Right-Wing Discussion Thread XVI: Making Things Right Again

[Kowani]

Right, both tended to be hostile to the veneration of saints and see older forms of their religion as degenerations.

I think that they mean unique to the Graeco-Roman world and not the planet.

My hypothesis is that literal fundamentalism is just one step from atheism. Why? It is an intellectual ideology that requires one to read and revere the original religious scriptures and completely get rid of the traditionalist control over the flow of religious knowledge which does cause religion to evolve (or be distorted) over time.

Your theology is…lacking, and that’s not what atheism is.

[EastKekistan]

My hypothesis is that literal fundamentalism is just one step from atheism. Why? It is an intellectual ideology that requires one to read and revere the original religious scriptures and completely get rid of the traditionalist control over the flow of religious knowledge which does cause religion to evolve (or be distorted) over time.

Your theology is…lacking, and that’s not what atheism is.

Traditionalism = claims to venerate deities but in fact it is really just preserving existing social norms, don't think for themselves

Literal fundamentalism = Venerate deities, question traditions but do not question sacred books, sometimes think for themselves

Atheism = Question both traditions and sacred books, sometimes think for themselves

Literal fundamentalism should be considered pre-enlightenment

[Hanafuridake]

https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/10/business ... index.html

[United Muscovite Nations]

Your theology is…lacking, and that’s not what atheism is.

Traditionalism = claims to venerate deities but in fact it is really just preserving existing social norms, don't think for themselves

Literal fundamentalism = Venerate deities, question traditions but do not question sacred books, sometimes think for themselves

Atheism = Question both traditions and sacred books, sometimes think for themselves

Literal fundamentalism should be considered pre-enlightenment

Holy shit, you literally don't know anything about any of these movements. Read a fucking history book.

[Hanafuridake]

Traditionalism = claims to venerate deities but in fact it is really just preserving existing social norms, don't think for themselves

[Nova Cyberia]

Your theology is…lacking, and that’s not what atheism is.

Traditionalism = claims to venerate deities but in fact it is really just preserving existing social norms, don't think for themselves

Literal fundamentalism = Venerate deities, question traditions but do not question sacred books, sometimes think for themselves

Atheism = Question both traditions and sacred books, sometimes think for themselves

Literal fundamentalism should be considered pre-enlightenment

Atheism has nothing to do with traditions.

What the fuck are you on about?

[Al Mumtahanah]

He's mostly correct.

[Nova Cyberia]

He's mostly correct.

No the fuck he isn't.

[Al Mumtahanah]

He is.

[Nova Cyberia]

He is.

Explain how.

[United Muscovite Nations]

He's mostly correct.

No he isn't, traditionalists have been making philosophical justifications for traditions for thousands of years, they absolutely think for themselves.

[EastKekistan]

He's mostly correct.

No he isn't, traditionalists have been making philosophical justifications for traditions for thousands of years, they absolutely think for themselves.

Yes, there are a few people like that. Way less than either atheists or fundamentalists both of which were a departure from trad norms.

Atheism is just one step further than radical Protestants and Wahhabis. These people questioned almost everything related to religion other than the sacred books themselves. Atheists just questioned one more thing, sacred books.

Similarly exclusive monotheism is just one step from atheism, namely exclusive monotheism in fact contains a lot of anti-religious elements..they reject the existence of all but one deity..and atheists just reject one more.

[Al Mumtahanah]

He is.

Explain how.

Self identified traitionalists in the English language sense tend to uphold chang in modest and gay rights. Fundamentalists use texts to challenge tradition. Atheists go with what is popular and shun the old.

[EastKekistan]

Explain how.

Self identified traitionalists in the English language sense tend to uphold chang in modest and gay rights. Fundamentalists use texts to challenge tradition. Atheists go with what is popular and shun the old.

Atheists don't necessarily go with what is popular though.

Other than that I think we largely agree. Traditionalism and fashionism are similar in the sense that they aren't even ideologies at all. Instead they are just people not thinking. A principled leftist thinks. A principled rightist also thinks. It is those who go with whatever that is popular or high status that do not think and the world is full of them.

