicitly nihilistic, no?What problem is this?it's not absolutely self-refuting; It is self-refuting. There are no absolute truths (although this is an assertion of absolute truth). Nihilistic criticism has no teeth.one can still affirm that which has no logical groundingi.e., irrationality.you already do so, but your tool of affirmation is some contrivancy of reason. There are homosexual elves on Pluto sitting on top of a volcano eating bananas. Uga buga uga buga.That is to say, you have said that you have held your own views, which you seemingly embrace as inherently true, while searching for 'effective'' rationalizations, your means of affirmation.That is, I have systematically worked to eliminate inconsistency within my own views and to ground them in first principles and sense evidence. Why have I done this? Why was this ever necessary? Because I am not a nihilist.What is this reason, but a form of embrace of the absurd?Nihilism is an embrace of the absurd. It validates any absurd assertion, no matter how ridiculous. It provides no grounds for discriminating amongst any point of view, even its own. It is the ultimate form of egalitarianism, as any view becomes just as good as any other.--but it is an affirmation which avoids the reality of these views, which brings comfort with its assurances of truth.What is the reality of these views?why can you not endure self-refutation?Nihilism is self-refuting and properly dismissed as such.

[jcs]

Petr:
You don't get it. If you would really truly believe that everything in "nonsense", or illusion, maya as Hindus put it, you wouldn't be even reaching for your keyboard, not being sure whether it exists or not.
I ask again: Can a meaningless world still be affirmed? Could I deny my delusions while embracing them?
Think about it: would you reach out for your keyboard to respond to a post without proving its existence logically? Were you hallucinating would you operate as if your hallucinations were true? Were you in a desert, would you wander toward a percieved oasis, knowing full well that it is likely to be a mirage? I don't exist save as an imaginative figment. But this imaginative figment, this constant flux of a notion, does exist, and operates according to the imaginative nature of its being.
Hesse said something interesting toward the end of his Siddhartha. To paraphrase: teachers must invent dualities so as to teach. Gotoma Buddha created the samsara/nirvana duality. But the teaching of nirvana is: nirvana and samsara are the same thing. Siddhartha then said to Govinda, even if he, Siddhartha, were but a creature trapped in maya, he would be a creature within maya--and would behave according to this illusory world, this artwork of God. This is the secret of detachment, this is how one becomes like God--and 'unmoved mover.'
The same idea about duality could perhaps be ascertained from the separation of water and sky in the Judeo-Christian mythos. We separate water and sky, create a duality and distinction out of the unity of God/One, when we imagine the world around us as distinct.
I posted the following on talk philosophy:
"The Word is God, separator of water and sky, the One-who-became-two. The word and idea are akin to one another, sources of all multiplicity. Reality would be no paradox for man without his thought-constructs."

(I am, of course, using these words mostly metaphorically [or allegorically, if you prefer]; I am not concerned with Bible-study and anything dealing with hermeneutics. I wonder if understanding will be improved or inhibited by my usage of Christian language).

I wonder if you realize that many of those Hindu mystics speaking of 'maya' tell of the same fundamental truth, that of the illusion of multiplicity and truth of oneness, as is told by Neoplatonists, the Pseudo-Dionysius and Eckhart included. This isn't a purely Hindu conception that you can cast aside as foreign or heritical.

Our instincts take over and the brain-ghost of skepticism vanishes.
Our instincts also take over when we use our intellect rather than reason and think with our souls rather than contemplate these 'spooks,' these ideas.
And, contrary to what you seem to believe, I'm not really a skeptic. Skeptics are crippled by doubt, or more often hide behind doubt. Once again: Can a meaningless world still be affirmed? Could I deny my delusions while embracing them?
Reality has no grounding, and yet my thought-constructs, which I recognize as unreal, can be affirmed.
I also ask: have you ever viewed a sunset? A great work of art or listened to a wonderful piece of music? Ever felt awesomely inspired?--ever felt at one with the world?
Have you ever felt God?
In these moments, there is no multiplicity, no distinction between myself and the world around me. I project myself upon everything; I bring everything within me. Said in another thread: God is all. The height of negative theology: there is no God.
How can this be? Simply: reality lacks grounding, and thus all is one save when I create distinctions with this joke called thought; God is the nothing that 'grounds' reality.

