Barna’s current report, “New Insights into the Generation of Growing Influence: Millennials In America,” is a portrait of a generation adrift, dancing on the edge of a cliff, and reflective of generations of civilisational betrayal by intellectual, policy/political, media and educational leadership leading to a destabilised culture. And so, this cannot wait, triple bereavement life crisis or no, this needs to be highlighted and preliminarily assessed here at UD:
The report’s snapshot summary tells the grim story in outline:
And:
Also, we may add on Religious identification, affinity and affiliation:
We can start with the obvious, as within living memory of those of us who were of age to notice, between 1989 and 1991, Marxism’s credibility as a principle of economic organisation collapsed before our eyes. So, if the immediately following generation does not understand such after its seventy years of chaos, tyranny, state led murder of over 100 millions and outright economic failure, we are dealing with a generation that were deliberately misled by ideologues who cared not a whit for that horrific track record. One that is actually worse than that of Communism’s kissing cousin, the National Socialist German Worker’s Party (Nazi, for short). (And yes, they meant the “Socialist.”)
So, first and foremost we are dealing with a deeply manipulated generation robbed of objective truth about pivotal worldview, policy, history, ideology and personal matters. That indicts at least two to three full generations of intellectual, policy, media and educational leaders and influencers, with implications across the full span of the pillars of community influence:
Likewise, the Overton Window speaks:
Where, the modified political spectrum is therefore also instructive on the peril:
So, it is unsurprising to see the overall outline being sketched. Selecting key points:
- almost half of those born 1984 – 2002 prefer socialism to capitalism
- a majority (likely with a large opposed minority and that’s the obvious trend-direction) “held a positive opinion of Jesus Christ, the United States of America and the Bible”
- Confirming that inference, 40% “don’t know if God exists, don’t care if God exists, or don’t believe that He exists.” (God, the necessary and maximally great being at reality’s root is the single most important point of knowledge of reality; where, a serious candidate necessary being either exists as framework to any possible world or is impossible of being, the latter never having been shown. So the hyperskeptical indifference is telling on intellectual breakdown.)
- Unsurprisingly, in this light, only 1/3 claim to “believe in God as the all-powerful, all-knowing, perfect and just creator of the universe who still rules the universe today”
- parallelling this, “Roughly two-thirds . . . align themselves with the Christian faith”
- likewise, “[j]ust over one-quarter of them said they do not associate with any religious faith”
- “39% of 18-24 year olds identify as LGBTQ” (Historically, in the West, 1 – 3% have been practicing homosexuals but this proportion globally ranges from vanishingly small to 100% forced participation through institutionalisation, in different cultures.)
- “[t]hree out of four . . . believe all religious faiths are of equal value”
- on “social issues,” 40 percent [a now familiar figure] identify as liberal or progressivist, with 29% as conservative.
- they identify as Democrats vs Republicans 2:1, revealing the predominant ideological influencers of their formative years
- “[m]ost Millennials reject the existence of absolute moral truth and identify feelings, experiences, and advice from family and friends as their most trusted sources of moral guidance” (That is, they drift with the cultural flow and thus those who dominate education and media.)
- likewise, three out of four “said that they are still searching for their purpose in life,” reflecting the influence of worldviews and cultural agendas that are antithetical to purpose, other than arbitrarily selected desires
- “[o]f the nine cultural influencer categories tested, none of them were trusted by a majority to “always or almost always tell the truth or do what is right.” (This cynicism reflects disintegration of social and cultural capital built up over generations.)
- “[t]he least trusted entities were entertainment celebrities, popular social media personalities, and elected government officials” (So, the influences come through peers and opinion leaders in families and groups.)
- “The most highly trusted influencers were their parents and friends”
- 2 out of 3 “admitted to avoiding interaction with someone if it was likely to produce conflict,” which tends to block change based on mutually critical reflection and to reinforce cultural echo chambers
- issues they prioritise indicate “never let a crisis go to waste” media domination of their thinking: “CORONAVIRUS MANAGEMENT, CLIMATE CHANGE, RACIAL DISCRIMINATION, ABORTION, THE ECONOMY”
The need for a sound counter-culture is patent. END
Barna profiles a generation on the cliff’s crumbling edge — 78 million US Millennials
A couple things:
I saw the title and read the brief description and said to myself, Kf will be interested in this. Then I saw who the author is.
Second, it’s over. It’s just the end game that is in doubt. And how soon. C19 has been an eye opener. The Millennials will never be able to govern themselves and each day we are closer to that.
Aside: this has all been discussed before and there is no solution. The article is almost book length. But essentially there is no common culture and those who want to destroy have learned this is key for destruction, promote the opposite as a benefit and virtuous. The progression then advances to the old culture is the cause of our problems and must be destroyed. That’s where we are now.
The neo-Jacobins are on the march
This happens every time one generation passes the torch to the next. How the young don’t measure up, how they have no values, how they are incapable of governing themselves, etc. ad nauseum.
Per Jerry:
But the world keeps on turning and when necessary, they will step up and manage to thrive.
Perhaps it is the Christian God’s time to fade into the pantheon of gods and spirits and demiurges and all the other various iterations of what Carl Sagan called the demon-haunted world that have come and gone. Perhaps (I think rightly so) young people are getting tired of Christianity’s constant scolding about our brokenness, our fallen nature, our incorrigibleness. Perhaps they simply find the notions of people rising from the dead or angelic end time wars of destruction and damnation too outlandish.
Per Kairofocus:
Perhaps Millennials simply see Christianity as the ultimate form of manipulation because it lays claim to one’s very soul through the horrific promise of eternal damnation for all but a very few “elect.”
Perhaps they see the botched legacy of a Christian, Jewish and Muslim world and would dare to try something different……
But they never do.
Do you have examples? No because they don’t exist.
What built the modern world?
Answer: Christianity and freedom. It started in 17th century England and a little bit in Holland and then spread to the English colonies. Then to the rest of Europe and then to other places after World War II. Japan was the lone exception and they tried to mimic Western culture even to the point of adopting their clothing.
I have a question. Do you understand anything you post? Certainly not about evolution and here human nature. I suggest you read about Ibn Khaldun and Asabiyyah.
The one thing I do know is that when things start falling apart they will blame it on Trump.
CD, no, this is civilisational breakdown without precedent. The start-point, utter ignorance or dismissal of the hard empirical verdict on Marxist experiments and linked state domination of the economy only thirty years past speaks volumes on a generation systematically misled by those whose duty was to teach soundly. And it’s all downhill from there, a march of patently ruinous folly. KF
For what it’s worth–maybe not much–the generation following the Millennials are much more grounded in reality. I don’t know if that will make any difference as we continue marching toward the cliff, but I did want to point it out.
Puh-leeze, Kairofocus and Jerry
Get some perspective. I hired and trained Millennial kids for the last ten years of my career and they are smart, driven, competent AND (this is important) light years more tolerant of their fellow human beings than their forbearers.
Instead of demonstrating incredible naiveté and trying to trot out communisim as a threat to our world order, maybe you’d be smarter to look at the rise of multi-national corporatization (see, I can do polysyllabic too ). Facebook and Twitter and Pay-Pal and Amazon and United Health Care and Big Pharma represent far greater threats to your autonomy and privacy than Stalin ever could have dreamed. The government isn’t de-platforming folks or banning them from media access–corporate CEOs are. The government isn’t manipulating drug prices, Big Pharma is. The government isn’t selling your demographic information, Mastercard is. The government isn’t shaping your spending behavior, Amazon is.
Marx did reiterate one clear truth–unbridled capitalism leads to corporate hegemony. But we didn’t need Marx to tell us that, its the law of the jungle. Wow, starting to sound a lot like natural selection….
CD, I started with the obviously willful suppression of the failure of the most dangerous, most murderous all-time ideology for a reason. It shows that betrayal by those duty bound to provide sound education is an established fact, one we should duly note and deem those perpetuating or enabling it as of negative credibility. In short, if you cannot get marxism right, you should be sidelined for cause. From that, it is easy to see that the rest of the body of opinions and arguments supporting the agenda that needs to erase history bought with that much blood and tears, is patently a ruinous menace; enemies of sound civilisation is not too stringent a description. We have a seriously messed up generation here, heading for disaster. Beyond that the time has come for a counter culture alternative that can work to restore soundness.Telling the truth about marxism, its fellow travellers and the power and influence elites who have willfully misled and betrayed us regarding the most murderous ideology in history and its current tactics — Cultural Marxism and its clutch of so-called critical theories busily subverting the academy and education — is a good place to start. KF
OA94, do you have a serious survey on that, esp as they are in formative years and largely under the influence of the messed up generation? KF
Nothing to do with their beliefs and core attitudes. If true, anecdotal at best and essentially irrelevant.
You are the one who trotted out communism.
Who said anything about supporting large corporations. There are different ways the government controls the economy and big corporations is becoming a way to do that. That’s how fascism did it.
What has this to do with anything? You are contradicting the talking points of the left who claim we are a racist society.
Who is for unbridled capitalism? I’m not and doubt Kf is. I mentioned freedom as the necessary ingredient for the modern world. Unbridled capitalism is not free market capitalism. It’s actually mutually inconsistent with it.
Your comment is a series of non-sequiturs and irrelevancies.
@Chuckdarwin #8
I work with a number of millennials in my profession. And while the vast majority of them are decent people, many (although certainly not all) display a very pronounced “Me First” attitude, and a great deal of narcism. They’re also, in my opinion, much less empathetic than previous generations; these unsympathetic tendencies could perhaps be a reflection of the particular home environment for which they up in, but I’m not a sociologist, so.
Moreover, I think the ability to think logically and critically is noticeably absent among many millennials. I’ve witnessed this first-hand. For example, I had the dubious pleasure of interacting with one millennial on a social media platform who was berating the idea of capitalism, suggesting it should be completely done away with, and that it was quite literarily the worst thing ever invented. When they were finished their tirade, I asked the individual if he/she liked the social media platform—one that was founded on the principles of capitalism—they were using to air their grievance. Crickets!.
Your belief that millennials are more tolerant than their forbearers is fascinating! From my experience, I would argue that the so-called tolerance espoused by millennials is still very much a one-way street; you’re tolerated so long as you agree with their views. If you don’t, look out! This is evident in the current “cancel culture” our society is now in the grips of. Why be tolerant when you can just cancel those you disagree with. Mark Zuckerberg, based on age, would classify as a millennial. Yet, Trump supporting conservative are anything but tolerated on FaceBook, or whatever it’s called now. I do agree with you on one point, though, Big Tech, and perhaps Big Pharma, are a major threat to democracy and individual freedoms—and it’s on full display!
Never cared for Barna’s results; always skewed toward the negative, usually by asking slanted questions. (I went in-depth on one of his surveys, and found the questions/options quite leading to the negative…)
One good thing in the above: “The least trusted entities were entertainment celebrities, popular social media personalities, and elected government officials.”
“Roughly two-thirds align with the Christian faith”? That doesn’t quite go with the other stats, such as only one-third believing in God. The summary above doesn’t clear that up.
As usual, CD trots out an old claim, that old folks have been complaining about youth forever. But notice that there’s no depth, no analysis of current-day trends, nothing but anecdote, and so nothing of substance added to the conversation.
To me, this addiction to apocolyptophilia reads more like a scare-tactic campaign to try and drive people back into the arms of Christianity.
Yes, viewed worldwide, human society is a mess but then it always has been. Fondly-remembered “golden ages”, viewed in a wider context, were relatively brief bright spots that, on closer examination were more like a veneer over much more tangled and sordid undergrowth.
We’re not about to plunge over some metaphorical cliff into chaos, we’ve always been in something close to it but we mostly just try to avert our eyes.
As a species we spent a long time living in clan or tribal or village societies. As the human population of this planet exploded, it has found itself faced with the enormous problems of sustaining, administering and governing numbers on an unprecedented scale with basically nothing to guide us. Small wonder it’s been a messy, unfair, bloody, tragically wasteful business so far and it doesn’t look like it’ll be much better in the foreseeable future.
Seversky,
kindly start with trend no 1, how does the generation immediately following the one that witnessed the implosion of socialist ideology come up as strongly anti-capitalist and pro socialist?
Where, capitalism (or more accurately free market enterprise in a lawful state), is the most successful framework for building general prosperity, technological advance and economic well-being in history.
That points to systematic, willful betrayal of duty to truth, right reason and simple prudence by the intelligentsia and associated credentialled and chattering classes who seem to have been inordinately hostile to economic freedom under the civil peace of justice. This last being due balance of rights, freedoms and duties.
That reflects their being wedded to various manifestations of the idolatry of political messianism, with would be political messiahs, an inordinate belief in the wisdom of officialdom and the rise of the juristocracy. The role of cultural, neo-marxist critical theories, so-called, across the span of the academy and stemming from the Frankfurt School and allies must not be underestimated, it provides the updated Marxist framework for seizure of intellectual commanding heights, formation of a programme of shaming and defaming the civilisation and the principles that led to its success ultimately in breaking down the BATNA of lawfulness opening up the way for lawless unaccountable oligarchy.
We can already see the outlines of a surveillance and control, spy and report, none may buy or sell or speak save the duly permitted state. Where, ideologised oligopolies in key sectors such as big tech, big media, education, medicine/pharma etc are now allies of lawless unaccountable officialdom.
That is actually Fascism, kissing cousin of Communism, but both are seriously destructive, murderous ideologies.