As usual both sides suffer from the outgroup homogeneity myth. For example soc left can not tell the difference between fundamentalists and trads and lump both into "righties". Soc rightists also tend to lump fashionists, SJ dogmaticists, non-white trads (!) and rational thinkers into "lefties".

[United Muscovite Nations]

No he isn't, traditionalists have been making philosophical justifications for traditions for thousands of years, they absolutely think for themselves.

Yes, there are a few people like that. Way less than either atheists or fundamentalists both of which were a departure from trad norms.

Atheism is just one step further than radical Protestants and Wahhabis. These people questioned almost everything related to religion other than the sacred books themselves. Atheists just questioned one more thing, sacred books.

Similarly exclusive monotheism is just one step from atheism, namely exclusive monotheism in fact contains a lot of anti-religious elements..they reject the existence of all but one deity..and atheists just reject one more.

Casting aside the traditions involved less critical thinking because it failed to take into account that tradition may carry some significance as far as how to interpret things that are that old. You wouldn't listen to some random guy interpret a historical document, you would want someone who knows about the context in which the document was written to tell you about it.

[EastKekistan]

Yes, there are a few people like that. Way less than either atheists or fundamentalists both of which were a departure from trad norms.

Atheism is just one step further than radical Protestants and Wahhabis. These people questioned almost everything related to religion other than the sacred books themselves. Atheists just questioned one more thing, sacred books.

Similarly exclusive monotheism is just one step from atheism, namely exclusive monotheism in fact contains a lot of anti-religious elements..they reject the existence of all but one deity..and atheists just reject one more.

Casting aside the traditions involved less critical thinking because it failed to take into account that tradition may carry some significance as far as how to interpret things that are that old. You wouldn't listen to some random guy interpret a historical document, you would want someone who knows about the context in which the document was written to tell you about it.

Not really. Most people are trads or fashionists. That alone shows how much intellectual values the average trad or fashionist bring. Traditionalism and fashionism do not offer any intellectual values. On the other hand they are inherently anti-intellectual, that is, they obey the crowd instead of scholars.

You are right that traditions have values...evolutionary values. Their purpose is often not in the exact practice at all.

[Fahran]

Not really. Most people are trads or fashionists.

It really depends on what you mean by these two terms.

That alone shows how much intellectual values the average trad or fashionist bring. Traditionalism and fashionism do not offer any intellectual values. On the other hand they are inherently anti-intellectual, that is, they obey the crowd instead of scholars.

If I had to bet on d'Maistre, Buber, and Lewis or Rand, Rousseau, and Sartre in a debate, I would definitely go with the former three. People who think conservatives and traditionalists are lacking in intellectual substance do not understand philosophy.

You are right that traditions have values...evolutionary values. Their purpose is often not in the exact practice at all.

Are we talking about telos? Because I've got some bad news for you about Aristotle...

[Greater Adamsia]

Not really. Most people are trads or fashionists.

It really depends on what you mean by these two terms.

That alone shows how much intellectual values the average trad or fashionist bring. Traditionalism and fashionism do not offer any intellectual values. On the other hand they are inherently anti-intellectual, that is, they obey the crowd instead of scholars.

If I had to bet on d'Maistre, Buber, and Lewis or Rand, Rousseau, and Sartre in a debate, I would definitely go with the former three. People who think conservatives and traditionalists are lacking in intellectual substance do not understand philosophy.

You are right that traditions have values...evolutionary values. Their purpose is often not in the exact practice at all.

Are we talking about telos? Because I've got some bad news for you about Aristotle...

Ooh, what's the bad news about Aristotle?

[EastKekistan]

Not really. Most people are trads or fashionists.

It really depends on what you mean by these two terms.

That alone shows how much intellectual values the average trad or fashionist bring. Traditionalism and fashionism do not offer any intellectual values. On the other hand they are inherently anti-intellectual, that is, they obey the crowd instead of scholars.

If I had to bet on d'Maistre, Buber, and Lewis or Rand, Rousseau, and Sartre in a debate, I would definitely go with the former three. People who think conservatives and traditionalists are lacking in intellectual substance do not understand philosophy.

