Right-Wing Discussion Thread XVII: The Snark Enlightenment

[Kowani]

Hmm. We ascribe different purposes to Philosophy, then.

M.

Philosophy is the pursuit of wisdom. I’d love to hear what’s wise about saying there’s no value we can adhere to as individuals or even as family groups.

Simple-the truth. It is not that there are no values, but rather, that any values are constructed and not universal.

Hmm. We ascribe different purposes to Philosophy, then.

M
Nah. It is in our self-interest to not devolve into that.

You're misinterpretting what I mean, I don't mean primitives, I mean savagery in terms of only pursuing our self interests. It produces a problem because everyone's self interest is different and some are conflicting, and in this, nihilism contributes nothing to the discussion. The fundamental question of ethics and political philosophy is "what should we do?" Nihilism can't answer it, so it's useless to the discussion of politics.

Yes. That’s why my philosophy of the State is different from that of the individual.

[Jack Thomas Lang]

I believe that somewhere you may have misinterpreted either the content or intent of my posts. I explain Kowani's views, yes, but only to save us all from page after page of philosophical faffing about that will ultimately lead nowhere. I've resigned myself to the fact that I can't change Kowani's viewpoint in these matters. None of us can. It's like... I dunno, talking to a brick wall, perhaps? An act of futility; no matter what arguments we present, Kowani will go "no, u" or "I don't want to" (albeit in detail). Does it make any more sense than before, Mr... may I call you Mr. Lang, by the way?

I don't think you need to explain his position (or lack of it tbh), but I understand why you do.

Sure, Mr. Lang works.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Philosophy is the pursuit of wisdom. I’d love to hear what’s wise about saying there’s no value we can adhere to as individuals or even as family groups.

Simple-the truth. It is not that there are no values, but rather, that any values are constructed and not universal.

You're misinterpretting what I mean, I don't mean primitives, I mean savagery in terms of only pursuing our self interests. It produces a problem because everyone's self interest is different and some are conflicting, and in this, nihilism contributes nothing to the discussion. The fundamental question of ethics and political philosophy is "what should we do?" Nihilism can't answer it, so it's useless to the discussion of politics.

Yes. That’s why my philosophy of the State is different from that of the individual.

It's still the same philosophy. Philosophy of state (i.e. of justice) is inseparable from philosophy of ethics.

[Kowani]

Simple-the truth. It is not that there are no values, but rather, that any values are constructed and not universal.


Yes. That’s why my philosophy of the State is different from that of the individual.

It's still the same philosophy. Philosophy of state (i.e. of justice) is inseparable from philosophy of ethics.

Wow. Look at all that separation I just did

[United Muscovite Nations]

It's still the same philosophy. Philosophy of state (i.e. of justice) is inseparable from philosophy of ethics.

Wow. Look at all that separation I just did

It's trying to separate things when you're distinguishing ethics (in which you're a nihilist) from justice (in which you claim to not be).

[Nakena]

It's still the same philosophy. Philosophy of state (i.e. of justice) is inseparable from philosophy of ethics.

Wow. Look at all that separation I just did

You wouldn want me to vivisect it.

Analytically and philosophically speaking.

[Kowani]

Wow. Look at all that separation I just did

It's trying to separate things when you're distinguishing ethics (in which you're a nihilist) from justice (in which you claim to not be).

I’m sorry, what?

[LiberNovusAmericae]

I said they "might," not that they will. I just don't want to take that chance. I have nothing to be ashamed about.

You're not taking any chances. You're using an unlikely event, to the extent of my knowledge hasn't happened even with the existence of numerous Catholic parties across the globe (many of them decades old), to comprehensively vilify Catholic politicians and political parties. If you don't want religious people or parties in politics, surely there's a better reason you can use than "they might cover up pedophilia".

I have other reasons as well (Not limited to the ones listed on this post.) Whether they are better would be a matter of opinion.

I despise religion in general, as there are elements that are impossible to prove, it has been used to oppress others, and religion has been responsible for numerous wars. I certainly wouldn't want an openly religious party in government as a result. It should be a personal matter, not pushed or endorsed by the state.

I have no problem with people in government that happen to be religious. I just don't like flamboyant religious parties or platforms.

[Kowani]

Wow. Look at all that separation I just did

You wouldn want me to vivisect it.

Analytically and philosophically speaking.

Eh, go for it. I’m everyone’s assigned punching bag, I don’t see why I can’t take one more.

[United Muscovite Nations]

It's trying to separate things when you're distinguishing ethics (in which you're a nihilist) from justice (in which you claim to not be).

I’m sorry, what?

You're distinguishing justice (philosophy of ethical statecraft) from the philosophy of personal morality to dodge criticism of nihilism as a guide to public policy. The problem with this is that the two are intertwined, because the state is directly involved with the lives of individuals and is composed of individuals.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

You wouldn want me to vivisect it.