So, try the label and dismiss as you please, that does not remove the signature of betrayal of civilisation, nor the long train of abuses and usurpations in pursuit of a demonic design of subjugation under lawless oligarchy.
KF
EDTA, align with the Christian Faith, in a post truth, post coherence world is outright compatible with atheism or apostasy sitting in the pew or standing behind the pulpit. This is not a generation that has thought through positions or believes that its points of tension can be resolved by thinking through. No wonder it is amenable to imposition of power by politicians, judges and officialdom as solution. As we are seeing with a grossly mismanaged pandemic. When reduced to cold print, it does not make sense; but that is the point, if crooked yardsticks can be imposed as pseudo standards of straight, accurate and upright, what is actually such will fail the false test. And, as there are many forms of crookedness, there is equally a locking-in to a particular brand of crooked shape, so adoption of particular crooked standards is a target feature not a bug. And we have not got to the imposition of known falsity as a means of demoralising the soul, used to subjugate those forced to conform to lawlessness to survive. See Havel’s Power of the Powerless. KF
Kairosfocus,
Great article–thanks!
Indeed. This is all part of the road to serfdom as Hayek puts it, or as Robert Heinlein described it:
And when this “bad luck” happens in the U.S, when the currency is worthless and all cities resemble the squalor and looting now engulfing San Francisco . . . and when people are starving, the country divided up by local warlords, and the media is announcing triumphantly how much better society is now, when untold trillions are wasted on massive bureaucracies monitoring artificial problems . . . when it all collapses, then the majority of these millennials will insist that this wasn’t True Socialism after all, and they’ll just have to try it once again in a more prosperous country somewhere.
Yes, dears, this was indeed True Socialism. It doesn’t work. It has never worked. But now you’re slaves. You’ll get free rotten food, free minimal healthcare, free substandard housing, free mandatory indoctrination, and guaranteed (forced) employment for life! Slavery.
-Q
My initial post commented only on the religious findings among Millennials and offered my explanation of decreased religiosity among that age cohort. Looking at the study results, it is pretty clear that not only has religiosity declined among Millennials, but that understanding of religion, especially Christianity, seems pretty muddled and inconsistent. Some may see this as a bad thing, others may see it as a good thing. What is clear, however, is that the “two-thirds that align themselves with the Christian faith” seem to be completely confused and ill-schooled about it.
That cannot be laid at the doorstep of Wokeness or Marxist faculties or LGBTQ activists. Rather it is a function of an out-of-date and bankrupt belief system ineffectively transmitted by whoever is responsible for “passing on the faith,” be that parents, ministers, priests, etc. I have only observed one denomination that is partially successful in transmitting and holding on to younger members, the LDS church (Mormons). But their success comes at a great price–social and economic isolation, controlling virtually every aspect of the members’ lives from the type of clothing they can wear to food they can eat to the movies they can see to the books they can read. They virtually control the public schools in the inter-mountain West, further isolate their kids through required missionary work and funnel their kids into exclusively Mormon colleges. And with all that they are only partially successful.
If there is a failure among Christians to perpetuate their belief system, they need to look critically at what they are attempting to pass on and how to do it effectively and quit blaming the larger society for their failures.
CD, you will notice the highlighted focus in the OP:
That general breakdown due to willful betrayal of duty will have across the board impacts and is decisive for ruin if not drastically reversed and that, right quick.
Hence, the focus.
Your strawman distractor fails.
KF
PS: The failure of religious leadership is part of that wider failure, across generations. Actually, we can trace the rot to the 1830’s and beyond, as Heine put it:
PPS: Through Lewontin’s cat out of the bag moment in NYRB, we can broaden and deepen the indictment:
NSTA Board, 2000 shows this was not idiosyncratic:
The late Philip Johnson’s retort was apt:
This was no accident, we are dealing with generations-long sustained intent.
F/N: Something told me, compare Wikipedia and Enc Brit:
Brand X:
Brand Y:
Neither is really solid but it is obvious that there is a particular skirting around of the cost in blood and tears.
To begin to get an idea, contrast Brand X on Nazism (and yes, the far right fallacy regarding an explicitly SOCIALIST movement is a clue):
The time has come for counter culture.
KF
I’m sorry, Kairofocus, but you don’t get to make the rules of debate or define what is or is not a “strawman.” This is not a debate about post-modernism, CRT, Marxism, Darwinism or fascism. I don’t need to be schooled in the arcana of those “isms.”
What this is about is a deep denial within the Christian community about the failure of the leadership to generate an effective way of perpetuating a belief system that is not just out of touch with the average Millennial, but is unpalatable or uninteresting to them.
Like I said before, Christianity is a belief system built on the purported depravity and brokenness of humanity. A belief system that says you have no control over your eternal destiny and are at the whim an arbitrary God. People are sick and tired of the narrative. With every succeeding generation, the narrative loses a little bit more of its luster.
You can deflect and scream and rail at society and its various “isms” but in the end, Christianity will live or die on its own merits. It appears to be losing that battle….
Kairosfocus,
Excellent observation! It points out the scientific consequences of ideological poisoning.
-Q
CD,
you have set up and knocked over something that was not a focal argument, leaving or trying to leave the impression that this is focal. Sorry, it doesn’t work like that. The key point remains unaddressed, why is it within thirty years of the ignominious collapse of marxist ideology . . . at Christmas 1991 the Communist Party was banned in Russia IIRC . . . it has been so whitewashed and promoted that a near majority of the generation that grew up since prefer socialism to capitalism?
Where, more properly, the issue is free enterprise in a lawful state which has an unequalled, massively documented record of general prosperity, growth, development and improved welfare.
That speaks volumes and it already indicts generations of intellectual, educational, media and political leaders and their willful work.
With that in hand, it is not particularly difficult to see that the rot is wide and deep indeed, exposing that the tainted intellectual world has spread destructive and ill-founded ideologies that now clearly threaten shipwreck for our civilisation, if they succeed. The reduction of the US to Venezuela-like ruin would have horrific economic and geostrategic impacts across the world. And, the wrecking of resource-rich Venezuela is a TYPICAL consequence of socialist radicalism entrenched in power.
Simply, the distraction of a heightened fourth generational civil war opens up severe geostrategic damage as China makes a move for the sort of blue ocean breakout that put Germany at odds with Britain in the run-up to WW1 and as Iran continues its push for nukes. And with nukes in play, the dangers are far, far more potentially devastating than in 1914, 1917, 1931, 1937, 1939, 1940, 1941 or 1945. Those who have betrayed our civilisation, over generations now, need to face a reckoning that exposes their betrayal.
This starts with the astonishing ideological manipulation of opinions that has tried to create the perception that socialist ideology is a superior principle of societal, economic, cultural and political organisation. Those who did that are guilty, guilty, guilty; irretrievably guilty traitors to civilisation in the teeth of living history. We owe it to the ghosts of 100 million murdered victims, we owe it to the ghost of judicially murdered Milada Horakova, to state that clearly and firmly.
KF
PS: As to the obvious hostility towards and projections against the Christian worldview and its core gospel teachings and ethics, I suggest that the onlooker may wish to look here on, and here on.
ChuckDarwin: I have only observed one denomination that is partially successful in transmitting and holding on to younger members, the LDS church (Mormons).
You might have to include the Anabaptist successors: the Mennonites the Hutterites and the Amish. I’m not sure they are growing that much but I don’t think they are in any danger of dying out.
I think I will park this right here:
This has degenerated into a discussion of Christianity mainly because it seem ChuckDarwin wants it to be that. His is definitely a red herring argument and based on nonsense.
One thing is obvious, the modern world arose in the Christian world and it was a once in a history of mankind event. It was not inevitable.
It is fair to ask if Christianity was a necessary condition. The other obvious condition that was definitely necessary was freedom. The question is are both necessary? A related question is can freedom exist without Christianity? If so, then Christianity is also a necessary condition but not a sufficient condition. Christianity existed for over 1700 years before the modern world began.
Charles Krauthammer wrote an article 12 years ago about this and that the modern could disappear titled
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/weekly-standard/decline-is-a-choice-270813
The technology that the modern world developed may not go away but who operates it may be very different from its original vision. There is no guarantee that the average person will benefit.
No one can point to a better system in the history of the world than Christianity and free market capitalism. Yet millennials want to get rid of it.
It is a Choice
from Sev: “Like I said before, Christianity is a belief system built on the purported depravity and brokenness of humanity. A belief system that says you have no control over your eternal destiny and are at the whim an arbitrary God. People are sick and tired of the narrative. With every succeeding generation, the narrative loses a little bit more of its luster.
You can deflect and scream and rail at society and its various “isms” but in the end, Christianity will live or die on its own merits. It appears to be losing that battle….”
You set up a strawman.
1. Mankind is depraved…Do you doubt this? Is it not observable to you?We try to say it is the system that brings man down, but what government or organization hasn’t been overcome with greed, disfunction, etc? The common thread is humanity, not a “system” Name one good person (actually, name a standard that is authoritative first)
2. You technically had control over your eternal destiny…but you sinned. And you still sin..probably every day like the rest of depraved mankind. Also, you have the choice available to you right now to spend eternity in a perfect and new earth by simply repenting of your sins and putting your faith in Jesus. You don’t have to live one more second in a damned state. It’s your choice.
3. God is only arbitrary to you…what objective standard would you give as an evolutionist for arbitrary? You have to adopt and steal from the idea that things are coherent and make sense (theism) in order to beat up on it.
In summary, your worldview has no standard to judge anyone as good or bad (and I’d be shocked if you genuinely thought mankind was good by nature). You have no standard to define anything as arbitrary accept an assumption that things should be orderly, intelligible and consistent, which your worldview cannot really account for. And you think that because young people are saying Christianity doesn’t work, therefore it must be lacking-this is a fallacy. In materialism, we can’t really worry about consistency, logic, or reason… nor is there any reason to. We are all just meat robots. We are all dogs fighting for the scrap of meat the universe threw out. Who cares if it’s good or not…
Also, for my Christian friends, I have really appreciated Doug Wilson’s take on life lately. He is post-millennial, and I like his optimism and consistency. He brought up the dog fight analogy, so credit to him. Here is his 20 minute blog… normally they are 2 times a week about 10-15 minutes at a time. Stuff to think about regarding the woke and Christianity in our current culture. The problem isn’t that non-believers are acting like non-believers, it is that the church isn’t being the church.
Still love this article…even atheists know we need the church: https://thinktheology.co.uk/blog/article/the_turning_tide_of_intellectual_atheism
Douglas Wilson Blog and Mablog from yesterday: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZ9n76E2BpA I will say he says some kind of inflammatory things, that I may not ever say or hold to myself, but I overall appreciated his take
JVL
I appreciate you pointing that out. I did think of the Amish, etc. but their membership is de minimus. On the other hand, the LDS Church claims almost 17 million adherents and also claims to be one of the fastest growing denominations, although that claim has been challenged because they also have high attrition. Setting aside the in-fights among Christians as to whether Mormons are actually Christians, they are the only major denomination that seems to show a clear cradle to grave strategy to indoctrinate and hold on to younger members, including Millennials.
Kairofocus
Almost 60% of your “key” bullet points reference either explicitly or implicitly religious themes vis a vis Millennials. From where I sit, despite the fact that you want to focus on non-religious societal factors that are destroying our society, which you claim explain the data collected in the survey, the 800 pound gorilla in the room is the nature and transmission of religious belief within the religious community. That is the de facto focal point of Millennials leaving or not adopting Christianity as a belief system. You need to clear up internal causes before you go off on other explanations.
Also, some of the findings are neither remarkable nor should cause concern. I would venture a guess that in every college to young adult cohort you would find a majority that are progressive/liberal, predominantly Democratic, support liberal agendas such as LGBTQ rights, climate change advocacy, pro-choice, etc. It is common for younger folks to flirt with Marxism and even more common to investigate socialism. That is the nature of being young. Winston Churchill once said that if man is not a liberal when he is young, then he has no heart, and if he is not a conservative when old, he has no head.
The Christian right and the apologist community have been pushing this latest iteration of an “unprecedented moral crisis” since the rise of the Moral Majority in the 80s. It represented the unfortunate reversal of Christian policy to steer clear of politics and has polluted American politics ever since. There was no crisis then, nor is it a crisis today.
Ciao–I’m done
.
It should be pointed out here, among Chuck’s many self-serving proclamations, he is on an ID website doing exactly what materialist ideologues have been doing (and forcing on the entire public) for the past 60+ years. He is deliberately refusing to engage in the scientific evidence of design in biology. He ignores the science, and he ignores the history of science.
How many times have you run from the questions, Chuck?
When the first ever aaRS constraint on earth was synthesized from description, how many of the other constraints had to be in place?
Upright BiPed, Chuckdarwin is not really here to defend the science of evolution. He is here to, first and foremost, attack Christianity.
Indeed, there is no real science for Chuckdarwin to actually defend since Darwinism does not even really qualify as a hard and testable science in the first place,
Indeed, Darwinism is actually “anti-science”. As I pointed out on another thread this morning, “if, (as Darwinists hold as a core presupposition), there is no (real) rhyme or reason for why anything occurs, i.e. no teleology for anything in the universe, not even for your own thoughts, then searching for a rhyme or reason for why anything occurs in the universe, or in life, or even in your own thoughts, is an extremely futile endeavor and Darwinian Atheism, at its core, is therefore a ‘science stopper’ in the most fundamental way possible. Darwinian Atheism (via its outright denial of teleology), simply makes scientific rationality itself. impossible.”