You are right that traditions have values...evolutionary values. Their purpose is often not in the exact practice at all.

Are we talking about telos? Because I've got some bad news for you about Aristotle...

There can be serious fundamentalist intellectualism. However traditionalism is inherently anti-intellectual as it not only requires no thought but is actively against all thoughts. If you want a society that abides by the Bible you need to read the Bible. If you want a society that abides by the Communist Manifesto you have to read the Communist Manifesto. If you want a society based on whatever culture it has right now then you don't need to read anything.

[Fahran]

Ooh, what's the bad news about Aristotle?

"Traditionalist conservatism, also known as classical conservatism and traditional conservatism, is a political philosophy or ideology emphasizing the need for the principles of a transcendent moral order, manifested through certain natural laws to which society ought to conform in a prudent manner. Shortened to traditionalism and in the United Kingdom and Canada referred to as Toryism, traditionalist conservatism is a variant of conservatism based on the political philosophies of Aristotle and Edmund Burke. Traditionalists emphasize the bonds of social order and the defense of ancestral institutions over what it considers excessive individualism."

There can be serious fundamentalist intellectualism. However traditionalism is inherently anti-intellectual as it not only requires no thought but is actively against all thoughts.

Have you read Kirk, Schmitt, Lewis, or d'Maistre at all? We have an entire list of conservative books listed in the OP that lay out rather complex and nuanced arguments in favor of traditionalism. We have a community here that actively discusses these subjects. In many cases, the arguments are a lot more complicated than the ones you'll find in other ideological/political frameworks.

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

Ooh, what's the bad news about Aristotle?

"Traditionalist conservatism, also known as classical conservatism and traditional conservatism, is a political philosophy or ideology emphasizing the need for the principles of a transcendent moral order, manifested through certain natural laws to which society ought to conform in a prudent manner. Shortened to traditionalism and in the United Kingdom and Canada referred to as Toryism, traditionalist conservatism is a variant of conservatism based on the political philosophies of Aristotle and Edmund Burke. Traditionalists emphasize the bonds of social order and the defense of ancestral institutions over what it considers excessive individualism."

But... that's not particularly bad news. I'm confused.

[EastKekistan]

Ooh, what's the bad news about Aristotle?

"Traditionalist conservatism, also known as classical conservatism and traditional conservatism, is a political philosophy or ideology emphasizing the need for the principles of a transcendent moral order, manifested through certain natural laws to which society ought to conform in a prudent manner. Shortened to traditionalism and in the United Kingdom and Canada referred to as Toryism, traditionalist conservatism is a variant of conservatism based on the political philosophies of Aristotle and Edmund Burke. Traditionalists emphasize the bonds of social order and the defense of ancestral institutions over what it considers excessive individualism."

There can be serious fundamentalist intellectualism. However traditionalism is inherently anti-intellectual as it not only requires no thought but is actively against all thoughts.

Have you read Kirk, Schmitt, Lewis, or d'Maistre at all? We have an entire list of conservative books listed in the OP that lay out rather complex and nuanced arguments in favor of traditionalism. We have a community here that actively discusses these subjects. In many cases, the arguments are a lot more complicated than the ones you'll find in other ideological/political frameworks.

I don't think we even agree on the definitions.

Of course you can intellectualize "muh ancestorism". However it doesn't change the fact that it is the default and intellectually most lazy position ever. Any ideology requires some thoughts from Puritanism to Communism and Nazism. Muh ancestorism on the other hand doesn't.

[Fahran]

I don't think we even agree on the definitions.

Your definition isn't an accepted definition.

Of course you can intellectualize "muh ancestorism". However it doesn't change the fact that it is the default and intellectually most lazy position ever.

Again, I would recommend reading the actual traditionalist arguments. They're a lot more complex than that.

[EastKekistan]

I don't think we even agree on the definitions.

Your definition isn't an accepted definition.

Sure. I have edited my post though.

[Fahran]

Your definition isn't an accepted definition.

Sure. I have edited my post though.

I responded. You very clearly haven't read any of the philosophical work associated with traditionalism. Or you'd know that sociology, aesthetics, theology, philosophy, metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, experience, etc. all go into melding the paradigm.