How many journalists are independent, versus wannabees? How many are more like adolescent fans of Hollywoodites? People who like ducklines soon become adept at duckspeak: they don't know where they want to go; they just know they want to move up in the line. Principles? They don't need no stinking principles!
*****
To be consistent, the Left believes consciousness is only an artifact, that it is entirely derivative of random evolution from dumb matter, and therefore that consciousness has no real causal effect that is not entirely explicable under a proper theory of physics. IOW, your consciousness has no means by which itself to enter into any kind of causal relationship with physical phenomena, so "you" are only epi-phenomenal. Your consciousness is mere byproduct, and your mindless body would be here all the same, zombielike, regardless of whether or not you in any way felt or exhibited any consciousness, empathy, caring, or investment of identity. Of course, many among Leftist zombies will deny that. But then, meaningful consistency is not of much concern in Leftist philosophy anyway. I suppose, if ignorance is strength, then inconsistency is meaningful, and 2 plus 2 is 5. So long as you do not believe in any basis for meaningful consistency, then you cannot be inconsistent (?), so a Leftist need never worry of being a hypocrite.
Thus(?), there is no logical difficulty in a Leftist's joining with other collectivizing harvesters of mental freedom. After all, one zombie's as good (?) as another.
Compare http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/cs-lewis-quotes.htm: "Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning. . ." – Mere Christianity
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
From A.T. -- Re: "Any foreign money into the American political process is illegal. But this was an especially egregious instance, since Clinton is now Secretary of State and is rumored to be in consideration for the position of Secretary of Defense."
How do good people compete with this? Money talks. It talks to people willing to take it. Our governance has been overcome by a culture of corruption. People who are not willing to take the money of corruption carry a considerable disadvantage when it comes to competing for power in the regime. Even foreign money has found ways to talk, to buy our politicians, to buy seats in our government. No doubt, we shall soon learn it has long been thus.
We find our Prez degrades our military and chokes our energy independence. We find our public teachers being highly encouraged to become appreciative of communist literature. We have pols who will stoop to anything to take money to change (i.e., bring down) America, and our electorate largely cheers or yawns. It's not your father's America any more. We have no hope to reverse this until we recognize the ruthless evil of our opposition. Until then, the trend remains, that the hope of freedom and dignity for the ages is being rapaciously buried under a collectivizing Borgdom.
It would have been easier to avoid this, to walk around this hole rather than to have to claw our way out of it, had we preserved any traditions for guarding decency or for preserving reason to trust in one another's good faith. Now the reigning faith has become that America is evil, that it is good to sell her out, so take the money. So it is not enough to throw out the Clinton stain. Now we have to push uphill on black ice to restore decency. Dems voraciously serve up collectivizing, lying, zombie-fried scum. Repubs tend only to take out the "voraciously." We are going to have to restore decent education, but we will not get that done through the public schools. To restore goodness, to restore the idea that is America, we must support our champions and confront our collectivizing assailants. We must recognize the evil trash that is leering at us from the lapdances of luxurious corruption.
As things stand, the regime loves Mao, seeks to empower worldwide collectivization, and wants to change (bring down) America -- as soon as possible. We don't have a lot of time to right this, but we will have perpetutity to rue it.
American individualists who like to create and build carry a distinct disadvantage when it comes to competing with Marxist collectivists for organizing political communities. It's not their usual nature. But envious and voracious parasites have received the signal to swarm. If not intelligently and stoutly resisted, civilization will devolve into forced mass ignorance as the worldwide strategy for strength. Consequences previously thought to be remote have reached crisis level. Against the pestilence of collectivization, people everywhere of good will must unite, or good faith will abandon us. Unite against collectivization, or perish in ignorance.
C.S. Lewis -- "Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole Universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning."
For those who believe the universe does facilitate meaningfulness, there would seem to be meaning higher than mundane, random chance. To believe in higher meaning, whether sponsored by God or by some aspect one prefers not to name, is itself a kind of religious faith, regardless of whether one calls one's faith theism or a kind of "higher atheism."
Regardless, for those whose prime purpose is to practice being intuitive and empathetic to a source of higher purpose (which some call God), than to proxies (such as states and collectives), then what are they to do about thought police who, in political correctness, want to regulate or stamp out discourse about purpose higher than the collective? How should we defend against those who incorrigibly refuse or are unable to sense purposefulness beyond collectivist proxies or who seek to fit everyone to a duckline? How shall we respect their duckline faith (in itself a kind of religion), without submitting to being overrun by it?