As is obvious from their repeated, even obsessive, attacks on Christianity, (and from their repeated failure to meaningfully address the science), the main reason that Chuckdarwin, Seversky, JVL, et. el. are here is, first and foremost, to attack Christianity. The science is a distant second to their primary motivation of attacking Christianity.
As they have repeatedly made clear, Chuckdarwin, Seversky, JVL, et. el. implicitly believe that the world will be a much better place if we could just get rid of Christianity and only have ‘no religion’, i.e. atheism, instead.
Which is, of course, insane. Darwinian influenced atheistic ideology has been, bar none, the greatest horror visited upon mankind EVER!
Whereas, on the other hand, Christianity has been the greatest force for good that the world has ever seen.
Thus it is simply insane for Chuckdarwin, Seversky, JVL, et. el. to turn a blind eye to the unimaginable horror visited upon mankind by their chosen worldview of Darwinian Atheism, and pretend as if the world would be a much better place without Christianity in it.
One final note, I don’t know about other churches in America, but the Church that I personally attend on Sunday mornings is packed for both services, with a healthy percentage of young adults and children attending. This following study seems to back up my personal experience
Moreover, although atheism, via propaganda, may be, (or may not be), gaining some influence in America, it is interesting to note that, on a worldwide basis, atheism is shrinking, and has been shrinking for decades now. Thus whilst atheists may have, (or may not have), some gains here and there, overall, atheists are losing the war and have been losing the war for a long time. And thank God for that! 🙂
Whereas Christianity, again when looking at the entire world population, is continuing to grow at a healthy rate:
Of supplemental note: “Here’s How Badly Soviet Atheism Failed in Europe”
Again, thank God for that.
Zweston @30,
Indeed. I especially appreciated Andrew Wilson’s observation:
So true. And now the “Woke” mob have created an ever-shifting ethos of vacuous and contradictory assertions described by Douglas Wilson in the link you provided:
Douglas Wilson Blog and Mablog from yesterday: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZ9n76E2BpA
Likewise and I agree.
But the fact remains that, just what we frequently see in some responses here, the real issue involves their ideological poisoning that makes people willing to throw logical reasoning, falsifying evidence, and their unsupported assertions under the bus when challenged or no longer useful to their cause. Logic, evidence, and their assertions are just temporary masks.
I don’t agree with Douglas Wilson’s point that the problem lies with lukewarm and spineless Christian clergy. In my opinion, it has more to do with the prevalence of non-practicing nominal Christians who just go along with the crowd.
However, I do agree with Wilson’s analogy to the actors in Pro Wrestling and that the supposed “saviors” in the political arena are actually part of the show themselves.
-Q
Upright BiPed @32,
Unfortunately, so true. There seems to be no attempt at critical thinking, only the broadcasting of the same, tired, unsupported assertions and frequently debunked stereotyping and misrepresentations.
When asked a question, we get questions back and “homework assignments” in reply, which when presented after a lot of research, they will immediately dismiss without engagement by accusing us of quote mining, irrelevance, misunderstanding, misrepresenting, and so on.
Such “conversations” remind me of engagements that are very similar to the evasions of early AI programs. It’s not inconceivable that some personas might even be deep-learning AI trollbots. For example, check this out:
https://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2016/03/25/learning-tays-introduction/
-Q
Zweston/30
I believe it was actually CD who wrote that post but I have a few observations about the topics you raise in reply.
No, mankind as a whole is not depraved although some people undoubtedly are. This is crude stereotypical thinking. It is as if I were to allege that the whole of Christianity is represented by the Westboro Baptist Church. There are a disturbing number of so-called Christian pastors who preach hate-filled bigotry and white nationalism, there are televangelists who use the “widow’s mites” donated by their congregants to buy personal business jets and there are those who have been convicted of fraud and sexual offenses. But although such people are evidence of a corrupted faith they do not represent the whole of Christianity. There are many good Christians who try to live by the highest principles of the faith rather than personal gain. It is their lives that should be held up as an example of what is best about the faith to confront the distorted, nationalistic version that has arisen in this and other countries.
This is simply absurd.
What was the Original Sin, the appalling one for which your God chose to punish the whole of humanity in perpetuity?Curiosity. They wanted to know the difference between Good and Evil. That’s all.
Where did this capacity for curiosity come from? It must have been put there by their Designer, in other words, God. So God punished them – and us – for exercising their God-given capacity for curiosity.
Moreover, God lies about the whole thing. He pretends to be shocked and surprised when he finds that they have disobeyed Him. Yet, this is an omniscient deity according to Christian belief. He knows everything that has ever existed, that exists now or will ever exist. So He must have known exactly in advance what Adam and Eve would do. Yet He punishes them – and us – for it. And people like you think that is fair and just. He warns them that on the day they eat the fruit they will die. Yet, instead, He tosses them out of the garden of Eden on their ears and they live on for hundreds of years. He lied again. Yet people like you take his word as gospel
People had become aware that the world was an ordered place from simple observation, long before Christianity emerged. They watched the changing of the seasons, the movement of constellations in the sky, the migration of animals, when a river delta flooded. They noticed that a weight on the end of a piece of string could be used to provide a vertical reference line, KF’s favorite plumbline. No faith was required because they could be observed by anyone who took the trouble to look.
We believe we can develop our own moral standards, presumably the same way as your God developed His. You, on the other hand, are admitting you would not know the difference between good and evil unless your God told you which was which.
Young people are being driven away from Christianity by the dismal examples set by many who are the public face of the faith in this country. CD is right. It’s not atheists or Marxist that are undermining Christianity, it is the faith itself for failing to purge the temple of the moneylenders and living instead by the Samaritan example. That is what would bring the younger generation back. The question is, are there enough left who actually believe in and are prepared to live according to the example set by Jesus in the Bible?
Seversky
Re: the Genesis story of Eden
You make some good points. Moreover, it is curious that Yahweh leaves the innocent and naive couple (they didn’t even know they were naken) alone with a crafty serpent for which the naive couple is no match. It’s like leaving your 5 year old naive child alone with a savvy child molester, after giving the child instructions to resist all attempts at molestation, and then cursing the child molester (rightly so) and the child when the inevitable happens. Any sane and just person would blame the parent as well as the molester. Maybe even moreso.
–Ram
Folks, I am gavelling needless distractive theological speculations and airing of opinions that too often lack soundness even as they thunder away with obvious deeply personal hostility, as if ex cathedra. This thread is about a focal matter that is too central, too important to our plight, too urgent for such distractions; besides, such objectors have long since insistently defied advice to go to other fora where there are panels of experts able and willing to explore the theological, rhetorical, evidential, presuppositional and philosophical turns and twists. All I will say is that for 1700 years systematicians have found that exacting, careful consideration and formulation are necessary to avoid endless twists and turns of error and absurdity. I have seen no evidence that those who have been so busily thundering away and clouding the true focus of the thread, have done anything like adequate reflection, e.g. is an original man as created in God’s image a naive, simpleton and ignoramus or would he be instead a towering genius beyond a Newton by our modern standards. I refocus, therefore, by again clipping the OP:
Such a deep-rooted, sustained, willful betrayal is plain from the contrast between massively evident, accessible, living memory facts . . . and living eyewitnesses . . . and where a generation has been misled. It is equally patent that such betrayers can have only negative credibility; to rebuild a sound knowledge base we must go elsewhere. So, the real issue is where to go to build a counter culture. And the historic answer comes back:
KF
PS: FYI, CD et al, precisely 100% of the cited findings from Barna imply or express worldviews and linked cultural/policy agenda so too ideology themes with fate of civilisation import; kindly compare the pillars of influence model and the Overton Window political spectrum analysis. That worldviewish mentality and analytical pivot are strategically focal if our civilisation is to find a sane way forward.
PPS: As a direct comparison, where are the large scale, publicly funded museums laying out the history and lessons of the Marxist age, dedicated to the memory of its 100 million victims??? Does not that wall of silence tell us all we need to know about why we see the result as above? Let me propose a name, the Milada Horakova Memorial Museum.
I ADD: I went looking for a first forum and in looking at Craig’s Reasonable Faith, found this all too familiar sounding exchange https://www.reasonablefaith.org/forums/index.php?topic=6058049.0 In general, I think RF may be a first place for those looking to deal with genuine — as opposed to mere rhetorical bomb-throwing — concerns; https://www.reasonablefaith.org/ Over the years Craig has dealt with any number of issues and questions. His YT channel may also be helpful https://www.youtube.com/user/ReasonableFaithOrg I also suggest that LeaderU is a good place and point to find other resources http://leaderu.com/ Stand to Reason is useful https://www.str.org/home and I have found Copan’s work on the God as moral monster argument worth pondering, e.g. as a start here: https://evidenceandanswers.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/Episode-277-278-Is-God-a-Moral-Monster_Article.pdf Again, this is in the context, go to where there are panels of experts willing to take time and effort to address issues that have led many to perplexity. UD, for many reasons starting with absence of such a panel and a very different primary focus on import of empirically observable signs of design in cosmos and the world of life grounding a design inference, is not that forum. As for this thread, it is on a crucial sign that brings out what has gone wrong with the world of thought and policy in our civilisation over generations.
:)) How do you know what a sane and just person would do ? Don’t speak in the name of sane and just people.
LCD, you focussed ethics. That is worth recognising, and notice that in the unguarded rhetorical moment, Ram appealed to justice and sanity, i.e. to right reason and to due balance of rights, freedoms and duties; rather explicitly . . . illustrating the inescapability of Ciceronian first duties. Where, to justly claim a right, one first must show oneself in the right as there can be no right to compel another to taint sound conscience (e.g. by enabling lies and oppressions under false colour of liberation — see Haclav’s greengrocer in his epochal essay, power of the powerless). So too, these point to ultimate good and utter wisdom in the necessary being roots of reality as the only place and manner the is-ought gap can be soundly bridged. Which then opens up the answer to the cynical demolition of the heritage of our civilisation that has been part of the shaming and defamation technique used to undermine the good it has done. Including, of course the mass breakout from poverty that free market free enterprise in a lawful state has effected. KF
chuckdarwin: How the young don’t measure up, how they have no values, how they are incapable of governing themselves, etc. ad nauseum.
The universities have been suffering from an onslaught of Marxist ideology for several decades now.
It’s having an effect. Given the fact that these young minds have never lived under any system that remotely comes close to Marxism/socialist-authoritarianism, they don’t have the wisdom to know what they’re getting themselves into. Whether or not the outcome will be desireable for them, time will tell. If history is any indicator, it won’t be pretty.
–Ram
Are the Ciceronian first duties the fruit of the Spirit of God, or are they within the ability of every man? Put another way, are the first duties external to us, like the laws of physics are external to us, or do they emerge as a consequence of our nature?
Origenes,
Good question. Unless a particular human, at very least, can accept and hold the information that the Spirit of God attempts to bequeath, then such a transfer can’t happen. The recipient has to be able to receive what is given. A lock has to be able to be able to accept the key. Can the H.S. transfer information about quantum physics to a dog’s brain that the dog can use from there on out? I have no reason to think so. It would be interesting to hear an argument for such.
–Ram
Your analysis that the millenial generarion is “robbed of objective truth” is wrong.
The millenials are clobbered to death with objectivity, fact, science, during many years of education.
Millenials are pretty good with objectivity, science.
Millenials are clueless about subjectivity, because subjectivity is a creationist concept, and creationism has been banned in academics.
My explanation perfectly explains the increased mental illness, atheism, bad opinions. That is exactly what one should expect of people who are clueless about subjectivity.
Millenials have neither an idea of the ordinary human spirit making choices, nor God the holy spirit. So they ignore human emotions just as well as they ignore God.
Really they are just “objectivists”, denying the validity of subjective opinions.
This has been all discussed in other threads over the last year and half with thousands of comments and nothing new will be added here.
Your question has been answered dozens of times. It was also answered on the last thread, actually still going on. Just ignored. No one wants answers or understanding, just circles of rants mostly nonsense.
ChuckDarwin is probably laughing because he started this with his nonsense. Time for another to enter and continue with more nonsense which will all go around in circles just as it has for over a year.
Jerry @46
What was the answer to my question in @43? Or do you mean to say that there was actually no answer to my question?
Origenes, let’s see, duties:
Now, that is not to say this comes from Bible texts, we have drawn on Cicero’s remarks in De Legibus, which likely contribute to the intellectual climate Paul points to in Rom 2 and 13 when he points to lawfulness written in our hearts. Cicero of course is laying the foundation of law in intelligible, built in human nature. We are morally governed creatures and our individual and collective well being critically depends on our by and large living by such. The willful breaches in fact profit by being exceptional. If truth and right reason are disregarded civilisation collapses.
Let me clip Cicero:
So, this is built in as has been noted for years including in the still ongoing prior thread. We can go on through natural law theory down to Locke citing Hooker, Blackstone, the US DoI and onward.
KF
There is most definitely is an answer. And has been given numerous times.
What objectives do humans have? Two are 1) survival and 2) thriving. What contributes to these?
There is your answer.
The specifics will vary from culture to culture and geography to geography but these objectives are common to all and will have commonalities in how they are obtained.
Aside: this in no way denies individuality but also affirms essential commonalities. For example, see Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.
But as I said few here or anywhere want an answer.
Sev and CD, Do you honestly believe that your thoughts are of no real consequence and that they are just chemical reactions that are reacting to stimuli? Do you really believe that? Can you possibly believe that? If so, how could you ever possibly trust your conclusions? How could you even make a definitive judgment on anything.
