Classical Theism, Philosophy, and Religion Forum

You are not logged in. Would you like to login or register?

Practical Philosophy » Why has consent become the ruling principle of ethics? » 10/16/2018 2:33 am

seigneur
Replies: 9

Go to post

@Brian

Agreed, it's entirely pragmatic. Consent as the ethical principle in modern utilitarian society is not a conscious intellectual choice, but more like a fallback with the decline of objective morality.

Chit-Chat » Purely political schism in Orthodox Church » 10/16/2018 2:28 am

seigneur
Replies: 1

Go to post

This one developed rather quickly, which is a shame, because it is not over anything relevant to faith, such as theology, doctrine, or worship https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ukraine-religion-russia-idUSKCN1LU2I8

The Russian Orthodox Church’s Holy Synod ruling body convened on Friday to consider how to respond as the Ukrainian Orthodox Church has courted Constantinople to formally make it a self-governing body independent of Moscow. [...]

Vladimir Legoida, a Russian Church spokesman, said the Holy Synod had decided to suspend its participation in all structures chaired or co-chaired by representatives of the Patriarchate of Constantinople.

It is also suspending all services with top priests of the Patriarchate of Constantinople and will not commemorate the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I in its services, Legoida wrote on social media, summarizing the outcome of the meeting.

Practical Philosophy » Why has consent become the ruling principle of ethics? » 10/15/2018 4:00 am

seigneur
Replies: 9

Go to post

Why has consent become the ruling principle of ethics? When denial of objective morality brings about its subversion of norms, but at the same time it's clear that some norms are still inevitable, then some human-centred principle would straightforwardly follow, I think, be it majority rule or the principle of consent.

Is it not evident in the American revolution? "No taxation without representation" would exemplify the principle of consent and democracy exemplifies majority rule. Of course, neither of these can be applied consistently, so they get applied selectively. In US history, slaves, natives, and non-citizens were excluded from having representation and, by virtue of having no representation, they were exempt from both duties and rights alike, and authorities could kick them around without any consequence, because there was no ethical or legal principle to make authorities accountable. Traces of it continue even now.

Religion » What About Catholicism? » 10/13/2018 3:19 am

seigneur
Replies: 15

Go to post

Jeremy Taylor wrote:

I'm not a Catholic, but the obvious Catholic retort is that Catholicism has a basis in the New Testament and early Church, whereas the Pharisees put forward man-made innovations.

This is exactly what Jews could have said to Jesus: Our faith has a basis in Torah but you hypocrite are putting forward man-made innovations.

Jesus criticized the established religion of his own time, particularly its departures from the scripture. Early protestants criticized the established religion of their time, particularly its departures from the scripture.

By now there is, in places, long-established state-church Protestantism, and obvious heretical factions of it. It's a good principle to examine the foundations of one's own faith and to seek good answers about truth.

Chit-Chat » Christine Blasey Ford is a liar » 10/07/2018 4:41 am

seigneur
Replies: 60

Go to post

Jeremy Taylor wrote:

The definition of rape, as noted, is also often very broad in these surveys, such as including the woman having any alcohol or any pressure, like the slightest kind of persuasive, can be included, even if the woman herself doesn't consider the incident rape.

When faced with a particular study, "often" should not be an argument. The definitions in the specific study are important.

When the study makes a distinction between rape and sexual assault, and a further distinction with harassment, it just might be a good study, depending on how consistently the definitions are followed through and whether the conclusions are warranted by the data.

Mind you, I have seen conclusions unwarranted by the data in plenty of statistical studies of more legit fields, such as economics (insofar as it can be called data there), so I'd say statistical competence is a wider problem in scholarship. At any rate, one should always check these three things in any study:

- definitions
- data
- conclusions

When these three speak the same thing, you should not say it's bad scholarship even when you don't like the conclusions. When you don't like the conclusions or the field itself, it might be a true clash of ideologies (or of personal interests).

But when it's bad scholarship, we should reject the conclusions because it's bad scholarship, not (only) because there's ideological bent. It might very well be ideological bent in our own direction, but bad scholarship deserves to be called out even then.

Chit-Chat » Christine Blasey Ford is a liar » 10/07/2018 4:29 am

seigneur
Replies: 60

Go to post

FZM wrote:

https://areomagazine.com/2018/10/02/academic-grievance-studies-and-the-corruption-of-scholarship/

The rape culture problem among dogs in parks in Oregon is a good one, and it won a kind of prize.

Yes, the dog park article is an effective hoax, but no, it did not win a prize. It was celebrated by the same magazine that published it for the magazine's 25th anniversary.

In my opinion, more notable in the linked article is the claim that the hoaxters were swiftly invited to become peer reviewers. Looks like a very low bar to cross in those fields.

Chit-Chat » What will be cast into the metaphysical waste bin in the near future? » 10/06/2018 7:43 am

seigneur
Replies: 13

Go to post

As much as I hope for the decline of nominalism, it seems that nominalism is an automatic background system for mathematicians.