Analytically and philosophically speaking.

Eh, go for it. I’m everyone’s assigned punching bag, I don’t see why I can’t take one more.

Begin round one!

[Nakena]

You wouldn want me to vivisect it.

Analytically and philosophically speaking.

Eh, go for it. I’m everyone’s assigned punching bag, I don’t see why I can’t take one more.

*puts on latex gloves*

After proper examination and analysis of your... philosophical arguments and their contents I came to the conclusion that they should not be judged all to harshly at face-value as their, edgy proto-forms, are merely an expression of their current status. Namely the contents are, in my view, still in a process of morphing and evolving with their current state by no means necessarily close to a final nor even defined philosophy.

It is by all likehood assumed that a further... development of Kowanism is likely to take part in the near to forseeable future.

Undoubtly, in their current status, they are somewhat squishy in their... consistence, which is entirely to be attributed to their inmature, yet evolving status.

That'd be all.

[Jean-Paul Sartre]

Philosophy is the pursuit of wisdom. I’d love to hear what’s wise about saying there’s no value we can adhere to as individuals or even as family groups.

Simple-the truth. It is not that there are no values, but rather, that any values are constructed and not universal.

You're misinterpretting what I mean, I don't mean primitives, I mean savagery in terms of only pursuing our self interests. It produces a problem because everyone's self interest is different and some are conflicting, and in this, nihilism contributes nothing to the discussion. The fundamental question of ethics and political philosophy is "what should we do?" Nihilism can't answer it, so it's useless to the discussion of politics.

Yes. That’s why my philosophy of the State is different from that of the individual.

Except that morality is not entirely a construct. There are certain moral elements that are common to the vast majority of humans. Those form society. It is as ingrained in us as our fear of the dark and love of sweet things.

[Kowani]

I’m sorry, what?

You're distinguishing justice (philosophy of ethical statecraft) from the philosophy of personal morality to dodge criticism of nihilism as a guide to public policy. The problem with this is that the two are intertwined, because the state is directly involved with the lives of individuals and is composed of individuals.

Ahh. Thank you.
In that case, I would respond that my philosophy of personal morality greatly influences my philosophy of statecraft. Although there are technically no options a state cannot take, there are options that it would be logically invalid for it to do so.

[Old Tyrannia]

America had a real king in George III, whom it chose to rebel against.

Washington had more gravitas to be honest. He was our Cincinnatus.

"Gravitas" is no substitute for legitimacy.

The Hanoverians were German...You were (and still are) ruled by foreigners (the original name of the Windsors was - as you know - Saxe Codeburg & Gotha). At least the Americans wanted to strike out on their own and rule themselves.

Heck, when was the last time the Anglo-Saxons ruled themselves? Not since 1066...

The House of Hanover were only able to inherit the British throne because of their descent from James VI and I, who in turn was descended from the Anglo-Saxon House of Wessex multiple times over. Our current queen is a direct descendant of Alfred the Great. By your standards, no one is truly English if they had any ancestors born outside the country. That's utterly ridiculous and hilariously hypocritical as usual.

Not the Church, but the Roman Catholic Church, which is a corruption of the true Christian message and which I am therefore obliged to counter and expose whenever possible. It's not like Catholics on this forum (and the Orthodox as well to a degree) don't constantly spout hatred for Protestantism.

Oh come off it. Accusing Pope Paul of being a pedophile, along with other insults, "counters and exposes" nothing. And then to suggest that just because others do it to you means you're any better? God knows I'm not perfect, and I've insulted Protestantism and Anglicanism in the past. But I know now that insulting other Christians is wrong, and trying to hide it under "exposing wrongness" doubly so.

John Paul II might not have been a paedophile himself, but he was responsible for a massive international conspiracy aimed at concealing and protecting those that were. That seems something worth drawing attention to. And this is a man the Roman Catholic Church has recognised as a saint and often describes as "the Great."

Spare me the "love and respect for fellow Christians" bullshit. I've dealt with enough of your kind to know that it's all just a lie, and I've seen the hatred and corruption hiding beneath all that pious talk. The only things your church care about are power and control.

[Kowani]

Eh, go for it. I’m everyone’s assigned punching bag, I don’t see why I can’t take one more.

*puts on latex gloves*

After proper examination and analysis of your... philosophical arguments and their contents I came to the conclusion that they should not be judged all to harshly at face-value as their, edgy proto-forms, are merely an expression of their current status. Namely the contents are, in my view, still in a process of morphing and evolving with their current state by no means necessarily close to a final nor even defined philosophy.

It is by all likehood assumed that a further... development of Kowanism is likely to take part in the near to forseeable future.

Undoubtly, in their current status, they are somewhat squishy in their... consistence, which is entirely to be attributed to their inmature, yet evolving status.

That'd be all.

Ah… Huh. Okay, I’ll take that.
Thanks, Nak.