That "delusion" about this world being somehow abnormal, somehow being not-good exists nevertheless, and you cannot explain it. Animals are incapable of idealism, which is a yearning to somehow make this world a better place or exchange it for some better world.
You define non-good from with your own thought-constructs, and thus percieve non-good within the world. I can conceive of non-good with thought, but know that non-good has no real existence anywhere save the only place anything can 'exist'--one's mind. So of course I cannot explain it--it is non-real!
A paradox for you: reality, too, is non-real.

Care to explain how?
Anti-social personality 'disorder.'

You are not being consistent enough with your skepticism and relativism. Just why exactly is (for the sake of argument) a courageous solution preferable to a cowardly one?
Do you find yourself clever? I've already asked, and ask again: Can a meaningless world still be affirmed? Could I deny my delusions while embracing them?
I like the idea of courage. Courage does not exist. But I like the idea.

a proper method of dealing with doubt is not telling people to quit doubting, but rather tell them start doubting more and more consistently until they finally begin to have doubts about their own doubt.
So: never address doubt, but cowardly refrain from confronting it directly? Sounds Jewish. :p

Frankly I don't believe you, you are merely flattering yourself. Even the simple feeling of regret is unique to humans. Have you ever spoken to someone in the manner that you even slightly regretted later, for whatever reason? I'm sure you have.
Antisocial personality 'disorder.'
I do not commit errors so great that they would cause regret. If I make a mistake somewhere, I laugh to myself and move on. Why dwell? Why lament happenings that amount to nothing? Whence comes this feeling of importance for happenings?

You instinctly feel that you were made for something bigger than this life.
You cannot deny the existence of that great nothingness within you, instinctively feeling that you are that great nothing and trying to hide from it with your Christianity.
Both of us can play stupid games such as this. Neither of us could really prove what the other feels, though, now could we? Unless, of course, you try to establish some universal--but how would you demonstrate it to be true?
I have another paradox for you: this dimunitive nothing is greater than this life, which is greater than all things, smaller than no-thing.

The very fact that such question can even be asked (whether good or evil really exists) proves its existence.
To quote Fade: "There are homosexual elves on Pluto sitting on top of a volcano eating bananas. Uga buga uga buga." I question the existence of these Plutonian elven fags. Obviously this means that they exist.
--I am serious, they do exist!--but only as much as anything can exist. If I create an idea of morality or banana-eating elves, such things exist!
But they have no grounding.

If all that is would indeed be right, then there would be no need to make arguments for it. Do you see animals engaging in discussions about right and wrong? Our ancestors have eaten from the Tree of Knowledge.
We animals engage in such discussions all the time.

Fade:
What problem is this?
From my view: nothing. From a non-'absurdist' stance: everything. Were you born with truth? What is the basis of your views? How could you have simply possessed such correct views from your entrance into this world?

It is self-refuting. There are no absolute truths (although this is an assertion of absolute truth). Nihilistic criticism has no teeth.
I expected something more here.
Rather than simply "there are no absolute truths," let's try: "there is no truth."
(it is my hope that you resorted to a conventional and, truth be told, idiotic half-thought of a response because my usage of the word 'absolute' was perceived to be itself conventional and idiotic).
What is the meaning of this absence of truth?--that there is no grounding to reality.
The imbecile objects: "But isn't that a truth?"
My dear Fade, contemplate the idea a little more! It is another lovely paradox...
(or perhaps we should move beyond 'contemplation'?)

Nihilism is an embrace of the absurd
Says the nihilist. ;)

It validates any absurd assertion, no matter how ridiculous. It provides no grounds for discriminating amongst any point of view, even its own.
See what I wrote about ideas and words, imaginative figments. Nihilism validates as it invalidates.

It is the ultimate form of egalitarianism, as any view becomes just as good as any other.
Or all views become invalid, and one is left embracing their own ideas despite the unreality of such things. Untruth is truth; but you seem to prefer to play absolutist and embrace 'truths' to which you contrast 'untruths.'

What is the reality of these views?
That such views are un-real.

