rhetoric

In response to the current News post on Denton’s new book, Seversky raises the IS-OUGHT gap issue again in comment no. 2, casting it in terms of DERIVING ought from is. I think this is worth a discussion, but that would be off topic there. So, I responded at 3 and now headline for discussion: >> . . . Hume’s “surpriz’d” guillotine argument does establish that ought cannot be injected into the world — thus, any worldview aiming to be accurate to reality — at any level subsequent to world-root. We also face the dilemma that conscience is deeply embedded in our inner life, urging us to the right and the truth in ways that pervade all of mindedness. So Read More ›

In the past few weeks at UD, we have seen abundant indicators on how: a –> we are in a time of obvious, deeply polarised ideological confrontation in our civilisation [in material part, driven by cultural marxist agendas and stratagems], b –> we are forced to give unwelcome counsel in the face of an obvious march of folly, c –> in which march, lab coat clad evolutionary materialistic scientism rules the roost, d –> such that, logic/ rationality is at a steep discount (especially first principles of right reason), e –> through the dominance of evo mat scientism, inherent falsity and linked amorality have too often been built into yardsticks for truth and right, and f –> manifestly evident core Read More ›

Let’s see, courtesy comment 469 in the WJM subjectivism thread: >>It seems we need to address as MSET 0, that there are moral truths. In steps of thought: 1 –> Let’s call this proposition, M0. M0 = there is at least one moral truth. 2–> Understand, truths are assertions that accurately describe aspects of reality. As Ari put it, truth says of what is, that it is; and of what is not, that it is not. 3 –> Further understand, morality, of course deals with OUGHT, whether ought-to or ought-not. 4 –> Thus, understand that M0 means: a: there is at least one assertion (say, X)  b: that accurately describes an actual state of affairs that obtains c: on which Read More ›

As the WJM arguing thread continues, we can notice other concerns, here, extreme nominalism and its nihilistic consequences. Yes, nihilistic: might and manipulation make ‘right,’ ‘truth,’ ‘meaning,’ ‘law,’ and so forth. I responded to CF’s attempt to push principled objection to nihilistic, nominalistic, radically relativist, subjectivist homosexualisation of ‘marriage’ under false colour of law [cf Girgis et al here], with racism as follows, at 40: >>wrenching a term like marriage out of its natural context and imposing a distortion under false colour of law has not created a new form of marriage. It only reveals that those who do it are in the grips of a nominalism that cannot recognise the manifestly evident core principles of the moral laws of Read More ›

In a recent exchange with BA in the WJM arguing thread, CF inadvertently revealed that he too knows or should know and acknowledge, that there is an oughtness towards truth. This is not unexpected, given the core moral self evident truths. For instance, we can see the first cycle: >>1] The first self evident moral truth is that we are inescapably under the government of ought. (This is manifest in even an objector’s implication in the questions, challenges and arguments that s/he would advance, that we are in the wrong and there is something to be avoided about that. That is, even the objector inadvertently implies that we OUGHT to do, think, aim for and say the right. Not even Read More ›

In WJM’s still very active Subjectivism privilege thread — and in response to my citing Plato’s warning on radical relativist amorality, factionalism and nihilism in The Laws Bk X, CF has recently gloated (cf 417): “Frankly, I am glad that the type of prurient, judgemental morality that you worship [–> yes, we catch the implicit, Lewontin-style a priori,  self-referentially incoherent and amoral evo mat scientism based atheism and/or fellow traveller ideologies] is dying out.” This tellingly echoes a recent blog post by Harvard Law professor Victor Mark Tushnet** on the legal exploitation of claimed victory in the culture wars: >>The culture wars are over; they lost, we won. Remember, they [= conservatives] were the ones who characterized constitutional disputes as Read More ›

CF’s objection to “we are inescapably under the government of ought . . . ” in WJM’s subjectivism privilege thread is revealing and worth headlining, as is the onward exchange, as it shows what we are dealing with. Remember, this is a live example of a now common mindset: CF, 251: >>KairosFocus: “Here is what you have yet to cogently engage — and this is not personal disagreement it is a matter of warrant: 1] The first self evident moral truth is that we are inescapably under the government of ought. (This is manifest in even an objector’s implication in the questions, challenges and arguments that s/he would advance, that we are in the wrong and there is something to Read More ›