Sev, you completely hand waived off so much stuff. You called something absurd (but you can’t define absurd objectively). You still think that mankind is good (at least some of it?) and left alone it wouldn’t corrupt itself?
Adam and Eve’s sin was they wanted to become God. It was a power grab, and a self-destructing one.
Your objection here is pretty trivial and easily reasoned, but reason and logic don’t have any foundation in your worldview. Puddle of molecules doing a dance….
You cannot possibly think that you are just random chemical reactions. You just can’t. That is absurd. And you haven’t lived a minute of your life consistently under that lie.
@48 So KF, let’s see if I understand Cicero correctly:
The first duties are “implanted in [our] nature” by God, which results in an inner “voice of conscience” which informs us about our first duties.
So, the first duties do not emerge from our nature, they are, as you put it, “written in our hearts” by God.
Is my understanding correct?
Cicero’s ideas on duties have nothing to do with religion.
These duties promote basic human objectives no matter how they arose and are obvious in how they do that.
Aside: Cicero missed some essential basic ideas and bought into an oppressive ideology that preceded him and lasted for centuries after him.
Another aside: Smaug is flying around and magic words are being uttered so expect him to descend.
Probably a must read for this OP and relevant to many of the discussions here.
https://wmbriggs.com/post/38060/
Hans Rosling said the more educated you are the less what you believe is in sync with the truth. His books was called Factfulness, published just before he died.
Ram @44
If I understand Cicero’s concept correctly, which is yet to be confirmed by KF, then the first duties “implanted” into us by God are “congenial and correspondent with the true nature of man”, which perhaps addresses some of the concerns you’ve raised.
There seems to be a continues transfer of information about first duties by way of a “voice of conscience”. Cicero speaks about this voice as if it is not part of a human being: “the voice of conscience is a law “—in effect the voice of God.
In a sense, we are continually coached by God, to act in accord with the first duties which he has implanted into us.
William Briggs:Everything You Believe Is Wrong
Now change “You” with “William Briggs”
Origenes, moral government is in key part constitutive of our nature. Without rational responsible, significant, morally governed characteristics we would not be the sort of creatures we are. And in the normal case that includes the voice of conscience. KF
Kairosfocus,
Regarding your critique of the left-right political spectrum with regard to national socialism, have you ever considered the “political compass”?
For those unfamiliar with the concept, the X-axis extremes represent economic collectivism to individualism, and the Y-axis extremes represent political totalitarianism to libertarianism.
There are dozens of “tests” that you can take online, most are uselessly ambiguous in my opinion, and there are some significant criticisms against the political compass, but I think it’s far more functional than the left-right political spectrum, which traces its roots to the Napoleonic-era.
-Q
P.S.
There’s also the “political triangle.” It’s interesting, but I’m not sure that it’s necessarily better.
For example, contrary to their assertion, German national socialism historically was a blend of authoritarianism, nationalism, racism, and socialism . Stalin’s soviet system was a blend of authoritarianism, state-managed economy, internationalism, and socialism in my opinion.
https://www.greatconversations.us/p/the-political-triangle
-Q
Q, I looked at various spectra, and what I showed is actually the diagonal of a cube. I add, the right of the Speaker were the supporters of Monarchy, seats of honour and those increasingly sinister . . . Latin for left . . . just the opposite. Monarchy by and large has been dead since 1918. Though we see a Communist monarchy in No Ko. The right is ill defined and the centre is worse. Time for it to be retired. KF
Seversky: People had become aware that the world was an ordered place from simple observation, long before Christianity emerged. They watched the changing of the seasons, the movement of constellations in the sky, the migration of animals, when a river delta flooded. They noticed that a weight on the end of a piece of string could be used to provide a vertical reference line, KF’s favorite plumbline. No faith was required because they could be observed by anyone who took the trouble to look.
Exactly so! Way before there was anything like Christianity humans had come to the conclusion that some natural events were predictable and fit some kind of pattern. Arguably part of the plan behind the pyramids of Giza and very likely Stonehenge. Given that those two examples are separated by thousands of miles and many cultural hurdles it’s not too much of a leap to suppose that humans were looking for sense and coherence in the natural world WAY, WAY before Christianity.
If that’s true then the adoption of Christianity comes after the acceptance of there being an order and framework to reality. Which makes Christianity just one possible explanation for that order and framework.
Discuss.
JVL (attn Seversky), the fine tuning of the cosmos grounds an inference to design of our world, not to particular detailed theologies of God. We may go further to observe that a world with morally governed, responsible, significantly free creatures points to the need for a root of reality able to bridge is and ought. The only serious candidate to be such — try to propose one without either failing to bridge or collapsing into absurdity: ____ — after centuries of debate, is the inherently good and utterly wise creator God, a necessary and maximally great being worthy of loyalty and of the reasonable service of doing the good that accords with our evident nature. Such outlines on inference to best worldview explanation, the God of generic ethical theism. God as understood in more detail in the Christian tradition, is so understood through inscripturated prophetic revelation, with detailed fulfillment across centuries such as Jesus as wounded healer messiah who rises from the dead with 500 unstoppable witnesses and brings reconciliation with God from the breach caused by our misconduct. That more specific understanding is generally compatible with generic ethical theism, as the disciplines of philosophy of religion and systematic theology develop. For simple example, attributes of God are holographic microcosms, profoundly pointing to one another and maximal greatness has to do with having great-making properties in maximal compossible degree across all possible worlds. Similarly, necessary, reality root being implies mind with creative power causally enabling the instantiation of any and all possible worlds, being part of the framework for any world to exist. By contrast, say two-ness is similarly necessary and framework to any distinct possible world W with close but distinct neighbour W’ but such has no causal power. Though, 2 and its company in N, Z, Q, R, C, R* etc define structure and quantity constraints to being in any world. This gives core math its universal power. KF
PS: I gave this outline on worldview issues as I am aware it can be hard to find such in any reasonably brief compass. Standard works on systematic theology tend to be 3,000 + pp [Barth is 12,000 IIRC], and Grudem’s 101 for students weighs in at 1200. It remains that the gross betrayal of civilisation exposed in the OP is a telling slice of a rotten cake, and I find it interesting that so far there has been no serious effort to defend what has been done.
.
Seversky at #37, JVL at #60,
Why does it require researchers to provide two complimentary descriptions of the gene system in order to document the way it works? Everything just follows physical law does it not?
This is all such naive thinking. Society is being ripped apart, and supposedly this is about people not doing their duties.
No, it’s not about that, it’s about total anti-human evil. Total rejection of all human emotions, because emotions are subjective, and not objective. It’s systematic destruction of human emotion, ripping people’s heart out, and leaving them crazy, bereft of emotion.
Your mistake is, you also don’t really know that emotions are subjective, or what it means for something to be subjective. Subjective means that what makes a choice, can only be identified with a chosen opinion.
You can see that scientific materialism, that it has lots of credibility at universities. The idea is generally respected and popular, that all what exists is objective, and there exists nothing sujbective. So the entire spiritual domain, the agency of any choice, human, divine, or otherwise, is totally rejected.
So on facebook you have this army of millenial zombies arguing repetitively, “if there is no evidence for it, then it is not real” Which means all what is subjective, like the emotions love, hate, fear, etc. are not real.
That is a real explanation for evil, unlike your duties. To go out of your way to destroy human emotion, because of being fact obsessed, and therefore systematically throwing out all what is subjective.
Arguably a ‘voice of conscience’ which knows right & wrong in every situation and which, according to Cicero, is ‘law’, that is representing God, does not come from a simple set of rules. What is right & wrong depends on context more often than not. Millions of books are written to prove this point.
“Always tell the truth”, obviously doesn’t cut it when you are interrogated by Nazis, but there are many far less obvious scenario’s in which simple rules fail to guide one to what’s right, in which determining what is right & wrong demands extensive knowledge of context and the ability to weigh a multitude of factors.
If I am right about this, and a simple set of two-dimensional rules cannot provide enough guidance, then what does produce a Godly voice of conscience inside a human? It must be something that observes and understands the entire context of one’s ever changing situation. It has to live your life with you, so to speak. In other words, given that the voice of conscience is not mine, as is Cicero’s claim, it has to be another (Godly) person in me.
Kairosfocus @59,
I agree that the archaic one-dimensional political spectrum should be retired. Quite honestly, I don’t think any other one is adequate. One can certainly imagine a libertarian monarch and a totalitarian democracy, where 51% of the people can dictate how the other 49% can think and act.
You might be able to make the case for separating an economic system from a political system–Communist China does support a free market and the population is spread between abjectly poor farmers, mildly prosperous city dwellers, some extremely wealthy individuals. In 2011, over 90% of the 1,000 richest people tracked by the Hurun Report are either officials or members of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Here’s the Forbes list of the wealthiest people in Communist China:
https://www.forbes.com/china-billionaires/list/#tab:overall
So how does the Chinese version of Communism square with “from each according to their ability and to each according to their need”?
What I’m saying is that what governs a country has impact from the following factors:
1. How does a government administration comes into power?
2. How much influence do the people have on government policy?
3. How much influence do business interests have on government policy?
4. How much suppression there is of minority interests? (for example, can cities vote themselves all the water from agricultural areas?)
5. How much corruption is there in the government, including its legal system?
6. How much are people and businesses being taxed?
7. How stable and predictable is the administration?
8. How much power do bureaucrats and officials have? Realize that the U.S. has two parallel legal systems, one relates to criminal and business/tort law, the other to bureaucratic policy enforcement.
9. How much bureaucratic red tape is involved in starting a business? In hiring employees?
10. How free is immigration and emigration?
And so on . . .
-Q
P.S.
Imagine the people in the U.S. using “red” and “blue” political designations two hundred years from now when the U.S. is a collapsed nation ruled by dozens of warlords, with roving robber bands in between the city states and the heavily guarded Chinese strip mining, oil fracking, and clear cutting operations throughout the post-apocalyptic continent.
Red-blue would be just as completely irrelevant as the left-right designations that survived Napoleonic France.
-Q
Origenes, the key to conscience is clearly principles and relationships, connected together through neighbour love. As a faculty of mind it informs us as to our sense of realities: at root, A is true, the reasoning behind A is credible, X is a neighbour like we are. Duties obtain, details work through, if we have more elaborate moral training, for good or ill, it is part of our awareness of our freedom and alternatives. Justice is due balance of rights, freedoms, duties. From such, much flows, and our habitual choices have their own impact, for good or ill. Such becomes particularly evident in that heightened form of disagreement we call quarrelling. KF
PS: Let us remember Locke’s point:
PPS: Aquinas is also relevant:
MNY, it would be far more accurate to speak of manipulation of emotions. Our emotions are strong, but are no sounder than the underlying accuracy and soundness of perceptions, desires, expectations, judgements etc. KF
Querius, China has reverted to what it was under the Nationalists, a fascist state that is prone to lawless oligarchy. Fascism is the kissing cousin of Marxism. As to spectra, the one above is historically anchored and useful in providing insights into dynamics as the Overton window’s BATNAs are pushed. Currently in the US, lawfulness is being undermined and lawless oligarchy looms, with grave major potential geostrategic implications, starting with distraction in the face of an obvious Chinese push for blue ocean breakout and the continued islamist global push (it’s not just the Mullahs). KF
F/N: Note, how no-one has been able to cogently provide a rebuttal to the focal point made in the OP:
This of course immediately points to the negative credibility of the worldview and cultural agenda shaping or influencing classes and institutions. They had too much capability, access to information, witnesses and experts for this not to be willful betrayal in pursuit of agendas hostile to truth and right or even basic prudence. We should reject those classes as our idea, policy guidance or news sources and create or support serious alternatives. As a part of that we need to hold major critical reviews on the deceptions of the past generations and hold key figures to personal account for their betrayal. Institutions need to be exposed, going across the board. Some need to be forced to make restitution for damage done by their betrayal.
As we scan across the broader range of issues listed, we need to reckon with these on the now established foundation of cynical, willful betrayal and ruthless manipulation through frankly lies backed by power and presented under false colours of truth, history, science, education, medicine, law, sound government, policy analysis, news, entertainment, arts/culture and so forth. They now have forfeited the presumption of innocence and mere error and should be seen as purveyors of willful falsehood and manipulation to gain unaccountable power.
This is, “a long train of abuses and usurpations.” Pursuing a clear design of hopeless subjugation under lawless oligarchs.
Then, we need to go to truly, soundly, prudently radical reformation fully comparable to what was done on or about July 4, 1776.
We need to go back to root worldviews, policy, history, institutional, government and governance issues, education, the academy, the professions, the media etc and rebuild on soundness.
The rot — the deliberately fostered corruption — is broad and deep and needs to be dealt with before it utterly ruins our civilisation.
KF
I’m pretty confident the war has already been won by “the good guys” and what we’re going through now is a controlled decompression to generate as little upheaval as possible. You can’t warn people about the cliff; they have to go right up to the edge and see it for themselves, and see some of their friends and family fall off before they’ll turn against the tide.
What is the motive behind the crime?
I say the motive is, the feelings associated to conceiving of making a choice in terms of figuring out the best option.
That throws out the subjective spirit from the concept of choice.
It provides feelings of certainty about what is good and evil, because the facts of good and evil are used to evaluate what is the best option.
And everyone loves to be the best, and is pressured to do their best.
So that is strong psychological motivation.
My explanation is perfect.
– rejection of subjectivity explains perfectly the kind of mental illness seen
– there is strong psychological motivation for the crimes
You provide no explanation for motive.
