|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
 Posted: Mon Apr 08, 2013 6:46 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Titus wrote: |
| Quote: |
| These brilliant men, due to enlightenment thinking, etc. |
This is a prog fiction, that "science" started with the enlightenment. I toured a 2200 year old sanitation system on an Italian island last summer. 2200!! When was the enlightenment? When did it end?
| Quote: |
| Also aren't being burned as heretics |
Also prog fiction. Hey, did you know that Galileo repented and apologized but James Watson didn't. Where is your enlightenment now?
Secular religion.
| Quote: |
| I'd take modern day tax rates over feudalism and being tied to the land, your lord, whatever. |
Not to be rude, but you pay what % in taxes this year? Any?
| Quote: |
| In these modern days it seems like the closest thing we have to what you want is Saudi Arabia. |
More prog fiction (ie the opposite of us is Saudi. No, it isn't).
| Quote: |
| who is our ideal enlightened despot from history |
Despot! Progs and the abuse of language! Where does a despot end and Obama begin? Too difficult? Where does a popular despot end a democracy begin? Still too much? Where does the enlightenment end and post-modernity begin? Still? |
Abuse of language, like false equivalences? Obama is the same as a King, or a despot, no because one sticks around for longer than 8 years, just to start with the most obvious difference. If you want to make a case for the elite behind Obama that don't really change every couple of years, than maybe, but let's not pretend that they are the same. Also, just because there was science and innovation during the distant past, doesn't mean that it occurred at the same rate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Titus
Joined: 19 May 2012
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 08, 2013 7:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Obama is the same as a King, or a despot, no because one sticks around for longer than 8 years, just to start with the most obvious difference. ... but let's not pretend that they are the same. |
Here you downplay the most important feature of the American system. Obama isn't the American regime. He is a totem pole of the regime. The regime never changes. Note the continuity between Bush 1 (Kinda bad!) - Clinton (GOOD!!) - Bush (BAD!) - (Obama DOUBLE GOOD). Policy is the same. Wars, usury, etc. The regime is stable.
| Quote: |
| Also, just because there was science and innovation during the distant past, doesn't mean that it occurred at the same rate. |
The rate of technological change is entirely separate from the illusion of democracy that you are in love with.
The rate of technological change is not in itself a net-positive for our species either. It's probably opposite, on balance. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 08, 2013 7:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Look, Titus, so far you've spent your time telling me why the current system is bad. I agree, I think it's bad. You haven't told me why the past system was good yet. So, go ahead, what are the advantages, as you see it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 08, 2013 8:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| GF wrote: |
They want social concord and unity, but they want privately to exempt themselves from it, and remain skeptics.
But in a traditional society, that would make them the worm in the apple, wouldn't it ? |
Not necessarily. Whereas the indoctrination of a given religion might promote reflexive and unconscious participation in the broader social concord, it's still entirely possible for a self-aware skeptic to participate in the social concord in a conscious and willful fashion. If it is possible to reason one's way to the tenets of the society in question, nothing exempts a skeptic from reaching them, living by them, and even promoting them. Society can benefit from having a small minority of participants who are outside the general system and transcend the usual intellectual boundaries. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Udo
Joined: 22 May 2011
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 09, 2013 8:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/region_phoenix_metro/central_phoenix/controversy-brews-over-phoenix-program-to-hire-lifeguards
Controversy brews over Phoenix program to hire
lifeguards
Posted: 04/05/2013
By: MaryEllen Resendez
PHOENIX - Phoenix city pools won�t be open for another month and a half, but controversy is brewing over a city
program aimed to hire lifeguards.
The city�s Aquatics Outreach Program used scholarship money to train nearly 200 potential lifeguards from lower to
moderate income neighborhoods.
But eyebrows shot up when an NPR article quoted two Phoenix Parks and Recreation workers as they went into an
inner city school to recruit.
NPR quotes one worker as saying, �The kids in the pool are all either Hispanic or black or whatever, and every
lifeguard is white, and we don�t like that.�
The workers also told students they weren�t looking for strong swimmers, and would work with any swimming
abilities.
�That�s risky and shameful,� said Mark Spencer with Judicial Watch. �It�s not a culture that pulls a person out of the
pool when they're drowning. It's a lifeguard and the lifeguard with the skill set will make the biggest difference.�
We called Phoenix Parks and Recreation spokesman David Urbinato about the comments.
