Totalitarian Irrationality

[Peter_Plato]

But won’t this course of action also stem from an uncertain premise? That we have an eternal destiny?

In the final analysis the uncertainty doesn’t matter. That is the point of answering the dilemma.

According to your logic, if we are only houseflies there is no loss in treating others as if they weren’t. In the end, the good treatment won’t make a difference to the houseflies, but bad treatment will make an eternal difference if we are not.

I am just using your logic. The only real losing proposition is if people are treated like houseflies when in fact they are not. All other options are, in the end, no-lose situations.

Do you know how to dissect a dilemma logically?

 

[Reprobus]

@Tonyrey

Reason as used in the article conforms to the loose definition of idol which I use to describe Plato’s forms and Hegel’s ideals, and similar polytheistic theologies. It all depends on how you define “divinizing what is not God”. I am going here with Augustine: value nothing for its own sake except for God. Reason as short-heand is fine, so long as it is not valued for its own sake, and so long as no sacrifices are demanded for Reason.

God may be discerned by reasoning – a verb cannot be an idol, as an idol is a thing, therefore a noun. God may be discerned by reasoning but our desire for communion with God is innate. I am assuming that innate means it’s no more a product of thinking than the autonomic system that keeps our hearts beating.

I saw Dinesh D’Souza debate an Objectivist a while ago. Be it resolved that Christianity is good for mankind. I would have argued that Christianity is quite bad for “mankind” (understanding this to be an idol) but very good for any living breathing man who will follow Christ’s teachings. The objectivists rely no less than the hegelian subjectivists on abstract ideas and generalities, to which great sacrifices must be made. The enemies of the Church rely almost exclusively on these abstract ideas and generalities, and at the least there is something not quite right about them.

It’s something I’ve been working on for a while, so I’m interested to hear any arguments and objections on the subject. The totalitarians make and/or demand sacrifices to one of their ideals/idols, for instance the People, or Mankind, or Society, or Democracy, or Equality; and when that sacrifice quite predictably does not produce the desired results, they will both double down on their sacrifices, and find scapegoats.

@Stillness

You’re no housefly. A housefly has greater dignity than a man. A housefly lives according to its design. I expect its million eyes all light up at the sight of a steaming pile of dung, and it gives thanks to its creator for making it a housefly. Are you utterly insignificant? Yep. Pretty much. Still, a man is worth many houseflies.

Do you like waffles? Find yourself a big stack of waffles, or a T-bone done just right, or whatever makes your eyes light up like a little kid’s on Christmas morning. Before you tuck in, say a little prayer. Thank God for waffles. And steaks. And Ford trucks. And runs of green lights on the way to work. It will seem silly and insignificant at first. The more you do this, the more you will see the beauty of it; the closer you will come to understanding why a Christian enjoys life, yet does not fear death.

 

[Stillness]

@Stillness

You’re no housefly. A housefly has greater dignity than a man. A housefly lives according to its design. I expect its million eyes all light up at the sight of a steaming pile of dung, and it gives thanks to its creator for making it a housefly. Are you utterly insignificant? Yep. Pretty much. Still, a man is worth many houseflies.

Do you like waffles? Find yourself a big stack of waffles, or a T-bone done just right, or whatever makes your eyes light up like a little kid’s on Christmas morning. Before you tuck in, say a little prayer. Thank God for waffles. And steaks. And Ford trucks. And runs of green lights on the way to work. It will seem silly and insignificant at first. The more you do this, the more you will see the beauty of it; the closer you will come to understanding why a Christian enjoys life, yet does not fear death.

It is difficult for me to see how this sentimentality could build up a coherent philosophy.

 

[Reprobus]

It is difficult for me to see how this sentimentality could build up a coherent philosophy.

Who said anything about philosophy? Men are sentimental. It is in our nature. I like to enjoy it privately, as there are many who would use our sentimentality against us, or demand vulgar public displays to no good purpose. But I still enjoy it.

Your use of the word “sentimentality” suggests to me that you have been reading Nietzsche without also reading St. Augustine. Augustine too was a Manichee, which was a form of Zoroastrianism popular in Rome at the time. You will often hear of Augustine’s Platonism, but never his Manicheism.

