Leftism and Spiritualism

Leftism and Spiritualism seem to go hand in hand. What are the connections between these two ideas? By leftism, I refer to socialist movements which aspire to “equalizing” economic conditions between the rich and poor; they mean to accomplish such goals by procuring political power. Once power is attained, they will go about restructuring basic tenets of society; free market capitalism would be replaced by socialist economics; private ownership will be replaced by state (or “communal”) ownership. When people no longer have the right to own property or pursue their own goals in life - an implication of interdicting venture capitalism - people no longer have the right to choose their career path. Instead, the central planner - the state - selects for each individual what he or she should be, based on some aptitude test. Capitalism and freedom, as Milton Friedman, and earlier, Frederich Hayek, explicated, are ineluctably intertwined. As Alexis De Touqueville noted in the 19th century, full equality comes at the expense of liberty. It’s either economic gaps continue to exist, between the rich and the poor, or people be goaded as equals, albeit, following the tune of the minority which garners control of government. (in which case, the prevailing ethos of the minority becomes systematically projected onto the masses; thus, socialism and demagoguery are natural bedmates)

So how is leftism in harmony with spiritualism? By spiritualism, I mean philosophical trends like Buddhism, Shaivite/Tantric Hinduism, and in a more general, and ontological parlance, a “universalistic” spirituality. Rollo May described it thusly: “Those we call saints rebelled against an outmoded and inadequate form of God on the basis of their new insights into divinity...their rebellion was motivated by new insight into godliness. They rebelled as Paul Tillich beautifully stated, against God in the name of the God beyond God. The continuous emergence of the God beyond God is the mark of creative courage in the religious sphere”. So the “God beyond God”? By this seemingly enigmatic statement is meant something more concrete. God, whom they undoubtedly understand in the Jewish sense, as Yahweh, for example, is a God of time and space; a God enmeshed in history. This conception of God is by definition a limited one. It is the difference between the power of a word, and the spontaneity of a feeling. The word is concrete, created according to specific definitions. It is akin to an algorithm which gives power to computers. The word is rational, it is reasonable. The Jewish conception of God popularized by Christianity is the God who is at one with His word, bound by His word. In short, God as man can know Him, according to the Jewish perspective, is God as reflected in objects and things. What we can know about life, about reality, about ethics and morals, comes from the world. In contrast to this viewpoint, the “God beyond God”, which Paul Tillich refers, is what Meister Eckhart called the “Godhead”. The Godhead is “God as He is in Himself”. That is, beyond all definition, beyond all categorization, beyond all human utterance. Such a starting point ultimately yields no advice on how human beings should live. If God is by definition (the paradox) beyond definition, then human beings in theory can act in any way, and still maintain perfect contact and equanimity between themselves and God. This is the God of the left; the God of moral relativists (if they have religious feelings). This is the God which spawns political movements which give no thought whatsoever to the means used to attain good (in their view) ends.

In short, leftist movements and what these people would call “gnosis” go hand in hand. “Gnosis” is the apercus of Leftist inspiration. It is the starting point of their political logic. If all things are ultimately “one”, what worry should they have over “illusory” things which happen in space and time? The wars fought in the name of the final good (which exists only in their imaginations), the utopian ideal hoped for, eclipses all consideration for the human suffering caused by their machinations.

Since Marx wrote in the 19th century, 100 million human beings have been killed because of socialism. Undoubtedly, a great many of these socialists meant well; they probably had religious beliefs of the type described. Atheism, the de-jure religion of the communists, is metaphysically speaking, not much different from the theistic conception of the Godhead. Both subscribe to nihilism. Both apply moral relativism to achieve their ends. In effect, theistic or atheistic, the universalistic drive remains largely the same.

Leftist movements are notorious for hating religion, particularly Judeo-Christian religion and morality. Understood philosophically, Judeo-Christianity, stripped of it’s dogmatic aspects, is essentially the same. Forget the Jesus narrative and the Moses narrative, all of which is divisive; the Hebrew conception of God is grounded in a vastly divergent theological theory of life. Contrary to the more metaphysical metaphors of pagan myths (which as Robert Alter notes, often appears in poetic verse) the Hebrews departed from the subjective viewpoint to see the world in more objective, physical terms (this may well explain the absurdly disproportionate Jewish capacity for intellectual achievement). This was a move away from the individual subjective, mystic-metaphysical direction, towards the existential SITUATION which man found himself in. Instead of shirking the questions of life, the Hebrews faced them, and discovered meaning in them. The Hebrews were sanguine realists. They acknowledged mans lowly state. Their Torah states clearly that the Garden of Eden is blocked off from man. Now that man exists in his finite state, determined by nature to be either male or female, overlayed with certain personality quirks, a particular biological distinctiveness, he cannot rebel. He can never truly return, barring death. In short, the gates are locked, and man has been smitten by the curse of the knowledge of good and evil. By this idea, is not merely meant moral understanding. Rather, it seems to mean that knowledge bequeathes responsibility. Once one becomes aware, he immediately becomes insecure (naked - ‘arumim) as well as clever (arum). His insecurity engenders two psychological attitudes: a turn towards conscience, which means living in conformity with ones moral understanding (the golden rule being the universal starting point), or, imagining oneself to be more clever and astute: to be AS God, to live “forever”.

