Author Topic: Keeping the right secular  (Read 320009 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

vir

  • Manager
  • .
  • Posts: 2963
Keeping the right secular
« on: June 26, 2014, 09:22:24 AM »
Quote
What is the Secular Right?

We believe that conservative principles and policies need not be grounded in a specific set of supernatural claims.  Rather, conservatism serves the ends of “Human Flourishing,” what the Greeks termed Eudaimonia. Secular conservatism takes the empirical world for what it is, and accepts that the making of it the best that it can be is only possible through our faculties of reason.

http://secularright.org/SR/wordpress/about/

Jackal

  • .
  • Posts: 253
Re: Keeping the right secular
« Reply #1 on: June 26, 2014, 11:45:42 PM »
This is obviously asking for "as opposed to what?"

And I say this as someone who was once agnostic for many years.

Cohiba

  • .
  • Posts: 241
Re: Keeping the right secular
« Reply #2 on: June 27, 2014, 04:21:47 AM »
Jackal, I believe this means conservative principles should be recognized on grounds other than theistic. Traditional values are often paired with religion, and since God is dead, traditional values are also eschewed (even by mainstream "conservatives"). If people can see that these values are "logical" or otherwise beneficial, then it looks less like an outdated system and more like the wisdom of the ancients that it is.

Jackal

  • .
  • Posts: 253
Re: Keeping the right secular
« Reply #3 on: June 27, 2014, 05:24:49 AM »
oh I think that's all well and good, everything needs metrics, it's just the language of the "about" page is philosophically ignorant as hell.

Roi

  • .
  • Posts: 21
Re: Keeping the right secular
« Reply #4 on: July 01, 2014, 09:13:44 AM »
I like to argue from what I call morality for nihilists

"Nihilism" is defined here as the absense of any "ethernal", "absolute" or "platoinic" values. Values can only come in the form of subjective evaluations(conscious or not), made by the individual.

In order to keep this relativistic frame grounded, you need to make two distinctions; the first one being between descriptive and prescriptive morality. Descrptive morality is describing peoples moral intuitions, which paired with the rest of our psychological nature makes for predicting behaviour. Prescriptive morality is the next step; where we make prescriptions for rules and norms to enforce, based on which of our predicted outcomes we prefer.

The second distinction is simply time-prefference; which outcomes happen at what timeframe. Without this, the model simply collapses into hedonism.

vir

  • Manager
  • .
  • Posts: 2963
Re: Keeping the right secular
« Reply #5 on: July 01, 2014, 01:06:42 PM »
Quote
Nihilism means that you do not believe in values ​​outside of the human mind. Values ​​will of values; a wisdom that not only goes against religious thought, but also atheistic concepts such as the Marxist labor theory of value. The lack of Platonic ideals leads us also to all "morality" is subjective.

Here we come to many conservatives' greatest enemy: relativism. If morality is subjective, why even care about what is right and wrong? If it feels good, it must surely be right, for any other measuring stick do we have? And how can we judge anyone at all?

To begin to sort this out we need two concepts. The first is a distinction between descriptive and prescriptive morals. With descriptive morality refers to a description of the moral instincts of people feel, and how these are manifested in more concrete opinions. The prescriptive morality, is what we think ought to be the generally accepted rules for how people deal with each other. The second distinction is between planeringshorizonter, which is necessary to avoid hedonism.

So, the value is fundamentally subjective, but also our subjective experiences are governed by our physical neurology. Neurology as a science is admittedly very undeveloped, but by studying the psychological and economic phenomena can approximate how our moral intuition works, and what kind of living people generally feel well.

To create a prescriptive morality one must then examine what types of moral beliefs that lead to the kinds of societies. Here, even in the time preference; as a pattern of behavior may seem positive for our dopamine receptors in the short term, but the long-term devastating. Alcoholism etc. .. Yes, you probably understand.

My own attempts to find both descriptive and prescriptive morality, is what this blog will largely be about.

Horrible google translate text.


Roi

  • .
  • Posts: 21
Re: Keeping the right secular
« Reply #6 on: July 01, 2014, 02:45:56 PM »
"values will of values" = "values comes from evaluations". The gist of it is basically the same.

As someone who grew up as an atheis, I often have a hard time even comprehending "traditionalist" arguments coming out of specific traditions. If you want atheist elites to leave you alone, you have to speak their language and make a more generalized and abstract case for tradition.

One way to make that is basicaly the same as arguing for "free markets": We don't know how society works, but it's an incredible complex system. In order to make it function, we need a lot of trial and error. This has been done all through history; where the functional forms survived in the form of tradition. Messing with this, uprroting alll kinds of norms, is playing with fire. If you don't know why people do something a particular way, how can you say it's unneccesary. And even if you think you know; do you really?

If someone then asks what I have against the current system, my anser is that democracy is the permanent revolution.

vir

  • Manager
  • .
  • Posts: 2963
Re: Keeping the right secular
« Reply #7 on: July 01, 2014, 09:30:58 PM »
In order to make it function, we need a lot of trial and error. This has been done all through history; where the functional forms survived in the form of tradition. Messing with this, uprroting alll kinds of norms, is playing with fire.

Democracy is a revolution against this knowledge. It is the knowledge, not the kings, that held back the proles from insane acts. But the proles wanted someone to blame so they could liberate themselves to do whatever they wanted, which usually was venal in nature.

As a nihilist, I deny the human emotions and thoughts which are not based in reality.

I do not limit reality to the physical; I think probing beyond that however is fully esoteric and requires a select few who are willing to think it through. Almost all have no stomach for it.

Most people in this time think a thought, and express it in action or words, but because no one will contradict it, they assume it is true and that they are thus in control of what is true.

