Here's an article on how politics as ideological warfare, psychopathy, infantilization, and the dream of post-political technocracy join together to emasculate Democrats.
No, I haven't. I haven't read any Ragnar Redbeard. It looks like pure social Darwinism, which I'd expect to be thoroughly fallacious. Either that or it's meant as satire. But I haven't read it.
The main fallacies would be the naturalistic one and the genetic fallacy. The book's been debunked before. I might agree with some of the book's criticisms of religions, but it's coming from a cheap version of Nietzsche's philosophy that Ayn Rand would later make more popular.
The articles I've been doing on conservatism criticize that political pseudo-philosophy for entailing social Darwinism, but I take it for granted that the reader knows what's wrong with taking an amoral description of life in the wild as being prescriptive. It might be worth it to spell out what I think is wrong with social Darwinism, although I don't really need Redbeard's book to know what social Darwinism implies. Maybe just for examples.
The substance of this book, as it is expressed in the editor's preface, is that to measure "right" by the false philosophy of the Hebrew prophets and "weepful" Messiahs is madness. Right is not the offspring of doctrine, but of power. All laws, commandments, or doctrines as to not doing to another what you do not wish done to you, have no inherent authority whatever, but receive it only from the club, the gallows, and the sword. A man truly free is under no obligation to obey any injunction, human or divine. Obedience is the sign of the degenerate. Disobedience is the stamp of the hero.
Expressed in the form of a doctrine these positions startle us. In reality they are implied in the ideal of art serving beauty. The art of our upper classes has educated people in this ideal of the over-man, --- which is in reality the old ideal of Nero, Stenka Razin, Genghis Khan, Robert Macaire or Napoleon and all their accomplices, assistants, and adulators --- and it supports this ideal with all its might.
It is this supplanting of the ideal of what is right by the ideal of what is beautiful, i.e. of what is pleasant, that is the fourth consequence, and a terrible one, of the perversion of art in our society. It is fearful to think of what would befall humanity were such art to spread among the masses of the people. And it already begins to spread. - Leo Tolstoy
I saw as much, including Tolstoy's response. If Redbeard is just explaining the origin morality and social conformity, that wouldn't necessarily be fallacious. It would be sociology rather than social Darwinism.
But as soon as he were to say the stronger, masculine, authentic and heroic way of handling our freedom is better than the theistic deference to fantasies and illusions, he would have justify that evaluation.
Nietzsche faced this problem too. He called theistic morality sickly since it's based on resentment. By contrast, master morality is more honest and consistent. So it comes down to these virtues and vices. If you follow the logic far enough, though, there tends to be an assumption that behaviour that's more in touch with nature is nobler than behaviour that tries to resist nature. You find that in Daoism too. Theistic, fantastic morality pretends there's an alternative to nature.
Nietzsche's philosophy is tricky on this point since he praises masters or overmen for their creation of worlds that express novel values. That sets up a new dualism between lower- and higher-order natural creations, which is comparable to the division between nature and supernature.
In any case, the question is whether the best type of person acts like an animal or like a god. In the latter case, deferring to lower-order natural dynamics would be beastly and beneath our dignity as potentially free creators.
"In any case, the question is whether the best type of person acts like an animal or like a god" Wouldn't that be circumstantial? If someone breaks into your home, are you going to act like a god or an animal? I suppose a devout religious pacifist would accept their fate and not fight back. How one behaves is dependent on what ones goals and subjective values are. In some cultures of the past, it was considered virtuous to be compassionless and brutal. Their circumstances often required this in order to survive. If our circumstances were to change, we might find ourselves in the same situation. And all of our "virtues" would quickly become vices.
Have you ever read Might is Right?
ReplyDeleteNo, I haven't. I haven't read any Ragnar Redbeard. It looks like pure social Darwinism, which I'd expect to be thoroughly fallacious. Either that or it's meant as satire. But I haven't read it.
DeleteWhat's fallacious about social Darwinism? That might be a great reason to read it. You could easily debunk most of it I'm sure.
DeleteThe main fallacies would be the naturalistic one and the genetic fallacy. The book's been debunked before. I might agree with some of the book's criticisms of religions, but it's coming from a cheap version of Nietzsche's philosophy that Ayn Rand would later make more popular.
DeleteThe articles I've been doing on conservatism criticize that political pseudo-philosophy for entailing social Darwinism, but I take it for granted that the reader knows what's wrong with taking an amoral description of life in the wild as being prescriptive. It might be worth it to spell out what I think is wrong with social Darwinism, although I don't really need Redbeard's book to know what social Darwinism implies. Maybe just for examples.
The "right" in Might is Right is not referring to a moral position. This video helps explain the phrase Might is Right.
Deletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBo9H25gZ9Q
The godfather of neoconservatism.
ReplyDeletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_Kristol
The substance of this book, as it is expressed in the editor's preface, is that to measure "right" by the false philosophy of the Hebrew prophets and "weepful" Messiahs is madness. Right is not the offspring of doctrine, but of power. All laws, commandments, or doctrines as to not doing to another what you do not wish done to you, have no inherent authority whatever, but receive it only from the club, the gallows, and the sword. A man truly free is under no obligation to obey any injunction, human or divine. Obedience is the sign of the degenerate. Disobedience is the stamp of the hero.
ReplyDeleteExpressed in the form of a doctrine these positions startle us. In reality they are implied in the ideal of art serving beauty. The art of our upper classes has educated people in this ideal of the over-man, --- which is in reality the old ideal of Nero, Stenka Razin, Genghis Khan, Robert Macaire or Napoleon and all their accomplices, assistants, and adulators --- and it supports this ideal with all its might.
It is this supplanting of the ideal of what is right by the ideal of what is beautiful, i.e. of what is pleasant, that is the fourth consequence, and a terrible one, of the perversion of art in our society. It is fearful to think of what would befall humanity were such art to spread among the masses of the people. And it already begins to spread. - Leo Tolstoy
I saw as much, including Tolstoy's response. If Redbeard is just explaining the origin morality and social conformity, that wouldn't necessarily be fallacious. It would be sociology rather than social Darwinism.
DeleteBut as soon as he were to say the stronger, masculine, authentic and heroic way of handling our freedom is better than the theistic deference to fantasies and illusions, he would have justify that evaluation.
Nietzsche faced this problem too. He called theistic morality sickly since it's based on resentment. By contrast, master morality is more honest and consistent. So it comes down to these virtues and vices. If you follow the logic far enough, though, there tends to be an assumption that behaviour that's more in touch with nature is nobler than behaviour that tries to resist nature. You find that in Daoism too. Theistic, fantastic morality pretends there's an alternative to nature.
Nietzsche's philosophy is tricky on this point since he praises masters or overmen for their creation of worlds that express novel values. That sets up a new dualism between lower- and higher-order natural creations, which is comparable to the division between nature and supernature.
In any case, the question is whether the best type of person acts like an animal or like a god. In the latter case, deferring to lower-order natural dynamics would be beastly and beneath our dignity as potentially free creators.
"In any case, the question is whether the best type of person acts like an animal or like a god" Wouldn't that be circumstantial? If someone breaks into your home, are you going to act like a god or an animal? I suppose a devout religious pacifist would accept their fate and not fight back. How one behaves is dependent on what ones goals and subjective values are. In some cultures of the past, it was considered virtuous to be compassionless and brutal. Their circumstances often required this in order to survive. If our circumstances were to change, we might find ourselves in the same situation. And all of our "virtues" would quickly become vices.
DeleteHere is another good video explaining Might is Right.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v77VjJuIMt8