Leftists seek to design a society that reflects their metaphysical system. Since the Godhead is beyond all distinction, the world should be made more like Brahma. This is moreso the dream of radical thinkers like Noam Chomsky, and others, who would like to see all forms of hierarchy abrogated. Hence, the currency of ideas like “heterosexism”, which challenges peoples notions of men-female pairing as the norm in human relationships. This notion is obvious, and eternal, and has been the basic motivator of biological evolution, but since leftists are radical, seeking a world that only exists in their imaginations, amazingly, they are able to ignore the sheer illogic of finding something awry with the general and natural human assumption that men and women are the norm in human relations. Gender, Class and Race, are all used invidiously as tools by leftists to demonize their opposition. Knowing full well that most conservatives aren’t mysogynistic greedy bigots, if a critic even challenges a notion trying to be popularized by leftists, such as, homosexuality being an irreversible state of being, or “heterosexism” leading to homophobia, or their more cherished myth, of women and men being “interchangeable”. With regard to the latter, it’s telling that that in democratic countries which foster personal freedoms, men and women are more unequal. Women incline towards careers in education, psychology and the social sciences, while more men work as Mathematicians, physicists and computer scientists. In Susan Pinkers “the sexual paradox: Women, Men and the real gender gap”, she documents beyond a shadow of a doubt what is already so obvious: women and men are different. No matter how much we’d desire it to be different, our biologies play a determined part in forming our likes and dislikes. There is an unmistakeable incongruity between the proportion of women graduates of law school (62% in Canada) and women working as lawyers (30%). Women can intellectually compete with men in fields classically thought to be “manly”, but the statistical facts imply that women simply do not enjoy these fields as much as men do.

When a woman breastfeeds her child, her body produces oxtocin. Oxtocin is a biochemical responsible for euphoria. In short, a women LOOKS FORWARD to breast feeding because of the way it makes her feel. Men could never feel the same because they do not have the physical organs designed by biological evolution necessary to produce the euphoric feeling a mother feels while breastfeeding. This is a small sample of how biology determines our thinking. If this is how we are, thinking differently, imagining that some “absolute condition” should dominate our politics, that women could be made to be like males, to enjoy the same things men enjoy, is aberrant, unhealthy and ultimately destructive (as history has shown).

I imagine more people have been killed in the name of God throughout history, than socialism . People are still killing in the name of God.

reply to post by dontreally


You're confusing socialism with communism. They are different things. "Leftists" want the disenfranchised to have access to the same opportunities as the "enfranchised."

Are you suggesting that "Leftists" want war??

Uhm, no. We want progress and the end of oppression by the powerful elite.

Well written as usual, but I'm not sure who/what this post is aimed at?

- Oneness does not remove moral or ethical responsibility or justify end/means thinking at all and more than Christian after life removes meaning from death and therefore life ...
- Who are these people who allegedly claim that women and men are biologically the same?
- I don't agree with the application of Nilhism
- Many Christians are conservativves because their belief system prevents them from stepping left because of gay rights etc ... You could write an almost identical post about this I suspect?
- I don't think gender concerns can be dismissed as wanting to be as 'brahma' or in fact dismissed in under 10, 000 words
- Why point out that 'leftists' inform their politics off their metaphysical beliefs when clearly you do the same?

I suppose it just seems as if an opponent was invented by yourself and then you did philosophical battle with it?

Originally posted by dontreally
free market capitalism would be replaced by socialist economics; private ownership will be replaced by state (or “communal”) ownership.

Hmm not exactly. Socialism puts the means of production in the hands of the workers, not the state.

State ownership is state-capitalism, not socialism.

Socialism requires no state.

"Anarchism is stateless socialism" - Mikhail Bakunin

"Politically we are anarchists, and economically, communists or socialists." Adolph Fischer, Anarchism: Its Philosophy and Scientific Basis as Defined by Some of its Apostles (1887)

Socialism is an economic system, not a form of government or state. Anarchists are socialists.

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by dontreally

 

You're confusing socialism with communism. They are different things. "Leftists" want the disenfranchised to have access to the same opportunities as the "enfranchised.

Socialism and communism are the same thing. People started using the term communism to differentiate their socialist movement from the old utopian socialism, and that liberals were appropriating the term socialism.