[Totally Not OEP]

Duly noted.

"B-but muh free trade..."

It becomes especially rich, given that in 1982 Reagan bailed out the banks during the Savings and Loan Crisis.

I'll add another: in 1978 a revision of labor laws almost passed, which would have sped up the decision-making process of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). This would've made it easier for unions to organize as well as negotiate collective bargaining agreements. It passed the House and almost got a filibuster-proof 58-42 vote in the Senate; Carter was instead too focused on the Panama Canal Treaty, allowing the momentum to dissipate and the Chamber of Congress to organize opposition that allowed the successful filibuster.

[Kowani]

Simple-the truth. It is not that there are no values, but rather, that any values are constructed and not universal.


Yes. That’s why my philosophy of the State is different from that of the individual.

Except that morality is not entirely a construct. There are certain moral elements that are common to the vast majority of humans. Those form society. It is as ingrained in us as our fear of the dark and love of sweet things.

Okay, as much as I love sweet things, the fact that the majority of people believe in something does not actually make said things true, or even good. The vast prevalence of tribalism should be evidence of this, but us fearing the dark is because of our “lizardbrain”, not because the dark is problematic.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

I could try, but I doubt I would like the outcome.

That's the problem with consequentialism. But if you ask me, ethical means and good outcomes are more correlative than you might think.

I've got a better idea. Why don't we just curtail freedom of speech for people who want to curtail freedom of speech? Communists, Nazis, edgy nihilists and religious extremists should all be shut down.

I don't think that's a good idea. Rights should not apply exclusively to people who believe in that right, but to everyone. Otherwise, you could murder people who don't believe murder is wrong. Or ban theocrats from practicing their religion.

"Gravitas" is no substitute for legitimacy.

What constitutes legitimacy?

[Jolthig]

Philosophy is the pursuit of wisdom. I’d love to hear what’s wise about saying there’s no value we can adhere to as individuals or even as family groups.

Simple-the truth. It is not that there are no values, but rather, that any values are constructed and not universal.

You're misinterpretting what I mean, I don't mean primitives, I mean savagery in terms of only pursuing our self interests. It produces a problem because everyone's self interest is different and some are conflicting, and in this, nihilism contributes nothing to the discussion. The fundamental question of ethics and political philosophy is "what should we do?" Nihilism can't answer it, so it's useless to the discussion of politics.

Yes. That’s why my philosophy of the State is different from that of the individual.

But you claiming it's a moral standpoint from the perspective of the state?

[Kowani]

I could try, but I doubt I would like the outcome.

That's the problem with consequentialism. But if you ask me, ethical means and good outcomes are more correlative than you might think.

Hmm…Perhaps they are, perhaps they aren’t. I am of the school of “whatever works works.”

But you claiming it's a moral standpoint from the perspective of the state?

Moral may not be the right word. Desirable?

[Jean-Paul Sartre]

Except that morality is not entirely a construct. There are certain moral elements that are common to the vast majority of humans. Those form society. It is as ingrained in us as our fear of the dark and love of sweet things.

Okay, as much as I love sweet things, the fact that the majority of people believe in something does not actually make said things true, or even good. The vast prevalence of tribalism should be evidence of this, but us fearing the dark is because of our “lizardbrain”, not because the dark is problematic.

It’s a result of us being eusocial creatures. Just because there’s no divine purpose doesn’t mean all things are pointless. There is an evolutionary and pragmatic basis for morality. Grandstanding about nihilism here is pointless except for the most banal of arguments.

[Old Tyrannia]

"Gravitas" is no substitute for legitimacy.

What constitutes legitimacy?

A legitimate monarch is one who acquires the throne legally according to the established law and customs of their society. In the UK, and most European monarchies, bloodline is what determines a person's eligibility for the throne, and their right is ultimately derived from God.

[Kowani]

Okay, as much as I love sweet things, the fact that the majority of people believe in something does not actually make said things true, or even good. The vast prevalence of tribalism should be evidence of this, but us fearing the dark is because of our “lizardbrain”, not because the dark is problematic.

It’s a result of us being eusocial creatures. Just because there’s no divine purpose doesn’t mean all things are pointless. There is an evolutionary and pragmatic basis for morality. Grandstanding about nihilism here is pointless except for the most banal of arguments.

Hold up, hold up. This whole debate started because Xeno wanted to convince me that morals existed. Accusing me of “grandstanding” about Nihilism isn’t exactly what happened here, especially after I got dogpiled by everyone.

[Jolthig]

That's the problem with consequentialism. But if you ask me, ethical means and good outcomes are more correlative than you might think.

Hmm…Perhaps they are, perhaps they aren’t. I am of the school of “whatever works works.”

But you claiming it's a moral standpoint from the perspective of the state?

Moral may not be the right word. Desirable?

You think it's the correct option though from a logical standpoint, correct?