Urbinato would not comment on the quotes, but did say the Aquatics Outreach Program isn�t about skin color.
According to the program's guidelines, it's aimed to give kids from low to moderate income neighborhoods a chance
to train as a lifeguard.
Urbinato told us the candidates still had to pass requirements and a skills test to become a lifeguard.
The program funded with scholarship money included 196 participants; 145 of them applied for lifeguard jobs and 98
passed the water test requirements.
Of the candidates, 122 were Hispanic, 44 were black, 23 white, and 5 were Asian.
But Spencer still believes the program was nothing more than a risky experiment in diversity.
�I would believe that most parents at a public pool when it came to their family would prefer a skill set to skin color,"
pressed Spencer.
Seventy-one of the candidates have been offered positions at Phoenix City public pools this summer.
Copyright 2013 Scripps Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritt |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GF
Joined: 26 Sep 2012
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 09, 2013 4:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| GF wrote: |
They want social concord and unity, but they want privately to exempt themselves from it, and remain skeptics.
But in a traditional society, that would make them the worm in the apple, wouldn't it ? |
Not necessarily. Whereas the indoctrination of a given religion might promote reflexive and unconscious participation in the broader social concord, it's still entirely possible for a self-aware skeptic to participate in the social concord in a conscious and willful fashion. If it is possible to reason one's way to the tenets of the society in question, nothing exempts a skeptic from reaching them, living by them, and even promoting them. |
If the social concord is religious in nature - based on, say, a common faith - then the skeptic could not fully participate, could he ? How, for instance, would he participate in the common worship, the principle of the common faith ? Or when his wife says grace before supper, does he just stand quietly and respectfully, while reflecting to himself what an absurd spectacle she is, paying thanks to a figment of her deluded imagination ?
So he's orbiting at best. Personally, I think our skeptic-in-a-traditional-society is in a sad position - barred of himself from the minor extasy of the common worship, and yet more from eternal happiness, even while living in a society where everything is ordered to aid him in achieving that end - and I certainly don't fathom how he would feel any less alienated in that sort of society, whose premises are "irrelevant" to him, than he does in the contemporary west.
On another level, it is bizarre that someone could find so much to praise in the accidents of a traditional society - it's particular forms of government, distribution, production, and family life - while simultaneously deeming its religious essence "irrelevant". Now, if we believe Titus, these neoreactionaries are men in transition, currently in a destructive phase, so on that basis I hold out some hope that they will someday perceive the futility of their political opinions and elect for a constructive effort. On that day they may be worthy of the traditional society they wish for.
| Quote: |
| Society can benefit from having a small minority of participants who are outside the general system and transcend the usual intellectual boundaries. |
Since transcend means to rise above, it's clear that we cannot let your thought pass without simultaneously annihilating the structure and meaning of a traditional society: in one word we have made unbelief superior to belief, and what is that but the worm in the apple. Judged by the premises of the traditional society, the skeptic is a lesser type of man. And might that not give pause to the neoreactionary skeptic ? The traditional society is right in so much else, could it not be right in this ?
Now, if a man transcends the common run in the direction of a hero, religious doctor, mystic, or initiate, that is an authentic superiority and another matter entirely. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 09, 2013 4:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| GF wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| GF wrote: |
They want social concord and unity, but they want privately to exempt themselves from it, and remain skeptics.
But in a traditional society, that would make them the worm in the apple, wouldn't it ? |
Not necessarily. Whereas the indoctrination of a given religion might promote reflexive and unconscious participation in the broader social concord, it's still entirely possible for a self-aware skeptic to participate in the social concord in a conscious and willful fashion. If it is possible to reason one's way to the tenets of the society in question, nothing exempts a skeptic from reaching them, living by them, and even promoting them. |
If the social concord is religious in nature - based on, say, a common faith - then the skeptic could not fully participate, could he ? |
Why is full participation required? Some people are by nature somewhat apart, so what would you do with them? Kill them? Banish them? Force them to live a lie? Is there really no room at all for the fellow who acknowledges worship may be right and proper for the common man, even if it is not for him?