Nihilism is self-refuting and properly dismissed as such.
Yes/no it is/n't. ;)

[Fade the Butcher]

From my view: nothing. From a non-'absurdist' stance: everything.I fail to see this problem you are referring to.Were you born with truth? Obviously not.What is the basis of your views?My own knowledge and personal experience.How could you have simply possessed such correct views from your entrance into this world?This is a straw man. I said I haven't changed my views, that is, I have always been a racialist in my politics.Says the nihilist.I am not a nihilist. I rejected that self-refuting point of view years ago. I didn't find nihilism to be an adequate standpoint from which to engage in large-scale social criticism either. So I began to search for other alternatives.I expected something more here. (it is my hope that you resorted to a conventional and, truth be told, idiotic half-thought of a response because my usage of the word 'absolute' was perceived to be itself conventional and idiotic).There is nothing more to be said about the subject. The nihilist implicitly assumes precisely what he denies and refutes himself in the process. Rather than simply "there are no absolute truths," let's try: "there is no truth."Which is an assertion of truth. The easiest way to defeat an opponent is to let your opponent defeat himself.What is the meaning of this absence of truth?--that there is no grounding to reality.The self evident doesn't require grounding, as it is already presupposed, even in attacks on it.The imbecile objects: "But isn't that a truth?"Says imbecile: We know that we know nothing. It is true that truth doesn't exist. Nothing exists, that is, except me saying nothing exists.My dear Fade, contemplate the idea a little more! It is another lovely paradox...(or perhaps we should move beyond 'contemplation'?)I am assuming here the idea you are referring to is error.See what I wrote about ideas and words, imaginative figments. Nihilism validates as it invalidates.Is 50 Cent a brilliant composer?Or all views become invalid, and one is left embracing their own ideas despite the unreality of such things. Which makes no sense. Viewpoints cannot be classified as invalid without reference to those that are valid. Untruth is truthIn other words, true is false. 1 + 1 = 3.but you seem to prefer to play absolutist and embrace 'truths' to which you contrast 'untruths.'Yes. I believe some propositions are true and others are false.That such views are un-real.Hold on. What is real?

[jcs]

I fail to see this problem you are referring to.
Intellectual pragmatism which disregards intellectual rigor. To illustrate (again):
"I am not a nihilist. I rejected that self-refuting point of view years ago. I didn't find nihilism to be an adequate standpoint from which to engage in large-scale social criticism either. So I began to search for other alternatives."
So it didn't suit your needs and you thus set out to rationalize it as untrue?

The nihilist implicitly assumes precisely what he denies and refutes himself in the process.
You are trapped in conceptual misunderstanding. Read what I wrote in the above post again.

Which is an assertion of truth. The easiest way to defeat an opponent is to let your opponent defeat himself.
You seem to find yourself terribly clever, but whence comes this clever-ness?--from your inability to understand what I wrote. I dealt with the truth issue. Re-read what I wrote in the above post

The self evident doesn't require grounding, as it is already presupposed, even in attacks on it.
The 'self-evident' is a thought-construct.

Says imbecile: We know that we know nothing. It is true that truth doesn't exist. Nothing exists, that is, except me saying nothing exists.
Says the imbecile: I fail to understand.
Well, I say, read it again.

I am assuming here the idea you are referring to is error.
You are not grasping what I wrote in the least.

Is 50 Cent a brilliant composer?
And due to this inability to grasp what I wrote, you are responding in the most peculiar of ways, criticizing what you seem to believe to be implications of what I wrote, when in fact what I wrote implies something altogether different.

Which makes no sense. Viewpoints cannot be classified as invalid without reference to those that are valid.
Precisely. Now, think it through (without defaulting back to silly absolutism)...

In other words, true is false. 1 + 1 = 3.
That 1+1=2 is a thought-construct, an abstraction, with no grounding in (un)reality. It is our idea of reality, a method we use to interpret our mental re-presentation of the world. 1s and 2s and 3s are not real--and yet more real than the real.

Yes. I believe some propositions are true and others are false.
Which is the greatest falsehood known to man...

Hold on. What is real?
My post here, and the post of yours to which I respond, are basically useless. You grasped very little of what I wrote. Try again, or ask for clarification where it may be necessary (rather than trying to refute the unrefutable).

[Petr]

(Snipping a whole lot of Oriental mystical blather)


I also ask: have you ever viewed a sunset? A great work of art or listened to a wonderful piece of music? Ever felt awesomely inspired?--ever felt at one with the world? Have you ever felt God? In these moments, there is no multiplicity, no distinction between myself and the world around me. I project myself upon everything; I bring everything within me.
I would consider the possibility that you are (in such states) under demonic possession. One converted Hindu Brahmin wrote that he had precisely these kind of experiences in trance, where he also met malevolent spirits.

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/hinduism.htm


Anti-social personality 'disorder.'
If Calvinists are correct about predestination, you also might be in the state of unfeeling reprobation, a vessel of wrath prepared for destruction. I truly hope it is not so.


Do you find yourself clever?
Frankly, yes. What's the point of false modesty? I must learn to use this gift in the best possible way for the greater glory of God and my fellow men.