Ayn Rand: "I shall choose friends among men, but neither slaves nor masters." Po Campo (character from Lonesome Dove): "How would you like it if someone rode you?" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FKonpoubuI&feature=related
Well, how shall we harbor collectivists, without facilitating their mastery over us? How shall we enable those raised in collectivism to escape from it? In opening ourselves to their escape, how shall we preclude them from bringing their collectivism over us? How shall we act as benign masters, without coming to like being masters?
Well, we had a benign system. It was called free enterprise under a system of constitutional checks and balances, with trust under God. Unfortunately, many among us have misplaced the good sense to understand the Constitution as well as the good will to enforce it.
I don't know what was really in the Founders' minds, but below are some miscellaneous quotes that for some reason do not find favor on all sites. These quotes do not seem surprising, considering the influence of predecessors among the Puritans and Quakers. I suspect most of the early Ivy colleges began with religious connections. In any event, I agree it was good that these guys were into the Age of Reason and were probably not literalists.
From http://www.blessedcause.org/Patriots/America's%20Judeo%20Christian%20Heritage.htm
Just which parts of "love your neighbor as yourself" and "be faithful to higher principles" is it that so scares atheists and liberals? Why is "restoring honor" conflated as necessarily being only about faithful belief? Which of Beck's values so anger and scare atheists and liberals? Cannot an "atheist who is faithful to higher or moral values" find anything to praise in Beck's bringing together of faithful Americans of all beliefs -- Judaism, Christianity, Islam ... and no doubt various Buddhists, Hindi, pagans, humanists, atheists, and nature worshipping deists and empiricists? I don't quite get it: Why do Leftists, collectivists, and atheists so often fear and hate Beck? What, precisely, was it about the rally that so stirred their fear juices? Why is there so much Christphobia in many fiscal conservatives? Is Beck scheming with Isabella and Ferdinand to loose a new Inquisition? What is the source of all this modern fear mongering against ordinary people who simply believe in higher meaning? Do Christphobics fear social conservatives are going to take away doctors' rights to be educated in modern scientific medicine? Where is this stuff coming from? Do they think intelligent people's brains will somehow fall out if they are exposed to differences in thought concerning conscious design, intelligent design, and meaningless chance? Do Christphobics even know what conscious design is?
While we're concerned with rational accuracy, the Left is concerned with what works emotionally to freeze and ridicule the target. I do not like to be the first to reach for ridicule. However, is there not a time and place for effectively holding up a mirror, so that not even a Leftist can escape the point of his own hypocrisy? If the Leftists who rail against Beck are not afraid of his message, then what is the rational explanation for their tactics? Rather than go in for a lengthy proof of the wrongness of their position (a proof they care nothing about, so long as they make their points emotionally, which is effective to close the minds of the young), what is so wrong with simply holding up a mirror: "Ok. You say I'm an "Islamophobe." Using your own "reasoning," why then are you not a "person who is afraid of the appeal of Christ"? IOW, what, precisely, is Beck doing that is interfering with your access to all the addictive stuff you want?"
Note -- Of Cloward, Piven, Whackjob, and Dear leader: Those who want to impose anarchy or despotism do not want to be part of any organization – whether religious, secular, entrepreneurial, or social – unless they can blow it up, lose their minds to it, or rule it. So of course they will fear and seek to discredit anyone -- like Beck -- who can effectively resist them.
Those who would blow things up – such as religions or republics – tend to have no clue how to build on or sustain any system that avails decent perspectives of freedom and dignity. Those who would impose dictate seek to entertain a reign of mind collapse or god envy. Few among them are fit to build on anything that could reasonably support hope to sustain decency. Their “solutions” tend to impose regimes that leave little hope or room for decency, free will, or mind. Their solutions tend towards death worship and opposition to a God of conscious design, who feeds empathy back to unfolding investments in free will.
Anarchists, Dependency Addicts, and Despots want you to submit to meaninglessness, slow death, or utter dictate, i.e., evil faces of the opposite of conscious free will. Without grand gestures in the direction of your company, they tend to lack courage of their convictions, to take themselves independently to their vaunted Hades. Karma and the Mandela, round and round.
Now, as far as "high minded atheists," that's a horse of a different color. I would need to read up on what precisely is the source or rationale for "high minded atheism," that makes it so different from, and so much better than, building on longstanding religions we already have that are mainly and already grounded in empathy, good will, and good faith.
Post a Comment