| GF wrote: |
| How, for instance, would he participate in the common worship, the principle of the common faith ? Or when his wife says grace before supper, does he just stand quietly and respectfully, while reflecting to himself what an absurd spectacle she is, paying thanks to a figment of her deluded imagination ? |
Why must it be mockery and derision?
| GF wrote: |
Personally, I think our skeptic-in-a-traditional-society is in a sad position - barred of himself from the minor extasy of the common worship, and yet more from eternal happiness, even while living in a society where everything is ordered to aid him in achieving that end - and I certainly don't fathom how he would feel any less alienated in that sort of society, whose premises are "irrelevant" to him, than he does in the contemporary west. |
It's an interesting phrase: "barred himself." I think you make it sound like more of a choice than it is.
| GF wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Society can benefit from having a small minority of participants who are outside the general system and transcend the usual intellectual boundaries. |
Since transcend means to rise above, it's clear that we cannot let your thought pass without simultaneously annihilating the structure and meaning of a traditional society: in one word we have made unbelief superior to belief, and what is that but the worm in the apple. Judged by the premises of the traditional society, the skeptic is a lesser type of man. |
From an intellectual perspective, unbelief -- not anti-belief, mind you -- in the absence of accessible truth is superior to belief. This is no contradiction with the tenets of traditional society, because traditional society is not in itself an intellectual endeavor. You used the word "orbit," and I think it was a good one; his virtues are not those of the traditional commoner, at least in their entirety. The important thing -- the thing that allows him to "orbit" instead of either fly out of the system or crash into it -- is that his virtues allow him the possibility of understanding those who cannot in turn understand him, grasping what they need, and supporting it. Society can either accept that affection, or spit on it. It sounds to me like you prefer the latter.
| GF wrote: |
| And might that not give pause to the neoreactionary skeptic ? The traditional society is right in so much else, could it not be right in this ? |
Doubtful people are doubtful, so yes, they probably have some doubts on this account. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GF
Joined: 26 Sep 2012
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 09, 2013 5:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Titus wrote: |
| GF wrote: |
These 'neoreactionary' bloggers and hangers-on tend to be alienated rationalists.
They say they don't fit into this society, but they would not fit into a traditional society either. Because traditional forms of society have theological underpinnings.
They want the ancien regime without the Church. But that's not the ancien regime.
They want social concord and unity, but they want privately to exempt themselves from it, and remain skeptics.
But in a traditional society, that would make them the worm in the apple, wouldn't it ?
So from what cloth are they cut ? |
Basically, they're fascists but don't want to be dropping f-bombs all over the place. I'm more in line with Franco. They're (we're) reading Moldbug, who is a Jew (his parents were devout internationalist communists who just so happened to work for the American State Dept - go figure) and not about to advocate a Catholic/etc ethno-state, which is what these alienated bloggers seem to want.
Though, maybe reactionary is best to describe them. They're reacting to progressivism and want it smashed into a trillion pieces (along with the progs themselves). They're starting from the position that progs are liars, progress isn't, democracy is a sham and burn it all. Fair enough, right? I think it is up to people like you to make the case of where to go.
Do you read Mark Hackard? I think you'd enjoy:
http://euro-synergies.hautetfort.com/archive/2011/11/23/gaddafi-and-the-brave-new-world.html
Unfortunately, his essays are in the Alt-Right archive, which is in transition at the moment, so the above was all I could find. For a moment, I thought he might be you. |
You're right, I enjoyed it. I'm looking forward to reading more.
Are you familiar with Matt King ? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 09, 2013 7:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Titus wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Obama is the same as a King, or a despot, no because one sticks around for longer than 8 years, just to start with the most obvious difference. ... but let's not pretend that they are the same. |
Here you downplay the most important feature of the American system. Obama isn't the American regime. He is a totem pole of the regime. The regime never changes. Note the continuity between Bush 1 (Kinda bad!) - Clinton (GOOD!!) - Bush (BAD!) - (Obama DOUBLE GOOD). Policy is the same. Wars, usury, etc. The regime is stable. |
The tyranny of wars and usury.
So what does egalitarianism have to do with any of this? If Obama is the new totem pole for the military-usurious complex, then his half measures for egalitarianism are a distraction (the Lily-Ledbetter Act! Never has there been so much celebration over such a symbolic statute).