I've already asked, and ask again: Can a meaningless world still be affirmed? Could I deny my delusions while embracing them?
I neither understand nor care what the heck you are talking about.


I like the idea of courage. Courage does not exist. But I like the idea.
Who cares what you like or not?


So: never address doubt, but cowardly refrain from confronting it directly? Sounds Jewish. :p
Silly you. Doubting more and more consistently until you finally find your doubts meaningless would be precisely confronting and dealing with your doubts. Of course, you probably think it is impossible to be both intellectually honest and Christian.

Besides, on what basis can you imply that there is something negative about Jewishness? Ethereal mystics like you should be above all such ethnic nonsense.


I do not commit errors so great that they would cause regret.
Says either a Pharisee who is truly blind to his own defects or a person with a really bad memory.


You cannot deny the existence of that great nothingness within you, instinctively feeling that you are that great nothing
Hey, speak for yourself, nothing-boy. My doubts, when I have had them, have actually been quite different.

You just keep assuming that we are basically the same, equal. We are not, for I have been made new by the Holy Spirit of God.


I question the existence of these Plutonian elven fags. Obviously this means that they exist.
Still not getting it. If this world were totally "normal", then the question of evil would not even ever arise. But it has.


We animals engage in such discussions all the time.
You are assuming something that you should be proving, namely that humans are nothing but animals.


Petr

[Fade the Butcher]

Intellectual pragmatism which disregards intellectual rigor. So it didn't suit your needs and you thus set out to rationalize it as untrue?Where is this intellectual pragmatism? I said above that I rejected nihilism because it was self-refuting. I also said that it doesn't provide a sufficient basis for criticizing other points of view.You are trapped in conceptual misunderstanding. Read what I wrote in the above post again.To be honest, I think you are the one who is trapped in the conceptual misunderstanding; in this case, a simple contradiction.You seem to find yourself terribly clever, but whence comes this clever-ness?I haven't claimed any originality in rejecting nihilism on such grounds. Most philosophers have dispensed with it for the same reason.from your inability to understand what I wrote. I dealt with the truth issue. Re-read what I wrote in the above postI have reread your post. You are still contradicting yourself. You want to say that truth doesn't exist and reality has no grounding. Yet you can't make the latter statement without claiming knowledge of truth. In any case, reality doesn't need to be grounded, as it is a primary fact of existence. It is implicit in all forms of knowledge.You are not grasping what I wrote in the least.Because it makes no sense. Which is the greatest falsehood known to man...We can know that the truth/falsehood distinction is false (contradiction #1), but we can't know anything (contradiction #2).Precisely. Now, think it through (without defaulting back to silly absolutism)...If you reject truth, then you can't say such and such is false, as there would be no distinction between the two. Yet this is precisely what you are doing.Says the imbecile: I fail to understand. Well, I say, read it again.There is nothing to understand, as you are asserting nonsense.
The 'self-evident' is a thought-construct.The self-evident is implicit in all facts and and all knowledge. To say: the 'self-evident' is a thought construct is to make a claim to truth.And due to this inability to grasp what I wrote, you are responding in the most peculiar of ways, criticizing what you seem to believe to be implications of what I wrote, when in fact what I wrote implies something altogether different.Charles: 50 Cent is a brilliant composer.
jcs: You are wrong.
Charles: How come? Truth doesn't exist. My opinion is just as good as your own.That 1+1=2 is a thought-construct, an abstraction, with no grounding in (un)reality.If you are trying to say that 1+1=2 isn't grounded in falsehood, then I agree.It is our idea of reality, a method we use to interpret our mental re-presentation of the world. 1s and 2s and 3s are not real--and yet more real than the real.Which, I take it, you do not believe is a true statement. If you don't even believe what you are saying is true, then I have nothing more to say.My post here, and the post of yours to which I respond, are basically useless. I disagree. The posts in this thread are quite useful. They illustrate quite well that nihilism makes no sense; that nihilists themselves cannot even take their own positions seriously.You grasped very little of what I wrote. Try again, or ask for clarification where it may be necessary (rather than trying to refute the unrefutable).There is nothing to grasp. You are babbling nonsense.

[jcs]

I would consider the possibility that you are (in such states) under demonic possession. One converted Hindu Brahmin wrote that he had precisely these kind of experiences in trance, where he also met malevolent spirits.
Well, if such states are not divine, I say, "Fuck God." I'd rather reign in Hell.

you also might be in the state of unfeeling reprobation, a vessel of wrath prepared for destruction
Cool.