Overnight CF and Aleta threw down a gauntlet in WJM’s thread on subjectivism: CF, 148 : >>KairosFocus: “CF, again you are asserting when something you have consistently refused to address is on the table.” [CF:] the fact that you disagree with how I have repeatedly addressed the issue does not mean that I have “consistently refused to address” it.>> Aleta,149 : >>Re 148: what he means is that you consistently refuse to agree with him.>> Of course, the truth is, CF and others of like ilk have consistently side-stepped dealing with evidence that there are self-evident moral truths (07 is still missing in action . . . ), that we are under moral governance, and that this directly impinges on Read More ›

In a current WJM thread on transgenderism, CF has been arguing that different cultures and religions take different views and each holds themselves to be superior — of course this overlooks for just one instance a key remark C S Lewis made in his essay, “Men Without Chests” on what he called the Tao, on how uniform core moral principles are across time and place (when we deal with people we accept as equals and/or care about): >>in early Hinduism that conduct in men which can be called good consists in conformity to, or almost participation in, the Rta — that great ritual or pattern of nature and supernature which is revealed alike in the cosmic order, the moral virtues, Read More ›

Following up from the FTR on the lesson of the failure of democracy in Athens, I have found a powerful 26-lecture series by Rufus Fears . . . a man imbued with the spirit of history; one that will well and long repay the time invested to view it and to ponder and discuss it. Perhaps the most subtly powerful is this, No. 20, on the Trial of Socrates 399 BC (an indictment of Athens’ democracy — with sobering implications for our own): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Ra9nA6F8tI Going back to the Peloponnesian war, 16, 17, 18 and 19 are collectively devastating and point sobering fingers to Alcibiades (nor does Nicias come off well) while showing up the Spartan Lysander as a stunning contrast Read More ›

Athens, the first great democracy — the city state and naval power that in company with the great Greek land power Sparta led Greece in its successful defense against Persian aggression — foolishly and arrogantly grasped for empire and wealth; so it fell due to its hubris. By march of folly [I add, cf vid lectures here]: For, when Persia made its second major move against Greece, it was naval power at Salamis that broke the Persians’ ambitions. And Athens then led in forming the Delian League, which: >> . . .  founded in 477 BC, was an association of Greek city-states . . . under the leadership of Athens, whose purpose was to continue fighting the Persian Empire after Read More ›

As we continue to look at the issue of wedges used at watersheds to trigger slides down mutually polarised slippery slopes to ruin, D reminds us on the lesson of the White Rose martyrs . . . a movement that is now pivotal in some key ways to the modern self-understanding of the German people. We tread holy ground here, lessons literally bought with blood and tears. Here is D, reporting on a recent tour of pivotal sites and linked reflections: >>Regarding your clear warnings about the inescapable consequences of disregarding the lessons from history, there are a few interesting things I noticed during my recent first visit to the Polish cities of Wroclaw and Krakow a week ago. However, Read More ›

As discussion continues on the march of folly watershed and slippery slopes of wedging apart, polarisation and ruin, it is time to expose mass manipulation tactics. Aka, “brainwashing.” Here, I clip comment 771: ______________ >>>Can “mind control” techniques really rob us of ability to think, decide and act for ourselves? Are we really responsible, free, rational creatures? (Or, are we more like computers that just need to be purged of old programming and loaded with new software?) After the Korean War (1950 – 53), there were major studies on brainwashing of prisoners of war, but in the end it became clear that the techniques in use were similar to much more familiar processes of persuasion and change. Though, perhaps, at Read More ›

As debate has proceeded on the watershed, wedge-apart issue, real-time events have intruded to show who has read the dynamics accurately. Never mind the dismissive, denigratory accusations: bigot, hater, coward, apocalyptic, and worse  . . . So, it is time to promote yet another comment in the still-in progress thread — no. 656 — as a FTR: >>Events as we debate, sadly, are showing just how accurate and timely the analysis in the OP above is. Now, in the OP I spoke to bringing a society to a ridge-line watershed that forces a wedging apart of a community, country or civilisation along double, mutually polarised slippery slopes leading to ruin. When I did so, I had no awareness of a Read More ›

As the ongoing exchange on watersheds and dual mutually polarised slippery slopes continues, 07 has been demanding: 07, 536: I am still waiting on my list of 10 self evident moral truths. If anyone else can help Phinehas out that would be appreciated! He now stands answered in the very next comment, which I headline: >>537kairosfocus May 12, 2016 at 8:56 pm 07: Your rhetorical wait is over. There is no material difference between a single self evident moral truth and a dozen, once one exists such a category is non-empty. However, there are in fact several reasonably accessible self evident core moral truths of cumulatively systematic impact: 1] The first self evident moral truth is that we are inescapably Read More ›