Kairosfocus,
It is as if you are saying that the ‘voice of conscience’ tells us whether our reasoning is correct or not. So, according to you, it (also) fulfills the role we usually ascribe to (among other faculties) logical insight. Can you elaborate?
So, the ‘voice of conscience’ informs us of basic duties, but “elaborate moral training” is required to make correct moral decisions [to ascertain what the concrete duty is in situation Y] when complex scenarios arise and require us to weigh a multitude of factors.
Indeed, many things need to be weighed and factored in. So, you are saying that the ‘voice of conscience’ offers no direct conclusive solutions —“now you ought to do X”— when complex scenarios arise? IOWs the ‘voice of conscience’ isn’t able to give concrete guidance to a person in many situations?
Conscience is extensively described in Wikipedia and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Both religious and non-religious understandings.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscience
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/conscience/
Earth to JVL and seversky- ID traces back to before Christianity. Now what?
Kairosfocus @69,
Yes. Indeed it is!
So what did Mussolini believe and what was his platform? Let’s go the source:
On June 6, 1919, Mussolini published the “Fascist Manifesto” in his newspaper, Il Popolo d’Italia, The People of Italy. Here’s the translation:
So, ask yourself honestly: How many of the above points do you or anyone reading this disagree with?
No, I’m not Fascisti. I’m just pointing out that Fascism is actually compatible with many political ideologies in the Americas. Both the U.S. and China could be classified as Fascist, but certainly not “right-wing.”
By establishing his own nationalist/socialist franchise in Italy, Mussolini became the object of intense hatred by internationalist communists, which persists as a common pejorative to this day, Fascist, mostly by people who are totally clueless about Fascism and simply use that pejorative against anyone who disagrees (how dare they!) with their own views.
Tangentially, I’d point out that current politics in general is mostly about manipulation and betrayal of trust. That’s why I despise politics and I resent being driven into an arena with people who are in bitter combat over who gets to control the graft, corruption, and juicy payouts for their supporters and the civil service at the expense of the hardworking population they’re supposed to be serving. Think I’m over-reacting? Read this:
This is the reality of our current politics.
-Q
Querius, of course, apart from hints, it is what is not in the manifesto that counts. KF
Kairosfocus @77,
Ahhhh, so it’s not merely the aspirational “end” (including social values, priorities, and outcomes) but also the “means” that largely determines the classification of a political system.
-Q
Origenes,
kindly note the historic significance of the citation of Hooker in Locke:
It is because we have been robbed of that history that we fail to understand the pivotal importance of the first duties and how powerfully they shape practical moral government and law, thus civilisation. Conscience is a voice of witness, it itself is not the root source but it points to it, as has already been discussed.
KF
Mussolini – some comments:
https://uncommondescent.com/logic-and-first-principles-of-right-reason/lfp-41-worldview-formation-plausibility-structures-and-geostrategic-signs-of-our-times/#comment-729165
Mussolini was killed and hung upside down with his good friend Nicola Bombacci in 1945. Who was Nicola Bombacci? Answer: The founder of the Italian Communist party. They were trying to rewrite the Communist Manifesto at the time. (By the way this connection and who was killed with Mussolini is essentially hidden in any account of his death. I wonder why? )
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicola_Bombacci
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicola_Bombacci#/media/File:Mussolini_e_Petacci_a_Piazzale_Loreto,_1945.jpg
Note above in Serge’s analysis was the observation with liberal democracy weakened, corporations would impose ways of life.
So is Big Tech the real enemy?
If one wants to understand socialism, I recommend Joshua Muravchik’s book, Heaven on Earth.
https://www.amazon.com/Heaven-Earth-Rise-Afterlife-Socialism/dp/1594039631
In terms of conscience, it is most developed in people who have a certain conception of God. In a comment a couple months ago.
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/lfp-47-the-credibility-of-the-concept-and-existence-of-god/#comment-737637
So as the concept of such a God wanes, a conscience or what is in that conscience also wanes.
It is easy to find a lack of conscience in individuals. I am currently listening to O’Reilly’s “Killing the Mob” and the atrocities that criminals have committed in the last 100 years here in the US is amazing for a theoretically Christian society.
Jerry, it is actually an old story of the benumbed and warped, darkened conscience that can be summed up in one word, Nero: https://www.poetryintranslation.com/PITBR/Latin/Suetonius6.php Rom 1 and Eph 4 vv 17 ff speak to this, in contemporary documents 57 and 61/2 AD. I cite the latter:
Thus, we see the need for counter-culture driven reform in defence of civilisation; thus proper human thriving. Note here, Augustine’s City of God against the Pagans, as a classic example still worth the perusal. KF
PS: Went a-looking, hard to find the ebook (I have a Penguin paperback), here is web archive https://archive.org/details/city_of_god_ds_librivox oops audio I think this is text https://archive.org/details/citygod00dodsgoog even that is just one piece, try again later
F/N: I think this may be the full book https://www.monergism.com/city-god-ebook
F/N2: This from CoG Bk2 Ch 1 is a classic bit of food for thought relevant to UD:
KF
A course published by The Great Courses.
https://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/moral-decision-making-how-to-approach-everyday-ethics
On sale today- 24 lectures for $19.95 – audio.
A question is without a common morality/ethical standards, can a civilization persist?
Then can a common morality/ethic govern without a belief in God that requires these standards?
These are the two main questions for today’s society.
Barna thinks no on both and so do I.
Is there any doubt that the old saw about power corrupting is perfectly true? Whether it’s financial, economic, political, military or even religious, when great power is concentrated in the hands of the individual or the few there will be an almost irresistible tendency to exercise it for personal advantage at the expense of the less advantaged. And, as we have seen and continue to see, once the concentration of power becomes great enough, there is all too little that can be done to stop them short of war. The only obvious curbs on the abuse of power are either to find leaders who hold themselves to the highest principles of selfless service or constitutional limits on the extent of the access to power and/or how long access to it is allowed. The problem with establishing either or both of those ultimately depends on the will of populations that are all too often fickle and fragmented. For some reason, the metaphor of herding cats comes to mind.
Sounds like something Kf has been discussing the last couple years and is part of this OP.
Sev, strictly, Lord Acton — a great Christian historian, BTW — said, “power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely, great men are bad men.” He was discussing popes of the Renaissance era. The problem is that the natural state of government is lawless oligarchy and we need to build . . . and now, rebuild . . . a culture of lawfulness and liberty with justice. Which, those who so busily undermine first duties hasten to undermine. Then, there are issues such as the principal-agent challenge and regulatory capture. KF
Jerry @80,
Thanks for the references to Nicola Bombacci–fascinating!
Also found out that Nicola Bombacci was a friend of Lenin and recommended Mussolini to him. and that he participated in the Bolshevik revolution. He and Antonio Gramsci founded the Communist Party of Italy in the 1920’s.
The primary split between Fascism and Communism was over nationalism versus internationalism, and it still is. However, any system is vulnerable to human corruption.
To Kairosfocus mentioning Lord Acton’s famous quote about power corrupts, I’d add that Lord Acton also once said,
It’s funny how people always want to accumulate power in the name of something–social justice, economic redistribution, universal education, the plight of the poor, saving the planet. Sadly, it always turns out to be hypocrisy and self-delusion resulting in yet another human hellhole.
The answer then is not in creating massive bureaucracies, spending insane amounts of money, passing draconian laws, consolidating businesses and governmental entities, or creating ultra-high density urban populations, but rather the exact opposite.
-Q
The conservatives in the USA are making a good pushback against socialism. However, they are still clueless that the root problem is lack of acceptance of subjectivity.
Conservatives have more or less accurately identified universities, and materialism, as the root of the problem. The root from which socialism comes.
So then conservatives will try to get academics to accept the spiritual is real. But then these conservatives assert the spiritual is objective.
Which is a total lie.
So the “conservatives” will try to make God scientific, which would then supposedly kill of socialism.
However, doing that will only make faith dysfunction, taking the emotion out of belief in God, so that conservatives become corrupt.
The idea of freedom of opinion, doest not really comport with being FORCED by evidence to the conclusion that God is real.
The conservatives would become to reject subjectivity, the concept of personal opinion, just the same as materialists reject subjectivity.
Jerry
“When the private corporation ends up essentially under government control, a different form of socialism happens. This is what happened in Mussolini’s Italy snd Hitler’s Germany.”
This is why I disagree that the threat to America is Communism, what we are witnessing before our very eyes is the transition into a fascist country. We are well down that path and unfortunately it is to late to stop it.
Vivid
I disagree.
I believe the Marxists hope for collapse and then some form of mass government control to reach their utopia. They are not interested in any sort of nationalism. That’s why they promote mass immigration and racism. They want endless internal conflict. However, basic human nature will prevent any coherence for their ideas. So that won’t succeed because it never works.
There is the Big Tech WEF crew who hopes to establish a world government by fiat to solve all the problems. This is just the opposite of fascism. They believe they are in control. That’s why Wall Street temporarily supports the Left.
Then there is China who wants to rule the world and Islam waiting in the wings to clean up. They don’t care how many die.
None of it will lead to anything sensible so let’s hope none of it happens. But fascism is out since few want a nationalist system. Nobody wants a white supremacist country anywhere.
That’s the joke. The US is the least racist country in the history of the world but all you hear is racism.
Jerry,
the fascist principle of man-of-the-crisis-moment, above normal law political messianism, dictatorship and linked capture of power centres into a total system [hence, cartelisation of corporations, turning Capitalists into pensioners of the State [speak to the ghost of Professor Hugo Junkers — yes, THAT Junkers — here] bringing of churches under umbrellas etc] needs not be tied to nationalism in a racist sense. This is, just as we are seeing how the Frankfurt School and Gramsci [a co-founder of the specifically Communist Party in Italy, I gather] showed that marxism needs not be tied to economic mode of production based classes but can be tied to socio-cultural identity groups and used to exploit fissures in the society, the fascist imperative can be tied to any critical mass coalition of those open to that idolatry.
For, the cult of the Nietzschean super-man above ordinary law who emerges as rescuer in the face of allegedly unprecedented crisis will attract those who are open to lawlessness and are in a state of panic and loss of confidence in existing arrangements. And in effect, it is creation of a cult with a demi-god. Or a Pantheon, observe, Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, likewise Hitler, Mussolini, even some of the lionisation of Roosevelt (and concealment of his crippled condition), etc. George Orwell adds, the two minute hate of the designated scapegoat of the hour. 1984 should be prescribed reading and/or viewing.
This is of course one of the key missing ingredients in the Fascist Manifesto as identified, a cult of political messianism tied to a crisis mentality and breakdown of support for lawfulness so due balance of rights, freedoms and duties.
Likewise, such would attack the natural law, universal jurisdiction themes in the linked first duties [contrast, the US DoI, 1776, which is a sound natural law argument in its key 2nd paragraph] . . . which directly imply, there are no exceptions that allow us to surrender conscience-guided and guarded moral and prudential government of our responsible rational freedom, pivoting on truthfulness and right reason. That leads to a context in which we should be suspicious of those who create a crisis narrative in disregard of truth and who set up lawless political cults and linked violent factions, as well as would be super-men.
Similarly, the shame the past culture revolution mentality undermines the value of learning sound lessons of history paid for with blood and tears, undermining prudence and cooperative reform rather than violent, lawless revolution. Where, dangerous and opaque, unbalanced concentrations of power such as cartelisation of key economic sectors or institutions are obvious further sources of danger.
Hence, BTW, the Big Tech, one party media culture and Big Pharma concerns.
And more.
KF
PS: All of this points to the key sign highlighted in Barna’s survey, that within living memory, a generation has been brought up to be ignorant of a lesson regarding socialist political messianism bought with 100 million lives across seventy years of ruinous dictatorship in the name of liberating oppressed classes.
Late to the game. But better late than never.
But did the survey define what they meant by socialism? It is likely that the millennials’ ideas of socialism are closer to the Scandinavian system than to KF’s extremes. I fear that KF is unknowingly erecting a strawman.
Millennials are more tolerant of differences and less tolerant of the acceptance and promotion of intolerance against previously marginalized groups than previous generations. That is definitely an improvement.
JS, not likely, it is clear that Marxism has been repackaged and promoted using Frankfurt School and Gramsci-derived techniques, that Capitalism has been framed as a grave evil and that what is reasonably advocated, free market enterprise in a lawful state has been sidelined and painted in lurid colours that often refuse to recognise its achievements and the verdict of 1989 – 91. Besides, Scandinavian states are cases of high tax welfare states not of socialist ones. Further to all this, no responsible educator — formal or informal — could ignore the empirical verdict of history 30 years ago. It is the blatant want of balance that is telling us that something is really rotten and indicts generations of intellectual leaders as betrayers of their duty, starting with, to history. KF
PS: Sorry, I also don’t buy the attempted redefining of tolerance. For cause. “Tolerating” those who tow, enable or are silent in the face of an agenda is not a virtue, especially when principled objection is routinely pounced on in the most extreme or even outright defamatory terms and subjected to censorship and worse. We see the red guard tactics in action, we see the defamation, we see the censorship, we see the career busting and more.
PPS: I dig up some excerpts from inside:
>>The progressive leanings of the generation are
no more obvious than in regard to their feelings
about socialism. Over the past five years, more
than one-third of Millennials has consistently
favored socialism over capitalism. However, the
current research generated the highest proportion
of support yet for socialism: 48 percent. >>
>>The fact that only a slight majority consider
themselves to be patriots makes more sense in
the context of the reactions of Millennials to a
handful of political words and phrases.