Marx and Engels used the terms Communism and Socialism to mean precisely the same thing. They used “Communism” in the early years up to about 1875, and after that date mainly used the term “Socialism.” There was a reason for this. In the early days, about 1847-1850, Marx and Engels chose the name “Communism” in order to distinguish their ideas from Utopian, reactionary or disreputable movements then in existence, which called themselves “Socialist.” Later on, when these movements disappeared or went into obscurity, and when, from 1870 onwards, parties were being formed in many countries under the name Social-Democratic Party or Socialist Party, Marx and Engels reverted to the words Socialist and Socialism....

Socialists Do Stand for Equality

Spirituality doesn't go hand in hand with any style of government. All governments imply laws for how people should live. The closest government to spiritual truth is no government. When people are allowed to be themselves,then they can know themselves, including their deepest spiritual essence. But when people are made to believe that they have to be a certain way, then the only self that they can know is the one that you are told you have to be. And therefore, the self is nowhere in sight and people are lost.

"Someone save me." If people are to be true, they need to be independent. Power needs to be equally distributed and up for grabs. Freedom needs to be the only law. Then, people will know their deepest self. No form of society will last forever. They all fall due to these reasons. They are incompatible with the spirit.

You should have the freedom to rape my mother. And my mother should have the freedom, without fear, to blow your head off if you try. And if you somehow succeeded, my father and I should have the freedom to get revenge. Too much regulation and fear of anarchy, and not enough trust in people, in ourselves. That's why we're all f'd up in the head. And that's where most of our "problems" come from.

Spirituality is incompatible with any form of government.

The constitution of the United States appears benevolent, at first glance. But then, from that, all kinds of interpretations are formed on how we should regulate life, LIBERTY, and the pursuit of happiness. What a crock of bs. You're either free or you're not. And then, on top of that, the people's power have been stripped away and given to a select few, so that the supposed freedom preserving laws can be enforced upon us.

US constitution– good ideals, terrible approach.

reply to post by ANOK


An economic system implies a political approach, ANOK. That is the issue. Have you not read Frederich Hayek, or Milton Friedman?

The paramount danger of socialism is the degree of power invested in a central authority. Take the Nazis. Hayek wisely noted that the Nazis merely TOOK OVER the socialist architecture built into the government years earlier during the Weimar republic.. So the issue is the type of people who advance to such positions of authority and what they will do with it. Experience shows that central planning is dangerous.

As for anarchic socialism. Mind me asking you a question? If you go to the libertarian socialism portal, the "concepts" section encroaches on the personal sphere to an offensive degree. When "free love", and other such ideas float about, people begin to wonder "how would such a concept be brought to fruition"? How could people be forced not to marry, etc? The extremely disturbing tendency of anarchy is it's universalist perspective; it isn't content with decentralizing government - but it deigns to pass judgement on all "types" of "authoritarian power", reserving the right to deem whatever they want "authoritarian". For example, my own conservative, judeo-Christian ethos, would be authoritarian in their eyes, because I subscribe to marriage, the notion of sexual difference (a scientific fact) and a bunch of other things.

Is that right? Do they have the right to aspire to such totalitarian heights?

reply to post by Pinke

Oneness does not remove moral or ethical responsibility or justify end/means thinking at all and more than Christian after life removes meaning from death and therefore life .

Ok, I'm not sure how you much understand about this. Oneness is not what I was referring to. In Judaism, for example, a religion I find myself to be spiritually and theologically in tune with, God is one. But oneness can be understood in many different ways. The oneness implied in the Shema Yisrael is diametrically different from the oneness of the radical Gnostic, Hindu, Buddhist or Muslim (or Jew, such as the Sabbateans, or a personage like Chuck Lorre, creator of great TV shows, who subscribes to such a dualistic philosophy). The latter type of oneness is nihilistic, inasmuch as oneness exists independent of events in time and space. In the movie stone, Edward Nortons character never comes to regret his murdering someone. Instead, he sees it as being supernally dictated, beyond his individual conscious control. Instead of acknowledging human frailty and mans capacity for evil, he demurs: man exists in a unified system beyond our ability to consciously improve or change it. Now, the radical, such a person doesn't think his evil actions are actually evil. He is so radical, he dares to believe that his evil is sanctified, literally, erased, by the power of necessity which drives man towards accomplishing such ends. Instead of accepting human responsibility for our actions, they posit a metaphysical source of responsibility - God, or necessity - which absorbs all their sins. Such thinking is insanely radical. It is frighteningly obtuse.

Whats especially irksome is their revolt against science and reason. Science shows that woman and men are different, but since that doesn't jibe with their theories the otherwise, they ignore science, preferring instead their "superior" spiritual vision.

- Who are these people who allegedly claim that women and men are biologically the same?

It actually amazes me that you're asking this question, since you seem to be a pretty devout feminist.