They use guilt to manipulate the rest of us. "How can you not recognize me, for I am as human as you!"

And yet, inequality persists in nature for a reason: nature is forever changing, evolving upward if possible. Thus inequality reflects the difference of reality-ness to different thoughts and actions.

Their first goal was to obliterate this impediment to their egomaniac views.

Streetcleaner

  • Jacobin
  • .
  • Posts: 30
Re: Keeping the right secular
« Reply #8 on: July 02, 2014, 07:56:34 PM »
PRAISE JESUS

vir

  • Manager
  • .
  • Posts: 2963
Re: Keeping the right secular
« Reply #9 on: July 03, 2014, 09:09:59 AM »
I think it would be a mistake for us to be against religion. In its raw form, Christianity is fairly conservative. It's only when you open it up to herd judgment that the "organized" part of organized religion converts it into liberalism.

fschmidt

  • .
  • Posts: 194
Re: Keeping the right secular
« Reply #10 on: September 13, 2014, 08:43:44 AM »
Quote
What is the Secular Right?

We believe that conservative principles and policies need not be grounded in a specific set of supernatural claims.
The idea that religion is based on "a specific set of supernatural claims" is a grave misconception.  This is only true of Christianity, not of any other religion.  The general meaning of religion is an ethical system that contains beliefs, rituals, and laws needed to support that ethical system.  The word "secular" means non-religious which means, for all practical purposes, non-moral.  Here is a Buddhist response to secularism:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Buddha has condemned godlessness by which He meant the denial of worship and renunciation, the denial of moral and social obligations, and the denial of a religious life. He recognized most emphatically the existence of moral and spiritual values. He acclaimed the supremacy of the moral law. Only in one sense can Buddhism be described as atheistic, namely, in so far as it denies the existence of an eternal omnipotent God or God-head who is the creator and ordainer of the world. The word 'atheism', however, frequently carries a number of disparaging overtones or implications which are in no way applicable to the Buddha's Teaching. Those who use the word 'atheism', often associate it with a materialistic doctrine that knows nothing higher than this world of the senses and the slight happiness it can bestow. Buddhism advocates nothing of that sort.

There is no justification for the branding Buddhist as atheists, nihilists, pagans, heathens or communists just because they do not believe in a Creator God. The Buddhist concept of God is different from that of other religions. Differences in belief do not justify name-calling and slanderous words.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.middlesexdesign.com/gwc/is_buddhism_atheistic.htm

vir

  • Manager
  • .
  • Posts: 2963
Re: Keeping the right secular
« Reply #11 on: September 14, 2014, 08:12:30 AM »
Quote
Only in one sense can Buddhism be described as atheistic, namely, in so far as it denies the existence of an eternal omnipotent God or God-head who is the creator and ordainer of the world.

"denies the existence of an eternal omnipotent God or God-head who is the creator and ordainer of the world"

Quote
1.
the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism

Whoever wrote that is either not very bright or not very honest.

fschmidt

  • .
  • Posts: 194
Re: Keeping the right secular
« Reply #12 on: September 14, 2014, 09:34:58 AM »
And for comparison, here is the definition of feminism:

Quote
1.
the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/feminism

We all know that this is a lie.  Groups can define themselves however they want even if the definition is a lie, and these false definitions find their way into dictionaries.  Feminism has no interest in equality when men are at a disadvantage as in parental rights for divorce.  A true definition of feminism would be that it is a slut power movement, but this definition will not make it into dictionaries anytime soon.

The same is true of "atheism".  Atheism should be defined by what atheists actually do, not by how they choose to define themselves.  In 1852, George Holyoake chose to create the term "nontheism" to express the idea of non-belief in god(s) because:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Charles] Southwell has taken an objection to the term Atheism. We are glad he has. We have disused it a long time [...]. We disuse it, because Atheist is a worn-out word. Both the ancients and the moderns have understood by it one without God, and also without morality. Thus the term connotes more than any well-informed and earnest person accepting it ever included in it; that is, the word carries with it associations of immorality, which have been repudiated by the Atheist as seriously as by the Christian. Non-theism is a term less open to the same misunderstanding, as it implies the simple non-acceptance of the Theist's explanation of the origin and government of the world.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontheism#Origin_and_definition

This is a realistic approach and it is reasonable to say that Buddhism is nonthiestic but not atheistic.

vir

  • Manager
  • .
  • Posts: 2963
Re: Keeping the right secular
« Reply #13 on: September 14, 2014, 09:40:11 AM »
Quote
one without God

Keep language consistent; use the term as it means.

"Atheist" generally means "liberal," so when you mean that, just say liberal.

Don't let them off the hook for their behavior.

scourge

  • .
  • Posts: 789
Re: Keeping the right secular
« Reply #14 on: September 14, 2014, 02:33:16 PM »
I believe the evolutionary basis for our having morality but I don't believe it is distinct from what came before because all they were doing in the past was applying religious trappings to explain things about people that we are only reiterating in science form today.

Around The Enlightenment, our basis for having morality was tampered with. The idea of a divine source in Providence was drawn into question. That was a necessary phase but it was screwed up by getting democratized. It was democratized because the intellectuals of the time were erroneously projecting their own higher level of competence and ethical grounding as if it were shared by all people in the world. That of course is not the case.

Democratized rationalism afforded anyone a reason to throw out so many generations of very slow, collective progress and insert an aimless, atomized and impulsive "progress" without foundation in its place. What we have now is insanity by any other name. It's no different than a schizophrenic, gibbering homeless person in the big city who is otherwise registered to vote and has convincing rationalizations such as free will to explain his gibbering insanity.

We're expected to believe mass democracy represents a major improvement over firm guidance from religious and aristocratic authority, which were so many generations in careful development.