The so-called modern Cathedral you speak of is nothing but a sap. Behind the scenes, the barons of Goldman Sachs, Berkshire Hathaway, and Citigroup roar "I drink your milkshake!" against it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GF
Joined: 26 Sep 2012
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 11, 2013 3:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Why is full participation required? Some people are by nature somewhat apart, so what would you do with them? Kill them? Banish them? Force them to live a lie? Is there really no room at all for the fellow who acknowledges worship may be right and proper for the common man, even if it is not for him? |
Regardless of what he thinks he understands, the experiences of those around him would be lost on him. And I think as a consequence his liberalism, his desire to ensure his own space of conscientious objection, would out, in form of activism. How would such a person respond, do you think, to customs he deemed superstitious and harmful, or to an exercise of religious authority over his person to which he objected ? How would he educate his children ?
As an ally in the fight against the modern world, these men are unreliable; some of them are even closet Nietzscheans.
| Fox wrote: |
| Why must it be mockery and derision? |
Because that is what I have always seen from skeptics. Maybe you should ask them.
| Fox wrote: |
| It's an interesting phrase: "barred himself." I think you make it sound like more of a choice than it is. |
Sometimes I think that faith is the first and only choice there is. That may sound hyperbolic, but I think it�s justifiable language, since faith basically inverts our approach to life, by making the Last Things the first. If a man without faith has never made a choice of such universal magnitude, it may be that he would suffer from the illusion that such a choice is not possible.
| Fox wrote: |
| From an intellectual perspective, unbelief -- not anti-belief, mind you -- in the absence of accessible truth is superior to belief. |
That depends on the nature of the intelligence at question, and on the object of belief. Obviously, belief in a supreme cause is not necessarily the same as belief in the Christian God, and neither are akin to belief in �spaghetti monsters�, etc. And it is self-evident that belief in a supreme cause is intellectually superior to unbelief, since to hold otherwise is to assert that an effect (the world) has no cause (God). And this belief is really a form of occluded knowledge, promising a more perfect knowledge, since it is the active intellect at question. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 11, 2013 4:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| GF wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| Why is full participation required? Some people are by nature somewhat apart, so what would you do with them? Kill them? Banish them? Force them to live a lie? Is there really no room at all for the fellow who acknowledges worship may be right and proper for the common man, even if it is not for him? |
Regardless of what he thinks he understands, the experiences of those around him would be lost on him. And I think as a consequence his liberalism, his desire to ensure his own space of conscientious objection, would out, in form of activism. How would such a person respond, do you think, to customs he deemed superstitious and harmful, or to an exercise of religious authority over his person to which he objected ? How would he educate his children ?
As an ally in the fight against the modern world, these men are unreliable; some of them are even closet Nietzscheans. |
I doubt my specific speculations would mean much to you in the face of these questions, and even your concern about family matters, which I have seen play out first hand (one of the most charming men I know is a devout Catholic, and he was raised by a skeptical father who sent him along with his devout mother to worship service every week while he stayed to "keep the house safe") is ultimately anecdotal in character. So, having stated your concerns, answer my question: what would you do with such men?
| GF wrote: |
| Sometimes I think that faith is the first and only choice there is. That may sound hyperbolic, but I think it�s justifiable language, since faith basically inverts our approach to life, by making the Last Things the first. If a man without faith has never made a choice of such universal magnitude, it may be that he would suffer from the illusion that such a choice is not possible. |
My attack was more on the common sense conception of choice than on the details of this specific choice. I see no way in which the intersection of one's nature and one's circumstances could produce a different choice than the one reached in any particular situation. Choice isn't something we do, it's an expression of what we are.
| GF wrote: |
| And it is self-evident that belief in a supreme cause is intellectually superior to unbelief, since to hold otherwise is to assert that an effect (the world) has no cause (God). |
Beliefs in God are a subset of beliefs in a supreme cause, and I think it was clear the kind of unbelief I was referring to was unbelief vis a vis the former. Reality obviously must have some sort of necessary foundation, the unbeliever simply isn't willing to leap to conclusions regarding that foundation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 11, 2013 4:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm glad to see GF has ultimately brought his A-game.
But can he tie it all in to bash egalitarianism? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GF
Joined: 26 Sep 2012
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 16, 2013 2:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| So, having stated your concerns, answer my question: what would you do with such men? |
Assuming for the purposes that I held the reins of power, I would legislate to prevent them having any positions of influence over my fellows.