When asked to provide their reaction to “United
States of America,” barely half (53 percent)
had a positive reaction. Further, only half
(50 percent) had a favorable reaction to the
term “democracy.” In both cases, the positive
reactions outweighed the negative by about a
2:1 margin. But the research also revealed that a
very small proportion of Millennials had a “very
positive” reaction to either the “United States of
America” (just 23 percent) or “democracy”
(18 percent).
Positive opinions of both liberals and
conservatives were even more suppressed.
Overall, only about one-third had favorable
impressions of either conservatives (33 percent)
or progressives/liberals (36 percent). Very
small percentages held a “very positive” view
of conservatives (13 percent) or progressives/
liberals (10 percent).
The other term explored was “socialism,” which
generated a positive impression among one-
third of young adults (33 percent) and nearly as
widespread of a negative impression
(28 percent).
It is noteworthy that Millennials are more
willing to express their preference of
socialism to capitalism in spite of the fact
that fewer of them have a positive point-
of-view on socialism. As noted, a previous
study found that most Americans – and
Millennials, in particular – who generally
express a preference for socialism do not
actually know what socialism entails
in practice. iv>>
That pattern is telling.
Which only proves the point that the millennials who responded to the survey do not follow the dictionary definition of socialism. When asked what socialism is, most millennials would probably point to the Scandinavian countries as an example. Government paid education, health care, welfare, maternity leave and so on.
Survey results have to be taken with a grain of salt. Our civilization is changing, as it has with every generation. The role of parents and society is to ensure that the next generation is provided with the information necessary to make informed decisions. There is no indication that the millennials will do any worse than previous generations, and plenty of evidence that they may do better.
JS,
actually, yes but not as you imagine. That’s because of the specifically anti-democratic, anti-American attitudes associated. That lends colour to the picture.
First, if people of ages 18 – 40 are unaware of the 100 million victims, tyranny, economic mismanagement and ruin done by socialist regimes, that is a red flag as that is history that should be known. Events in Cuba, Venezuela, Hong Kong, China, North Korea and more are all very recent also and should have led to a major public education moment.
Now, Democracy was in bad odour after the failure of Athens through the Peloponnessian war [and that too is another point of ignorance], but in aftermath of the printing revolution, the ferment surrounding the Reformation [e.g. Vindicia Contra Tyrannos etc], the 1688 Glorious Revolution, the American Revolution showed that there was a viable sustainable Constitutional democratic alternative to the challenge of hoping for lawful oligarchy while fending off — if you were lucky — the repeated threat of lawless oligarchy. (See chart in OP.)
Those are basics of history, as is the impact of lawful state based free market enterprise in finally breaking the back of poverty.
That the 18 – 40 cohort in such proportions have been led to be hostile to that speaks volumes in general, and in specific it speaks to the sense of “Socialism” that is on the table. Namely, lawless ideological oligarchy through the totalitarian state, however disguised.
The red guard rioting, mayhem, arson, destruction of small businesses and media gaslighting over the past 20+ months underscores the point.
So, we need to see that over the past 100 years previous generations were responsible for two world wars that cost what 80 – 100 million lives, the second one featuring National Socialism (and yes they meant the socialist). The Marxists in addition accounted for 100 million victims and the worst single tyrannical ideology in human history. Globally, our culture is additionally responsible for the worst holocaust, 800+ million of our living posterity in the womb.
So, no I do not buy the yardstick of the previous generations.
It is time for sober reformation.
KF
Who says they are unaware of the history? The fact that they view socialism in a different way than is defined in the dictionary is not their fault. After all, any time there are pushes for things like universal health care and other social policies, they are pasted with the socialist label.
It was through the combination of capitalism and regulations placed upon it that provided the opportunity for many to lift themselves out of poverty.
No, it underscores the frustration of people who for decades have only been paid lip-service over their legitimate grievances. There is a long history of rioting where businesses, property owners and government officials have been the innocent victims. The Baltimore riots in the early 1800s; the hard scrabble and snow town race riots in the early 1800s; the Cincinnati riots of 1829; the anti abolition riots of 1834; the Lombard street riots of 1842; and many, many more. Hardly the result of millennials.
It is not a yardstick. It is simply reflecting on history to make sense of today, and to make predictions for tomorrow. Another thing to be learned from history is that the previous generation almost always complains about the upcoming generation. Yet civilization endures.
JS, the history speaks for itself and there are dozens to hundreds of millions of living eyewitnesses to speak further. As for civilisation endures and one generation complains against the other, that is false. The Peloponnesian War is a history of folly leading to catastrophic collapse. In fact the backdrop to Plato’s ship of state parable. 476 AD is the conventional date on the collapse of the W Roman empire leading to chaos for centuries and over a thousand years to come back. After centuries, the system of monarchies collapsed through WW1, and of two major successor systems, Nazism collapsed after about a dozen years in power and Marxism after seventy. When a dominant generation of some 80 millions just in the US has been misled to deride constitutional democracy, the BATNA of lawfulness is under threat to trigger collapse into lawless oligarchy which is the natural state of government. Indeed, the US is already in a low kinetic, 4th gen civil war, with agit prop, lawfare, red guards as cannon fodder for colour revolutions and a Reichstag fire analogue already on the ground. I think it will fail, but the distraction is what opens geostrategic opportunity for China’s blue ocean breakout push that leads to nuclearisation on the arc surrounding China’s coast from Japan to Australia and possibly Singapore. Very, very bad news. KF
This is the 21st century. Ponderings of of philosophers that have been dead for 25 centuries is of little interest, and of even less relevance to modern society.
One of the more ignorant statement here in some time. But there is lots of competition.
They certainly didn’t get everything right, but one should never avoid listening to what they have to say. The human being has not changed since then. So they have may something important to say about today’s world.
I will suggest one that is only 700 years old to listen to, Ibn Khaldun and his concept of Asabiyyah.
If not past philosophers, then who? Name people in today’s world who are worth listening to. And why?
In the 21st century, the vast majority of academics has thrown out subjectivity in it’s entirety.
That is the truth, because subjectivity is an exclusively creationist concept, and creationism has been thrown out.
1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinion
2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / fact
For as far as basic acceptance and comprehension of subjectivity goes, emotions, God, personal opinion, modern man is the worst in all the history I know of. That is simply a fair judgement.
Not quite. In opposition to objective scientific evidence and truth, the vast majority of academics have chosen to pollute their spiritual life with the delusional subjective opinion that materialism explains the universe & life.
JS, trying to tell truth by the clock is a huge fallacy. And in the relevant case the matter is history, not philosophy in the main: Athenian Democracy and the Peloponnesian war, which Plato recast in the terms of the parable of the ship of state. One way to put it in case some have swallowed the history is victory propaganda fallacy: Russian proverb, dwell on the past and you lose an eye; forget the past and you lose both your eyes. Another: the lessons of sound history were bought with blood and tears; those who neglect, deride or dismiss such doom themselves to pay in the same coin over and over again. Then, guess who said history repeats twice, once as tragedy, the next time as farce? A: One certain Karl Marx. KF
PS: Ship of State, no prizes for guessing why it is still highly relevant:
Jerry:
The issue of social capital vs fatal disaffection is pivotal. Those who seek to divide and polarise can reasonably be suspected of playing at divide and subjugate games. They fail to see that divisiveness becomes a habit, the crabs in a barrel mentality. I pointed out that we seldom hear of ants in a barrel, except our struggle to keep them out . . . they know how to work together.
KF
F/N: I should comment further on the truth by the clock fallacy.
For example Pythagoras’ theorem in general form is probably 2500 years old, and of course Pythagoras was a philosophical mystic. Do we dismiss it as automatically outdated by age? No. As, it is an established property of planar figures, right angle triangle, is objective and once established, is generally recognised. First principles of right reason are like that too, let’s clip a 2,000 year old use from an often resented classical source, of what was probably a rhetoric 101 example, here an epistle of the Apostle Paul . . . and yes that says something about willingness to accept and use genuinely established findings in foundational Christian teachings:
This is of course the law of distinct identity, here shown as inescapable and inescapably true so self-evident by way of being critical to linguistic communication so too propositional thought. Its close immediate corollaries are instantly also present, non-contradiction and excluded middle.
Symbolically, W = {A|~A}, so A= A, in light of its core characteristics. Likewise no x in W can be A AND ~A in the same sense and circumstances. No y in W can be neither A nor ~A nor both of course. Once we have that the distinguishing partition obtains.
So, we see established longstanding truths as matters of fact.
Going further, the implicit claim, that we cannot know the world sufficiently to warrant objective truths about it or its features, is a self-referential objective truth-claim. It therefore refutes itself. We may err but knowable objective truths exist. And relevance can be seen from how one day we will be remote past so if we already claim right to discount our remote past we discount our present too.
The fallacy of trying to tell truth by the clock and dismiss past thinkers without consideration collapses, exposed.
KF
@KF Your concept of objectivity is arbitrary, based on emotion. You argue for objectivity like, it is “absurd” to deny it. And there are “penalties” for denying it. You argue about objectivity, in emotive terms, those are emotive terms.
You conceive of all statements as rooted in subjectivity, because the subject has the initial perceptions. And then you use “warrant” to build up the subjective perceptions to the level of objectivity.
But what is the point that there is enough warrant that something becomes objective? That point is completely arbitrary, based on emotion.
The root you use is subjective. You make it some kind of ritual of being saved, starting from the errorprone subjectivity, and ending up with the error free objectivity, through warranting of statements.
It’s a total mess. You are wrong, I am right. You have no chance to be right in the first place, because you do not even try to accurately describe the logic of subjectivity and objectivity as it is used in common discourse. You are just fantasizing.
Meanwhile free society is systematically being destroyed, because of academics undermining subjectivity. And you are only making things worse.
I am right. I am the only one who is right. All the rest of you are just fantasizing how subjectivity and objectivity works, which is a total outrage.
Straight from the fantasy of Kairosfocus, promulgated as the truth about how things work. Shameless. But everyone else here does the same thing, each their own delusional fantasy about subjectivity and objectivity.
Except me. I am the only one who did his homework, trying to accurately describe the underlying logic used with subjective statements and objective statements in common discourse.
MNY, objectivity rests on recognising that we are error prone in our perceptions, ideas, attempted inferences etc and secondly that successful warrant — drawing on first principles of right reason, evidence etc — gives grounds for recognising reliability and soundness of claims. That is the opposite of arbitrariness or emotional decision-making. KF
PS: Further, we are self-aware conscious agents, subjects. All our thought, perception, ideation, argument, inference etc passes through our cognitive processing. Being subjects is at core of being human; computers by opposite case, are non rational as they lack freedom to choose, dynamic-stochastic processes and steps etc are not acts of free reason governed by duties of responsible thought, they are GIGO limited and of course good design is the duty of hardware engineers and programmers who are rational, responsible and significantly free. However as such processes are error prone it behooves us to take steps founded in right reason, logic, epistemology to do due diligence towards reliability and truth, reducing likelihood of error.
PPS: Augustine has a point:
@KF
Objectivity is not really error prone. The senses generally automatically provide a perfect 1 to 1 corresponding model of the real world. When you look at things with your eyes, you generally get a perfect representation of what you are looking at, in your mind. It is basically the same as a videocamera recording.
While there are various exceptions and limitations to the capability to make 1 to 1 corresponding models, the process is not fundamentally errorprone. Instead our senses provide accurate information up to an incredibly high standard.
What you say is absolute rubbish, because it is just fantasy. It is fantasy because you openly do not try to accurately describe the logic of subjectivity and objectivity as used in common discourse.
It is still a total outrage, that you just fantasize whatever. And you are causing us to lose the war against socialism, with this kind of total stupidity that you, and all the rest of you here, are spouting.
It is very obvious to me that academics is systematically rejecting the entire subjective part of reality. The whole spiritual domain, including both human emotions, and God, they reject it all. It is total evil.
While you are still sensitive to accusations from academics, that you are supporting creationism. You are sensitive to accusations from totally evil academics. Why would anyone listen to the utter fools from academics who deny God?
Creationism is the only thing that validates the concept of subjectivity. That becomes obvious, when you investigate the logic of subjectivity as used in common discourse.
Only creationism can destroy socialism. Make people accept the validity of what is subjective, and therefore believe in the reality of the spiritual domain in general, including human emotions, and God.
MNY@113
So ‘objectivity’ is what comes to us via our external senses. Objectivity is our perception of the external world.
How do you name the interpretation of our perception of the external world? Is interpretation part of objectivity or does it belong in the domain of subjectivity?
@origines You ask the wrong question. The question that should be asked is, what logic is used with subjective statements, and objective statements, in common discourse.
And the answer is subjective statements are chosen and express what it is that makes a choice. And objective statements are a 1 to 1 corresponding model of a creation.
The concept of interpretation is not fundamentally relevant, only the terms subjectivity and objectivity are fundamentally relevant.
@KF , 🙂 I guess MMN confuses objectivity with methodological naturalism , and subjectivity with spirituality.
As it appears that the thread is cycling around to objective truth and objective moral truths, this might be a good place to drop a comment that was lost in moderator limbo.
—————
The things that can be said to be objectively true, with a few rare exceptions, are:
1) Humans are emotional beings;
2) Humans, for whatever reason, categorize behaviors into “right” and “wrong”. And that these are further classified into levels of severity; and,
3) Humans have an emotional response (guilt) when they perform a behavior that they have categorized as wrong. The strength of this response is proportional to the severity the behavior has been classified.