Frankly, yes. What's the point of false modesty? I must learn to use this gift in the best possible way for the greater glory of God and my fellow men.
And you chastize mystics for their arrogance. :rofl:

I neither understand nor care what the heck you are talking about.
Perhaps you should.

Who cares what you like or not?
I always like it when someone asks why I think such-and-such, then tells me that they don't care about my answer. It illustrates a point: I like the ideals of courage because I affirm my own delusions. Courage, too, has no grounding.

Doubting more and more consistently until you finally find your doubts meaningless would be precisely confronting and dealing with your doubts.
You persistently confuse me with a skeptic.

Besides, on what basis can you imply that there is something negative about Jewishness? Ethereal mystics like you should be above all such ethnic nonsense.
You still fail to contemplate this thought: Can a meaningless world still be affirmed? Could I deny my delusions while embracing them?

Says either a Pharisee who is truly blind to his own defects or a person with a really bad memory.
Or someone who doesn't dwell on the past and consequently devalues it rather than feeling guilt. Or my reason could be, to repeat myself again: antisocial personality 'disorder.'

You just keep assuming that we are basically the same, equal. We are not, for I have been made new by the Holy Spirit of God.
More arrogance from someone who likes to chastize the arrogance of mystics.
I don't think you know God at all. Just like most Christians, with their comforting faith, don't really know God at all. You fail to recognize the stupidity of your delusions.

Still not getting it. If this world were totally "normal", then the question of evil would not even ever arise. But it has.
You don't get it: that does not logically follow. You are looking at causality incorrectly (as is to be expected from a teleologist). A consequent follows from an antecedent, thus if the condition is fulfilled in which the antecedent is true, the consequent is true; you are telling me that if a consequent is true, the antecedent follows--this is completely backward.

You are assuming something that you should be proving, namely that humans are nothing but animals.
We do fall in the broad category of animals, which is all I assumed. You're putting words in my mouth. You assume that we're not animals, which you'd need to prove ;)
(And I'm well-aware of the fact that you were originally using the word, 'animal' to refer to non-human animals; I was just screwing with you here. :p )

[jcs]

Where is this intellectual pragmatism?
You said that you found nihilism to be inadequate, and from the beginning basically stated that you use philosophy to validate your own truths, not to search for truth. Truth gauged by its worth--fine. But when you neglect to admit that your truths are only useful...

I said above that I rejected nihilism because it was self-refuting. I also said that it doesn't provide a sufficient basis for criticizing other points of view.
Given your gauging of truth, one wonders: did you find nihilism self-refuting because it didn't work well for your purposes?

To be honest, I think you are the one who is trapped in the conceptual misunderstanding; in this case, a simple contradiction.
All contradiction is a problem of our own misunderstanding. That is, the contradiction arises out of our words and conceptualizations; (un)reality knows no contradiction, but when we try to understand it, we default to either absolutism or paradox. The contradiction is one of thought-constructs.

If you don't even believe what you are saying is true
Precisely. Words and ideas can only hint at (un)reality. Being/Nothingness, nihilism and God, cannot be understood; one must feel God, become God.

There is nothing to grasp. You are babbling nonsense.
As if you aren't doing the same yourself!
This nonsense must be understood. I believe in you, Fade. I think you can reach an understanding. All you have to do is have faith. :p

[Intrepid]

I haven't changed my views. I have spent several years searching for the most effective and efficient framework in which to rationalize and defend them. But I have always been a racialist and that has never changed. OTOH, several of the people responsible for spreading this canard a year ago have utterly transformed themselves since then.

I never inferred your basic views on race have been dramatically altered. That said, to call those who have pointed out your mercurial swings of political thought, as "spreading a canard" is really beyond the pale. I don't really care, as you normally put up a sound debate, but found the irony of it entertaining. I just thought it was odd that you didn't simply state as such in the thread you made mention of. It was, actually, a very thought provoking thread. Instead, you make these odd jabs at Buchanan and the Old Right in the same, albeit in a coherent fashion, like Linder does. It simply struck me as being off on a wild tangent. That's all.

Eddy is the most notable example.

I'm with you here. She's uproariously funny, though not intended, I'd venture would be a safe wager.

[Petr]

As if you aren't doing the same yourself!

Indeed he isn't. We are not all alike, you see. Our opinions are not equal.


Petr

[jcs]

Indeed he isn't. We are not all alike, you see. Our opinions are not equal.
You continue to misunderstand.