Additionally, those men suspect of spreading heresies would come under scrutiny. If however they could keep their impious views to themselves, they would not face state sanctions, though unless they were able to disguise them effectively (�live a lie�), they would very probably face social rejection.
| Fox wrote: |
| My attack was more on the common sense conception of choice than on the details of this specific choice. I see no way in which the intersection of one's nature and one's circumstances could produce a different choice than the one reached in any particular situation. Choice isn't something we do, it's an expression of what we are. |
If read carefully, my reply was also an attack on the common sense conception of choice. I have found that while free will, like reason, is a possibility of human nature, it is not necessarily a given in daily life, from whence it follows that the majority of us by and large live subhuman lives. This fits with the Patristic understanding, though it is not how most Catholics today conceive of it. I don�t think there�s much use to pursuing this line of discussion further, since your argument is a priori in the sense that it automatically rejects or reclassifies into its own terms any argument I could present. Thus conversion, rather than the turning in absolute liberty of the rational mind to God, is reclassified as a momentary expression of the intersection of the convert�s biological nature with his circumstances. How am I supposed to respond to that? Seriously, any advice?
In the PETA thread you made a funny comment about a bee Solon. I thought it was very apt, but sadly you backed-peddled from its implications.
| Fox wrote: |
| Beliefs in God are a subset of beliefs in a supreme cause, and I think it was clear the kind of unbelief I was referring to was unbelief vis a vis the former. Reality obviously must have some sort of necessary foundation, the unbeliever simply isn't willing to leap to conclusions regarding that foundation. |
I did not mean to smuggle God into it. I equated a supreme cause with God in the sense that Boethius does here:
| Quote: |
| This world would never have coalesced into one form out of such diverse and antagonistic parts had there not been one who could unify such diversity. Their very diversity in turn would make them break out into dissension and tear apart and destroy the unity of the world unless there were a power capable of holding together what he had once woven. Nature�s fixed order could not proceed on its path and the various kinds of change could not exhibit motions so orderly in place, time, effect, distance from one another, and nature, unless there was one unmoving and stable power to regulate them. For this power, whatever it is, through which creation remains in existence and in motion, I use the word which all people use, namely God. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GF
Joined: 26 Sep 2012
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 16, 2013 2:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| But can he tie it all in to bash egalitarianism? |
References to heros, mystics, initiates, and subhuman lives isn't enough for you?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 16, 2013 7:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| GF wrote: |
Assuming for the purposes that I held the reins of power, I would legislate to prevent them having any positions of influence over my fellows.
Additionally, those men suspect of spreading heresies would come under scrutiny. If however they could keep their impious views to themselves, they would not face state sanctions, though unless they were able to disguise them effectively (�live a lie�), they would very probably face social rejection. |
Honestly, it really does sound a lot like Saudi Arabia, which is interesting given Titus said, "I think it is up to people like you to make the case of where to go," yet simultaneously seemed irritated with Leon when he suggested a Saudi-like society is what it would all end up with. Maybe further explication would reduce the apparent similarity. Then again, maybe not.
| GF wrote: |
| I don�t think there�s much use to pursuing this line of discussion further, since your argument is a priori in the sense that it automatically rejects or reclassifies into its own terms any argument I could present. Thus conversion, rather than the turning in absolute liberty of the rational mind to God, is reclassified as a momentary expression of the intersection of the convert�s biological nature with his circumstances. How am I supposed to respond to that? Seriously, any advice? |
Well first, a question: why do you read my use of the term "nature" as limited to one's biological nature? Yes, you could point out that as an atheist I don't possess an active belief in the presence of additional factors, but I very deliberately left the door open to them in formulating my phrasing here. If man has a non-biological component to his nature, then surely such a component influences his conduct in some way.
That said, how you can respond to that depends, I suppose, on what your objective is here. If your goal is to persuade me personally that conversion involves "the turning in absolute liberty of the rational mind to God," then you'll need to explain to me how anything a rational mind does can be done in a mode of absolute liberty, because I simply don't see it, nor have I experienced it. If your objective is to make a persuasive case to other parties by means of dialogue with me, then I suppose there's no need to pursue this line of discussion at all if you think they'll already take your point. And if your objective is to just get me to shut up, well, you can certainly simply say such. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