From here there are two possibilities:
1) These “rights” and “wrongs” are based on objective moral truths; or,
2) They are based on subjectively derived moral “preferences”.
The best way to examine this problem is to attempt to envision a society based on each of these. The one that requires the fewest additional assumptions, and which best resembles the societies we see and have recorded throughout history, is likely to be the best explanation.
We cannot “see” by radio waves, microwaves, infrared radiation, ultra-violet light, X-rays or gamma rays. Our other senses have similar limitations.
We create – and live within – a model of what we believe to be an external reality. That model is necessarily incomplete and imperfect because it is based on sensory data which is itself incomplete. In terms of survival, though, all that is required is that it be accurate enough to enable us to navigate through – and survive within – that external reality.
We knew nothing of neutrinos until Wolfgang Pauli had his insight even though, as we now know, billions of them are pouring through every square centimeter of our bodies every second.
Our knowledge of the neutrino is an illustration of how by, developing models within models. we can learn things about external reality which we cannot perceive directly. And this knowledge was not dispensed grudgingly from on high. It was excavated by dogged human research without any outside help, another example of what methodological naturalism can achieve.
MNY:
Is this claim objective or subjective?
I’m surprised to learn that this is the question that should be asked. That question would have never occured to me. Not sure what it means, if anything. But Ok, here we go:
What logic is used with subjective statements, and objective statements, in common discourse?
So, you don’t have to answer my question. How convenient for you.
MNY, you have set up a strawman. With error-prone perception, cognition, imagination, ideation etc we need to filter and detect/correct error as much as possible to enhance reliability hence warrant, use of principles of reason, filtering to remove biases etc. I cannot but note how tangential this is in a context where the issue on the table is vital to recognising that something has warped a generation to the point that one of the most liberating and protective developments of all time, constitutional, rights protective democracy, is widely derided and deemed of low repute. Similarly, where lawful, free market enterprise, which opened up widespread breakout from poverty is similarly disregarded. This is a signature of agit prop turnabout and needs to be corrected by precisely prioritising objectivity. KF
LCD, you may have a point. KF
@Joe Schooner
Can you tell me what the term “objectively true” means? Does it mean “really true”, “really really true”, “everyone should agree with me that this is true”, “true in the external world” or something else?
MNY, I note AmHD, on common [good] sense: “Sound judgment not based on specialized knowledge.” You will note how this relies on prudence, right reason and orientation to truth, fair mindedness etc, precisely the foci of first duties of reason that several frequent commenters at UD have gone out of their way to sideline. Such relies on general knowledge, awareness of current and major historic events, broad experience of the world accessible to the man in the Clapham bus stop and being perceptive enough to recognise key basic fallacies. One of the first recognitions is our error proneness and need to do due diligence to think through soundly. Which is another way of saying, need to warrant, grounding objectivity. Which then becomes highly relevant to the focal issue in the OP, breakdown of straight thinking by an extraordinarily high proportion of a generation. DV, more to follow, there are further warning signs. KF
“A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by a sentient subject. “
Joe @124
What truth conditions exactly?
So when you say that statement X is an ‘objective truth’, you are declaring that you are not biased in saying so. But why should anyone believe you?
Put differently, should we believe every person who claims that he/she makes a statement without bias?
Origenes, truth is best recognised as accurate correspondence of what is said to what is real, entities, states of affairs, whatever. Truth conditions has to do with having reliable warrant of such correspondence, reducing likelihood of error or bias etc. In turn, the issue is our error proneness and our being able to take steps to more reliably connect thought, ideas, words etc to truth. Hence, pivotal importance of warrant, beyond oh X sez so. Seven year olds know this at basic level. KF
F/N: Drifting, again, I highlight the focal issue in the OP:
KF
Truth is an accurate description of reality. Truth is truth, there is no sense in breaking it up into multiple parts — such as ‘objective truth’ and ‘subjective truth’.
There is however the crucial divide in internal and the external world: two separate realms of warrant. Therefore it does make sense to speak of “objective warrant” and “subjective warrant”.
It is important to note that “objective warrant” does not automatically make truth and “subjective warrant” does not make error. A hypothesis can be false despite the presence of objective warrant.
Only perfect understanding makes truth.
Let’s think at a family. Parents are wise and loving . Child is naive, curious and developing.
In a dialoque between parents and child we visualize parents as objective and child like subjective but the assimilation of parents objective information is transforming the child gradually towards more and more objectivity. Objectivity is not only a raw information has to contain love and moral purpose (the trinity of human powers: reason, sentiment and volition.) We analize any info through all 3 filters and decide about it. If one filter is broken(for reason:mental problems;for sentiment:hate,vices; for volition:ignore) we deal with subjectivity.
On the correspondence theory of truth, a claim about the world is true to the extent it can be observed to correspond to what it purports to describe or explain. Moral claims are not descriptions of the nature of observable reality or what “is”, they are prescriptions for how we should behave towards one another or what we “ought” to do. On this understanding, moral claims are neither true nor false.
Objective is whatever exists regardless of whether it is being perceived or experienced by some other entity. Strictly speaking, however, this is an assumption since there is no way for me to be certain that something continues to exist when I am not aware of it.
I experience continued existence regardless of whether anyone else is around to be aware of me. But even that is an assumption since I am not aware of myself when I sleep. I could be a new creation every time I’m awake fully-stocked with false memories of a fictitious history.
BA77, KF and WJM could all be figments of my imagination or I could be an AI simulation constructed by some alien supercomputer.
As Mr Spock was wont to say, “fascinating!”
Can you rewrite your message that would contain no moral claim ?
Origenes, it is not parts of truth but degrees of access to it. Given our error proneness on one hand, means of warrant in the middle and the relatively few cases where we can acquire complete certainty. Objective truth is sufficiently warranted as to be reliable per tests etc, but our warrant in most cases is subject to further correction though reliable. In some few cases we can attain utter certainty. KF
Seversky:
I may be speaking truth when I say that I suffer from weltschmerz, even if didn’t tell anyone about it before and kept it otherwise perfectly hidden for the outside world. IOWs it may be true even if there is no inkling of warrant for it in the outside world, other than me saying it.
And I may be speaking untruth when I say that I love Betty, even when I proposed to her and told everyone I know that I love her. It may be a lie even if I had a plane fly a banner with “I love Betty.”
Origenes & Seversky, that we may err or lie or be ignorant in part does not change the significance of truth as saying of what is that it is and of what is not that it is not. For, it is accurate description etc that put us in touch with reality, warrant providing reliability. Trying to live out of accurate contact with reality is a recipe for disaster; some would say, for cause, that in some cases that defines not mere error but outright insane and too often stubborn folly. . It is a measure of the sad state of our civilisation that we seem to have in many cases lost touch with that. No wonder we tend to dance on the crumbling edge of a cliff as the OP highlights. KF
LCD (attn Seversky): or, imply no binding first duties to truth, right reason, warrant and broader prudence etc? KF
Sev, BTW, one of the utterly certain things is our self-awareness, and I am no figment of your imagination. You may find excuses to dismiss as you please but that does not change the reality nor my ability to speak or write of it. And meanwhile we see the way playing with hyperskepticism and imagining it a virtue have played havoc with our civilisation, Plato’s Cave and now increasingly Ship of State mutiny leading to voyage of folly level havoc. KF
Origenes, warrant is in principle communicable thus public. We work things through in accord with right reason and we can share our findings, that BTW is how bodies of reliable knowledge [weak, defeatable/correctable sense that is usual] and best practice are built up. KF
KF
Nowhere have I argued that it does. But what it does change is the significance of warrant in the outside world WRT subjects. The examples of subjective statements I have provided in @134 show that indirect objective (or inter-subjective) warrant cannot give us certainty about the truthfulness of subjective statements.
Yep, I consider all mentioned by you under morality umbrella. Actually I think that 100% communication action(spoken or written word) involve morality. Can someone provide an example of communication that involve no morality?
🙂 Even “Sky is blue ” involve morality.
You make the case of morality(truth/lies) that influences the statements. Do you have the tool to detect a lie? if yes then you have the warrant of a true/false statement. If not then you put the statement on the shelf of ambiguous statements.
Origenes, you will note that I have consistently noted that our accessible degree of warrant is in most cases defeatable, but that warrant must be reliable, similar to say scientific knowledge. That is our lot with knowledge, commonly used sense. However start with say 3 + 2 = 5, warranted by || + ||| –> ||||| and we will see that while relatively few, there are indeed many cases where warrant can and does provide utter certainty. Already, the import of having to be to doubt existence shows that I exist as a self aware being is undeniable and readily communicated to similar agents, triggering the same degree of warrant in them. Likewise, any language using, thinking creature cannot but affirm the law of identity thus its close corollaries, non contradiction and excluded middle. Error exists is similar. With a considerable number of other examples. Objectivity includes the utterly certain case as a limiting ideal attainable in relatively few but absolutely many cases. Such has been already pointed out. KF
PS: We do not need to have general solutions to challenges to detect errors or lies, to recognise that there are many cases of successful warrant and significantly many where warrant is to utter certainty.
@Origenes
You are supposed to investigate what the underlying rules are in objective statements, like to say that there is a camel out back, and subjective statements, like to say, I find this painting beautiful.
What you do, what Kairosfocus does, what LCD does, is to fantasize how subjectivity and objectivity works, without investigating the logic used in common discourse.
You just fantasize complete nonsense, why is that? Subjectivity and objectivity are much like any other issue. Like photosynthesis. You don’t go fantasizing about how photosynthesis works, you investigate, and accurately reflect how it works.
Same subjectivity and objectivity. Subjectivity and objectivity are phenomenon apparent in language people use, so then you investigate the common discourse to find the rules about how they work.
But you all just keep on blatantly fantasizing about how it works. Which is so revolting and outrageous.
And you enquiring about “interpretation”, that is just about you meandering in your fantasizing. Not focusing on the rules used in common discourse, but making up your own rules.
So now again, what rules are used with subjective statements, and objective statements, in common discourse?
Answer the question.
MNY, your drumbeat assertion does not create reality though it may shape perception of those not alert to the rhetorical impact. You have been repeatedly given answers, have been corrected as necessary, only to find attempted smears such as calling us liars and worse. Beyond a certain point where adequate analysis has been given, there is no duty to try to further answer especially where there is a manifestly uncivil attitude. Here, for example, your questions are not real questions as answers are not taken seriously, they are only being used to try to derail, domineer and poison discussion. If you doubt, kindly observe the title and OP, which are on a highly important issue of a manipulated generation:
Objective truth is of course processed through our self-aware agency with due recognition of our error-proneness, and application of principles and tools of right reason to yield a more reliable, warranted result. Which is doubly important in an age of manipulation and the cynical spreading of the grand objective truth claim that we cannot come to know objective truths. But of course, those enmeshed in this do not recognise that its self referential incoherence is self-falsifying and a root of confusion.
It is time to return to soundness, understanding a point long since put on the table by Aristotle in The Rhetoric Bk 1 Ch 2, that of the main rhetorical appeals pathos, ethos, logos, only facts and logic with sound underlying assumptions, can properly ground or warrant conclusions. Yes, our judgements when we are pleased and friendly are quite different from those made when we are pained and hostile. That is an example of the potential for distorted perception and evaluation. Similarly, the smoothness, seeming authority etc of experts and presenters have no ability to enhance conclusions beyond the merits of fact and reasoning. So, to the facts, first principles and first duties of right reason, we must go.
KF
@KF That is just sophisticated excuses on your part. Do your homework. I did my homework.
You do not even try to answer the question, which is why your definitions of subjectivity and objectivity, are fantasy, unrelated to the rules used with subjective statements and objective statements in common discourse.
You are wrong, I am right. As you say 2+2=4, and not 5. The answer 5 is wrong, your definitions of subjectivity and objectivity are wrong.
MNY, there you go again, sadly. KF
For crying out loud, what an absolute child you are. You, and all the rest of you, solely argue in emotive terms. You evaluate my words solely on an emotional basis, not on a logical basis. And likewise the backup for your own positions is solely feelings, and not functional logical definitions that work together coherently in an integrated conceptual scheme.
You complain that I am angry, and all that total crap that is totally besides the point. You have no clue whatsoever about following rules, doing logic.
It should be totally obvious to anyone, that these woke people are clueless about subjectivity.
hint number 1: the wokeness is most prevalent at universities, where people are generally fact obsessed
hint number 2: they are generally atheists, or atheist friendly. So rejecting that whole subjective faith business.
hint number 3: the personal opinions of woke people are absolutely attrocious. Makes perfect sense that people who are clueless about subjectivity, would have horrific personal opinions.
hint number 4: subjectivity is an exclusively creationist concept, and creationism has been banned in academics.
etc. Totally obvious.
But you have your fantasy about how subjectivity and objectivity works. You want to hit the woke people with even more objectivity, so that they become even more materialistic and obsessed with facts, than that they already are.
Kairosfocus @141
I can agree with that.
Again I agree. When I follow your line of reasoning and warrant 3 + 2 = 5 with || + ||| –> |||||, then we both have certainty about the fact that “3 + 2 = 5”. And (this is important) we are talking about one single thing, namely “3 + 2 = 5”
Here we disagree. “I think therefore I am” can be readily communicated just like “3 + 2 = 5, warranted by || + ||| –> |||||”, however when we both execute “I think therefore I am”, the result is certainty of two distinct things , as opposed to us executing “3 + 2 = 5, warranted by || + ||| –> |||||”, which results in certainty in one single thing.