Physicists who avoid straightforward atomism (belief in the primacy of particulars over universals) tend to approach nominalism too.

Sciences that would motivate essentialism or idealism with spiritual focus are not hip these days. Biology will remain in the grip of Darwinism for the foreseeable future. Arts and letters have not yet properly recovered from having discredited themselves with postmodernism.

Theology is simply history + ancient languages. There is some residual mention of God, but it's not much better than mentions of God in physics, where God = grasp of the theory of everything, or in law, where God = force majeure.

The best option currently seems to be philosophy proper, particularly ontology, ethics, logic, and epistemology (roughly in that order). These provide a direct insight into what are the most important things to think about, how and why.

Chit-Chat » Christine Blasey Ford is a liar » 10/06/2018 4:53 am

seigneur
Replies: 60

Go to post

FZM wrote:

​I listened to some interesting lectures by Stephen Hicks about the origins of postmodernism/deconstructivism etc. in France in the decades following WW2, he sketches out some of the links between these views and more conventional Marxism.  
 

Were you listening carefully? Hicks has a book on the Nietzsche-Nazi connection and he concludes that Nietzsche was misappropriated by the Nazis. My claim about the Marx-postmodernist-LGBT connection is the same: Marx is grossly misattributed here. Everybody somewhat familiar with Marx should see how ill-fitting Marx is in that series.

I am not directly defending Marx, just inviting some rigour: When you don't know Marx, don't pretend that you do. When the supposed Marxists are themselves not informed by Marx, please be careful when labelling them Marxists.

The same goes for when you paint with an even broader brush like "Left" or "liberal". Too much analytical precision goes out of the window with it and only bashing remains.

Chit-Chat » Christine Blasey Ford is a liar » 10/06/2018 4:37 am

seigneur
Replies: 60

Go to post

Jeremy Taylor wrote:

I'm confused about what you mean by Marx being constructive. Marx was notoriously vague about how his utopia would work or be realised. He spoke of a man doing a number of jobs or hobbies in a day, but filled in no details about how this society could be operate.

He was constructive in the sense that he was a good scholar; nobody can deny this. His economic theory about capitalism is the best one out there. The one about socialism is, yes, a utopia, but the mistake is to see in him just the utopia and forget his contribution to the analysis of capitalism. His critique was stronger in every way than his utopia, and the critique was constructive in the sense that the social democratic parties of Europe took it and in fact improved capitalism to last another century.

(The most important economic insight by Marx was to show that capitalism itself generates cyclical crises. His suggested solution was to get rid of capitalism and replace it with socialism. Social democrats modified this: Instead of revolution, let's see how to survive the crises. Whereas mainstream economists see economy, wrongly, as an equilibrium and every crisis is a shock and surprise to them.)

But ever since postmodernism, the so-called Marxist scholars do not have a utopia. They only use shoddy scholarship to produce fruitless destructive criticism or hyped babble. There is no value or insight in calling them Marxists, particularly when they themselves see no connection either.

Chit-Chat » Christine Blasey Ford is a liar » 10/06/2018 3:58 am

seigneur
Replies: 60

Go to post

Jeremy Taylor wrote:

The influence of Marxism on the New Left is huge and obvious. Reas Scruton's Thinkers of the New Left. The influence of quasi-Marxist beliefs is growing on the left today. Radical feminism, much LGBT activism, post-structuralism, post-colonialism, etc., all have important Marxist antecedents, even if they certainly aren't pure Marxism.

For a moment, let's disregard that I have no idea what New Left is. Looks like an attempt to resuscitate the Red Scare.

Now, that aside, I can agree with Scruton's assessment - with a stretch of imagination. Yes, the connections are there, but the problem is that they are imaginary, not concrete. For example LGBT activists have not read Marx at all and never refer to him. Post-structuralists and feminists only extract some de-nuanced concept from Marx such as equality or masses or minorities and ignore the rest, while they in fact more often operate with "plurality" which is not Marx's.

With the exact same stretch of imagination, I can assert that Scruton has fascist antecedents. He even likes Wagner! So let's drop these too easy associations.

To associate critical theory and radical deconstructivism with Marx and Marxism is a straightforward mistake. Marx was highly structured. His idea was not just revolution, but to establish other institutions that he outlined - after first having described with good precision the contemporary institutions. On the other hand, the current brand of art and social critique/analysis relying on critical theory has nothing constructive in it. It just aims to deconstruct and demolish what is currently standing, and has no ideas beyond that.

These two things are related only with a stretch, and it's particularly a stretch when the representatives of the latter do not fall back to the former and you cannot back up the latter by quoting the former without distortions.

Added: The best possible claim to the association would be perhaps to say that the representatives of th

Board footera

 

Powered by Boardhost. Create a Free Forum