tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post206409447687209286..comments2024-02-13T12:50:30.457-05:00Comments on Rants Within the Undead God: Terrorism and the Metaphysical Innocence of CiviliansBenjamin Cainhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-84419022646685415692015-12-08T12:44:29.934-05:002015-12-08T12:44:29.934-05:00"When natural reality strikes back against th..."When natural reality strikes back against the happy-talking liberal, it's like a slap in a doe-eyed child's face." I couldn't help but think that the author/authors were very young, or very naive. It's frightening how out of touch with reality so many people are. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-71980076680299888112015-12-08T12:26:13.085-05:002015-12-08T12:26:13.085-05:00I've read through the UN Agenda, now that you&...I've read through the UN Agenda, now that you've brought it to my attention. Thanks for that. I'd seen the ad with the CG UN animals, which I"m assuming is related to this Agenda. <br /><br />What struck me most about the Agenda is the language in which it's written. I remember some years after studying philosophy, I entered a government program to work on my resume. The agent was an expert in the bureaucratic, business-style of speaking, which is anathema and alien to the philosophical approach. I'd speak of my work experience in an honest way and he would "correct" me by translating my descriptions into the vacuous business-speak.<br /><br />Philosophers care about the truth, even if that truth is unpleasant. Politically-minded bureaucrats care not at all about the truth, but in managing and fitting into a social organization. So as I think I say in "Philosophy and Social Engineering," the bureaucrat uses language as a tool for keeping people in line. The words are stripped of their semantic significance, so that only their social function remains relevant. This is why it's utterly foolhardy ever to take a politician's public speech at face value. Truth is not his goal, which means he's technically being dishonest in his every public utterance. He's calculating which signal to transmit with his language, to achieve the optimum social effect. <br /><br />The UN Agenda language is likewise an exercise in social engineering. In particular, there's no discussion of the unpleasant natural realities such as those I go into on my blog. It's one thing to lay out some utopian goals and it's another to explain how they might be achieved or at least pursued. The document is supposed to go into the latter sort of details, but it doesn't address the fact, for example, that rich nations won't want to help out poor nations, because of human selfishness and self-righteousness. <br /><br />Also, the liberal assumptions are plain, especially in the talk of the need for gender equality. Do men and women really want to be equal in all respects? I doubt it. <br /><br />Can poverty be ended? Not if the rich countries' standard of living is to be maintained, since that's on the backs of the poor. Maybe the machines will eventually take over all manual labour, but they'll also impoverish many people by taking their jobs.<br /><br />There's so much happy-talk in that document that I literally began to pity its authors and planners. So much effort went into planning this agenda, and what will likely become of it? When natural reality strikes back against the happy-talking liberal, it's like a slap in a doe-eyed child's face. <br /><br />Still, I hope some science-fiction-like scenario is in the works to transform global civilization. I don't see how this UN proposal represents a real road map, but I'm sure there's much of it I don't understand, since it alludes to various other agreements and statements I haven't read. One thing I'd be curious to read is a philosophical examination of the UN's liberal presuppositions. The Agenda lays out its social goals as though they were self-justified, but regardless of the values shared by the power elites at the UN, I suspect most of the world's population is conservative, meaning traditional, especially in its religious assumptions. Certainly, most of the world's poor would be conservative in that respect. Of course, I imagine they care more about the basic life necessities than about ideologies. Benjamin Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-18875141994089702522015-12-06T12:09:40.748-05:002015-12-06T12:09:40.748-05:00Ben, have you read the UN 2030 Agenda? I would be ...Ben, have you read the UN 2030 Agenda? I would be interested to know how you feel about it. It's the same old quasi-religious Utopian agenda, at least that's how I see it. <br /><br />https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld<br /><br /><br /> Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-2351410980088564112015-12-05T11:48:52.395-05:002015-12-05T11:48:52.395-05:00Thanks for reading, Stefan. If you're asking w...Thanks for reading, Stefan. If you're asking whether I speak or act the same way in my day-to-day life as I do on this blog, the answer's no--unless I happen to be drinking beer with my few philosophical friends. That doesn't happen as much as it used to. Pushing my philosophy on others would be boorish; I'd be the atheistic equivalent of the born-again Christian who brings up big topics wherever he goes.<br /><br />Most people don't want to talk about philosophy or religion or any of the other big, existential issues. Wittgenstein said that philosophy is a disease, not the cure: the philosophical questions bewitch some of us, leaving the rest of us blissfully ignorant. There's a kernel of truth in that. Wittgenstein was a positivist, though, (i.e. a science-worshiper) so like Neil deGrasse Tyson, he scapegoated philosophy whereas he should have blamed reason in general, including science. Reason is accursed, as I've said. It makes us worse people for knowing the horrific truth. <br /><br />I don't go out of my way to spread this dire message in person. Indeed, even when a philosophical issue comes up, when someone asks me my opinion, I usually decline to go into it. Instead, I turn the issue around and raise questions to see if I can learn anything from the other person. I go back and give my opinion by writing it up on my blog. I reserve face-to-face, heart-to-heart philosophical conversations for friends, and that's the only way philosophy should be discussed in person--not with hypocritical posing and pretentious displays, but by baring the soul.<br /><br />Do I detach from my humanity? That depends on what you think our humanity consists in. I've written up my answer on RWUG. Are you implying the dichotomy between reason and emotion? I don't say we should repress all emotions. On the contrary, I criticize what I've called Spock-like hyperrationality. I'm interested in the artist's emotions: the joy of creating something original (including a worldview), the awe of marveling at nature as a giant, absurd self-creation. As for the mundane emotions that revolve around sex or Machiavellian maneuvers, those have to do with our animal nature, not with our human one. Benjamin Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-45712221341298003202015-12-03T19:40:35.349-05:002015-12-03T19:40:35.349-05:00Hi Ben Im gonna comment on your last article with ...Hi Ben Im gonna comment on your last article with the hope that you read this. I`ve read your blog for more than a year and it just hit me seeing your comments (your responses to peoples comments) are very objective,unbiased and correct and I wonder if you are like this just here or also in real life. If you are all the time like this that would be fucking awesome (see you dont say things like fucking awesome).<br />But I guess its logical that you are because you try to detach from your... humanity?Stefan Marinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05415887367586742762noreply@blogger.com