To be clear, when you execute “I think therefore I am”, you have certainty of your existence —— Kairosfocus exists. And my attempt will result in certainty about … Origenes exists.
We may both say “I exist”, but unlike when we both say “3 + 2 = 5”, we are not talking about one single thing — not the same thing. When you say “I exist” you are talking about your existence (not mine). When I say “I exist” I am talking about my existence (not yours).
You and you alone have certainty of your existence as a conscious self-aware “I”.
Certainty, Importance, undeniable, these are emotive terms.
2+3=5, it is totally irrellevant to the logic of it, how certain you are about it. Feelings of certainty, are just emotive.
MNY, projection, now inviting analysis on cognitive dissonance but there is no point. There is sufficient long since noted and at this point you have regrettably become distractive, accusatory and uncivil. Please, do better. KF
Origenes, first, 2 + 3 = 5 is from the beginning tied to the core framework of the logic of structure and quantity, so is tied to a vast framework of equally certain and trans-world mathematical truths. Truths which are demonstrably objective, publicly warranted and relate to intangible abstracta, things contemplated and communicated between reasoning creatures. This is also the case on understanding the import of being self-aware. Meanwhile, something crucial at survival of civilisation level is being distracted from. I note, again, from the OP, which reveals how a generation has been manipulated in the face of massive evidence and dozens to hundreds of millions of still living eyewitnesses:
If so many are so misled on such a central matter, what else has gone wrong? Should we even bother to waste time watching news-views coverage by such proved deceivers, or go to schools that systematically deceive us like that? or vote for our taxes to go to support bureaucrats who enforce deception, including of course on pandemic management etc? How did we end up in captivity to such clear large scale manipulation?
It is time for a counter cultural reformation that goes back to soundness as point of beginning. Which includes recognising first duties to truth, right reason, warrant and wider prudence etc. Further to that we must face implications of being finite, fallible, morally struggling, too often ill-willed.
KF
Fauci: “There is a Misplaced Perception About People’s Individual Right to Make a Decision that Supersedes the Societal Safety.”
How to answer Fauci?
video on twitter
Kairosfocus,
This is due to a religion that’s been a long time coming to the U.S. John Dewey prioritized the goal of education as forming the new socialist person over learning boring sums and reading.
This new socialist person responds to appeals for the exalted position of victimhood, the cause of fairness and pursuit of cosmic justice, and is overwhelmed with waves of emotion, justifying all failures with good intentions or blaming them on climate change, racism, capitalism, or whatever.
This new socialist person is rewarded for their *Spectacular Success* in merely participating and are constantly assured that participation alone warrants massive self esteem. Truth and reasoning are tools to support the current narrative and are replaced by force when they’re no longer useful. The new socialist person is easily angered and very fragile.
Currently, there’s a filtering process reminiscent of Mao’s statement that the Chinese don’t need doctors, they need Communist doctors. Achievement is demonized as part of a “meritocracy.” The “commanding heights” of society are being restaffed by incompetents, so it’s vital to tear down monuments and rewrite history to conform with their worldview and to avoid embarrassment when the history repeats. Today must be day 1. Reset as often as needed.
And when it all comes crashing down because they ran out of other people’s hard-earned money, it was due to “bad luck” and not “true” socialism. But it was an exhilarating ride while it lasted and the new socialist person will then need to find a new country to liberate.
Hey, I know. After Canada, how about Germany again? Their per capita GDP is attractive enough to consider redistributing . . .
For more ideas, compare PPP with GDP Per Capita here:
https://www.investopedia.com/insights/worlds-top-economies/
Incidentally, I consider “capitalism” merely a distasteful and optional method of finance, while the true driver of the economy is actually innovation through Free Enterprise. Note that Free Enterprise terrifies capitalists and corporatists!
-Q
What, philosophers, or intellectuals, cannot be liars, cheaters? They can be. Accusation, and praise is part of normal discourse. And I don’t appreciate that whole atmosphere where people cannot be accused of being evil. Not just mistaken, but evil.
The rules are that you must make a definition of subjectivity and objectivity that is the same as used in common discourse. But you don’t do that. Neither does Origines, and LCD, and Animated Dust, and a few others I forget now.
You break the rules, then you are accused of being a cheater. It’s normal discourse.
You never give a normal answer to the accusation. But neither does LCD or Origenes. As far as I know I never engage in that kind of intellectual fraudulence. But maybe I do engage in it unwittingly, because it is shown to be very common.
You’re going to hit the woke with even more objectivity. This is your plan. All these woke who typically have 20+ years of education, getting drilled in objectivity and fact all the time. Even the social sciences are full off sophisticated statistics. These woke who typically spend zero time on serious religion, faith, don’t pray much.
The communists who have banned faith altogether.
Then you say that the problem with the woke is, lack of comprehension and acceptance of objectivity. A totally absurd analysis.
The woke follow the standard socialist scheme:
1. conceiving of making a choice in terms of figuring out the best option
2. materialism
3. socialism
4. adopt left wing socialism, communism, or right wing socialism, nazism
Step 1 is the essential step. In step 1 all what is subjective, emotions and God, are thrown out. Choice is redefined as like a chesscomputer calculating a move, instead of the subjective spirit spontaneously making one of alternative futures the present.
That is why smugness of being the best is noticeably endemic among the woke. It’s derived from their idea of making a choice in terms of figuring out the best option. That is why the woke are pre-occupied with superiority and inferiority, derived from the better and lesser options in a choice.
Origenes, Fauci and others of officialdom have posed a false dilemma, used it to polarise and demonise, suppressing truth accessible for over a year about effective treatments as say Uttar Pradesh, India shows. Now, they must defend themselves in blood guilt and cannot ever concede truth about their malfeasance. So, their speaking in disregard to truth to try to profit at expense of those they mislead is of utterly no relevance. Save this, yet again we see that untruth is the premise of injustice and needless harm. KF
Querius, a religion, it is not. A demonically destructive, idolatrous political messianism cult, maybe. KF
Querius,
It seems a basic definition is in order, here, Investopedia:
The premise here is the mutually beneficial economic exchange. The baker prefers the cash with built in contribution margin to holding the perishable loaf, the consumer is willing to pay the price to get a fresh loaf of bread. Later on, the value of the loaf is lower as it becomes stale.
The same obtains for the mass of information required to real-time plan an economy centrally, and the implication is, the central planning or state domination effort fails due to information chaos and choking. By having families and firms plan locally and interact through markets with the state defending the lawful civil peace of justice, we have a more robust and flexible, rapid framework for planning. one that automatically includes markets for innovation and investment.
It is no mystery why lawful, free market enterprise with distributed, stakeholder planning interacting through markets shielded by the lawful state will in the long run outperform other seemingly plausible schemes. And it is no surprise that those with an over-inflated notion of their wisdom and capacity will resent the implication that no, they cannot successfully plan an economy and society as they cannot know enough, fast enough and how fast to respond consistently. Where, value is locked away in many minds, who see opportunities and risks that will never occur to a cabal of central planning Commissars.
Now, we can speak of market failures, safety cushions etc, but must balance against the doctrine of ignorance/information choking and unintended consequences of central intervention.
So, there must be responsible balance, which starts with recognising that capitalism does not equal robber baronism. Then we can proceed to draw lessons the ghosts of 100 million victims and the survivors have to tell us about what happened from 1917 to 1991. When we face these truths, we can then proceed to a sounder future.
Meanwhile, institutions and individuals who spread the warped picture reported in the OP stand discredited, for those willing to pay attention. Frankly, in some cases this rises to malfeasance and willing betrayal of duty, duty to students and their parents, to the taxpayer and public (thus, to civilisation, which allows us to thrive), duty frankly to God who gave us the power of right reason and sound action under truth. Some investigations would be in order, with consequences. But I won’t hold my breath waiting.
KF
This is not really the place to discuss capitalism since little insight will emerge. There are about 20-30 types of capitalism so what does one mean by the term.
Lassez faire is not necessarily free markets as large suppliers will often freeze out competition through sheer size advantage and stifle competition. So often there is not freedom on the supply side.
This is not advocating for government planning but recognizing that so called free markets especially lassez faire are often not free.
For example, there is a large market for consumables, for example tooth paste. Suppose a small innovator invents a process that eliminates the need for tooth paste. A large manufacturer of toothpaste buys the process and then buries the technology while holding the patent rights. Their toothpaste sales remain robust.
Did the above happen? Not that I know of but I do know it happened in another very large market not just once but multiple times.
Jerry, yes, there is reasonable place for lawful intervention especially with monopolies and oligopolies without contestable markets, etc. I have specified, lawful state, free market enterprise economies. After 1991, the big questions were resolved in the direction of planning by distributed firms and households, coupled through markets with the civil peace of justice defended by a lawful state funded through moderate taxation informed by the Armey et al version of the Laffer curve, i.e. the short term tax revenue maximising point is well beyond the long run growth maximising point, which is the long term answer to poverty. And more. KF
@Origenes “Truth is truth, there is no sense in breaking it up into multiple parts — such as ‘objective truth’ and ‘subjective truth’.”
It does make sense to break it up, because there are 2 parts of reality, creator and creation. What you say, it can only mean you have no clue about emotions, God, subjectivity.
You stub your toe against the table, it is objective truth, you feel the pain, it is subjective truth.
It would be a serious mistake to say that you can objectively measure pain. That would basically say that emotions and God, are material things, creations. It makes no sense, is a total conceptual mess.
There is no doubt about it that there is a subjective part of reality, and an objective part of reality. It is proven by the logic used in common discourse with subjective statements and objective statements.
1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinion
2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / fact
Kairosfocus @156,
Regarding the definition of capitalism, My contention is that the term is often a misnomer based on the assertion that “capitalism” is simply everything that’s not socialism.
In contrast, I’m suggesting that “free enterprise” is something that’s different from capitalism. If I start a company with my research and “sweat equity” to provide goods and services that benefit a segment of a society, I’m not relying on someone else’s capital investment. This is particularly obvious if I’m selling my expertise in an area as a consultant.
On the other hand, “venture capitalists” will invest in a startup to try and double their investment in 3-5 years. But after that, they will continue to own part of the company, perhaps even a majority share.
Regarding my previous comments on the U.S. becoming a totalitarian state, let me recommend a book that I just started reading: Live Not By Lies, a Manual for Christian Dissidents by Rod Dreher (2021). Here’s an excerpt from page 30:
She went on to describe the widespread disillusionment with existing institutions, social “atomization,” and loneliness.
Dreher goes on to show how community cohesion has been lost to political polarization in all aspects of our lives, and how loneliness has become epidemic in our society.
So far, it’s well worth the read and I think you would enjoy it.
-Q
Kairosfocus @155,
Here’s what Dreher writes:
Dreher also goes on to say that SJWs argue “truth” not by logic or reason [or history -Q] but by the class hierarchy of the person making the truth claim. That’s why SJWs are deaf to logic and reason when it’s not promoted by someone in a non-cancelled class and not strictly current SJW orthodoxy. Thus, it’s absolutely pointless to argue with them.
-Q
Querius, strictly, free enterprise can obtain with socialised or communal ownership, so it is not equivalent to capitalism. As for, capital being external to entrepreneurship, that is why there is recognition of sweat equity and it is why stock options used to be issued. KF
Querius, distortion is the operative word, tantamount to cult. Yes, there is a culture form marxist hierarchy of the victim/oppressor classes based on sociocultural identity or personal factors such as race/ethnicity, sex etc, leading to breakdown of rational conduct through imposition of a procrustean bed narrative of oppression that then undermines due balance of rights, freedoms and duties. Such is currently being pushed hard as a cultic claim in our civilisation but is patently ruinous. KF
Kairosfocus @162,
Yes, and as soon as an entrepreneur looks for external private funding, the venture becomes capitalist. And even venture capitalists will tell you that not all promising ventures should be externally capitalized.
There’s a book on the subject published by the Harvard School of Business IIRC. In addition to capital, VCs require a seasoned business manager to run ventures in which they invest, and will choose one if not already employed.
-Q
Kairosfocus @163,
I hope you at least consider getting the book I recommended, Live Not By Lies, a Manual for Christian Dissidents by Rod Dreher (2021).
-Q
Looking at it. Useful. (Use the look inside feature here.)
MNY, one can compare loss, e.g. the 100+ millions murdered by Marx-inspired totalitarian regimes across C20
Or the millions lost over the preceding millennia in religious conflicts.
F/N: Dinesh D’Sousa https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uS8A0TVE9A
🙂 That authoritative ecclesial tradition compiled and kept the Bible (for 2000 years )that was stolen by many “churches” appeared yesterday like mushrooms after rain. I invite you to read the history of the Church from Jesus till todays to “detect” which one is the real Church. The Sacraments and grace must be transmitted uninterrupted from Pentecost, the descent of the Holy Spirit on the disciples of Jesus.
How Meeting an Eastern Orthodox Priest Changed my Protestant Theology
Why Would A Protestant Christian Convert to Eastern Orthodox Christianity
Sev, I suggest you read here and revise your ill informed misconception that it is “religion” that causes wars, tumults etc. A much sounder one liner would be, lawless oligarchy, which is unfortunately the natural state of human government, and it is in fact the truth that religious thinkers and innovators acting on religiously motivated ethical and governance principles — e.g. Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos and the double covenant view of nationhood and government under God — who played key roles in the rise of modern liberty in constitutional democracies, scroll up to the OP on a more historically justified political spectrum. KF