You might also want to look up Franz Overbeck – Nietzsche’s best if not only friend. He was a theologian who taught Old Church History at Basel. Sadly I have never seen a translation of his work. The obvious influence of Augustine, his experience of the French Revolution, the rejection of German Idealism, and also his close friendship with Nietzsche… I expect it would be a most fascinating read.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Overbeck

“I erect no new idols; let the old idols learn what it means to have legs of clay. To overthrow idols (my word for ‘ideals’) – that rather is my business. Reality has been deprived of its value, its meaning, its veracity to the same degree as an ideal world has been fabricated… The ‘real word’ and the ‘apparent world’ – in plain terms: the fabricated world and reality… The lie of the ideal has hitherto been the curse on reality, through it mankind itself has become mendacious and false down to its deepest instincts – to the point of worshiping the inverse values to those which alone could guarantee it prosperity, future, the exalted right to a future.”
-Ecce Homo, Foreword 2

 

[Sair]

And here lies a problem. This is an assumption made by secularism today, that there is some inherent “good” in not harming others. Secularism takes the same route as religion in making moral judgements. It says that certain actions and thoughts are better or worse than others; it makes assumptions that humans have value and that material suffering is “bad”. Yet secularism rarely provides a coherent philosophy explaining why these things must be assumed.

No, secular philosophy doesn’t provide any basis for assuming that certain actions are good or bad - it looks at the outcome of those actions and determines their positive or negative character accordingly. You seem to have bought into the notion that the absence of religious faith = the absence of any possibility for morality, but I’m afraid the evidence demonstrates otherwise. Humans are moral animals through necessity, not through the imposition of supernatural purposes and directives. We’re imperfectly moral because we absorb information from the world we inhabit - morality, or the lack of it, is a learned set of behaviours.

It would seem that humans have no value, no more than anything else. Likewise, it makes little difference whether we live pleasant lives or miserable ones; we will still proceed toward obliteration and it will be as if our suffering or happiness had never been. It makes no difference to me what happens during our brief, sensate existence.

Who are you trying to make a difference to? The universe doesn’t care. It probably isn’t capable of caring, but even if it could, we’re too small to matter to something so great. But why does any form of universal significance matter to the likes of us anyway? We’re hardly in a position to know about it. I think you’ll find that your own, insignificant life matters plenty to the people who know you and care about you. Do you take medicine when you’re sick? Do you take pleasure in particular activities or in the company of particular people? Do you attempt to avoid being injured or killed? If so, then it’s obvious that your life is worth something to you. It’s only the kind of arrogance stemming from an underlying belief that we ::should:: have some universal significance that assumes this isn’t enough.

 

[Stillness]

No, secular philosophy doesn’t provide any basis for assuming that certain actions are good or bad - it looks at the outcome of those actions and determines their positive or negative character accordingly. You seem to have bought into the notion that the absence of religious faith = the absence of any possibility for morality, but I’m afraid the evidence demonstrates otherwise. Humans are moral animals through necessity, not through the imposition of supernatural purposes and directives. We’re imperfectly moral because we absorb information from the world we inhabit - morality, or the lack of it, is a learned set of behaviours.

You are already making moral assumptions here. To judge the “positive or negative character” of actions means that you have something to judge them by. Some goal or foundation. What are you judging them by? What makes an action positive or negative? How do you determine that? You have yet to provide a coherent system of morality.

Who are you trying to make a difference to? The universe doesn’t care. It probably isn’t capable of caring, but even if it could, we’re too small to matter to something so great. But why does any form of universal significance matter to the likes of us anyway? We’re hardly in a position to know about it. I think you’ll find that your own, insignificant life matters plenty to the people who know you and care about you. Do you take medicine when you’re sick? Do you take pleasure in particular activities or in the company of particular people? Do you attempt to avoid being injured or killed? If so, then it’s obvious that your life is worth something to you. It’s only the kind of arrogance stemming from an underlying belief that we ::should:: have some universal significance that assumes this isn’t enough.

Of course I care for my own life. It is animal instinct, fear of death. But instinct is never defined as morality. There are many things I can do, driven by instinct, which most sould disapprove of. Neither does it matter what those around me think, it does not matter if they care about me. Their passing lives will be over in short order and they will no longer care for me, or anything else.