Gender and sexsex and gender

Originally posted by dontreally
The paramount danger of socialism is the degree of power invested in a central authority.

Did you read what I posted?

"Anarchism is stateless socialism" - Mikhail Bakunin

"Politically we are anarchists, and economically, communists or socialists." Adolph Fischer, Anarchism: Its Philosophy and Scientific Basis as Defined by Some of its Apostles (1887)

Bakunin was was one of the major Anarchist thinkers of the 1800's. He worked along side Marx in the International Workers Association. They had a disagreement on the question of the state, no chit eh? That's the reason for the stateless-socialism comment even though socialism is stateless. Even Marxism is stateless socialism because the stage of the central state is not socialism. Socialism is only reached once the workers fully own the means of production and, according to Marxism, the state will become irrelevant. The Anarchists didn't trust the state system and wanted direct action.

Fischer was an Anarchist, and union labour activist, who was executed after the Haymarket riots in Chicago.

So how can socialism be a central authority if anarchists are socialists?

Simple question which no one has yet been able to answer, even after explaining it to them. Because there is no answer that doesn't contradict the myth of socialism being a political state system.

Socialism is an economic system, not a political system. Just like capitalism is an economic system. The idea that socialism is a political state system comes from misunderstandings of Marxism. Marxism is not socialism. It is a political movement for socialism. Socialism was around before Marx was born. That is a distinct difference that you need to understand because Marxism has been used to demonise socialism for decades. All you are doing is repeating lies. Lies used to control and keep people from understanding what true liberty is. Because we are nothing but labour to the capitalists. Commodities they can use and discard with no more thought than the cigar they stub out.

Going to skip a few things, I don't think they matter in context ...

The oneness implied in the Shema Yisrael is diametrically different from the oneness of the radical Gnostic, Hindu, Buddhist or Muslim [sic]

You say radical here, but you also seemed to define all Leftism as radical which seems an inflexible position? Or you're defining your opponent so narrowly that it might as well be a one sided fight between a bear and an empty paper bag. It's easy to say one side is superior when defining the other.

The vast majority of Buddhists for example couldn't be argued to be morally nihilistic IMO. Though you haven't defined nihilism precisely here, you appear to be stating that somewhere between Buddhist or Hindu Monism, the Torah comes up superior?

Now, the radical, such a person doesn't think his evil actions are actually evil.

Like a Christian group bombing an abortion clinic, or a terrorist flying a plane into a building. At one stage you say Leftists are radical, but define what that means? There comes a point where you're discussing such a minority of people that the argument may as well not exist.

Whats especially irksome is their revolt against science and reason.

There are a great many scientists who are Atheist and would call themselves left wing. Ignoring the fact that many places don't actually have a 'true' left wing, it is a rather large elephant in the room of your argument unless you're arguing (again) with an incredibly small minority. Carl Sagan was a feminist for example. Again it depends on how far left we're going ... I'm assuming more socialist than middle left wing scientists? Unless I've missed a point where you've defined this?

Science shows that woman and men are different, but since that doesn't jibe with their theories the otherwise, they ignore science, preferring instead their "superior" spiritual vision.

Again, who is this phantom you're fighting?

It actually amazes me that you're asking this question, since you seem to be a pretty devout feminist.
Gender and sexsex and gender

I assume you're referring to this:

In Delusions of Gender Cordelia Fine disputes all scientific evidence for innate biological differences between men and women's minds, and that cultural and societal beliefs result in all commonly perceived sex differences.[121]

Gender and sex

It's one of those 'wikipedia is wrong' things.

Quote from the author:

There is not blanket denial of the pattern of sex differences in high-level mathematical achievement referred to by Tierney – what is legitimately disputed is the chalking-up of this difference to ‘inherent’ potential, and the extent to which they can explain women’s under-representation in mathematics and science. [sic]

Nor does my book (which has been unappealingly described as “relentlessly methodological” in its “striving for scientific correctness”) “ignore” the supposedly compelling evidence for the neurological and hormonal origins of essential differences in male and female minds.

Source: Let's say good-bye to the straw-feminist

Quote from the book:

There are sex differences in the brain. There are also large (although generally decreasing) sex differences in who does what, and achieves what. It would make sense if these facts were connected in some way, and perhaps they are. But when we follow the trail of contemporary science we discover a surprising number of gaps, assumptions, inconsistencies ...

Source: Fine, Cordelia (2010). Delusions of Gender: How Our Minds, Society, and Neurosexism Create Difference. W. W. Norton & Company.

I have a copy. I'm not defending every point it makes to the death, but the implication in your OP that there is some sizable (key word) leftist feminist group somewhere that denies physical difference between man and woman to the point that they would ignore breast feeding or deny any form of unique hormonal changes that alter mind, brain and body is way out there.

reply to post by ANOK


So you're not interested in answering the question I asked?

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by ANOK

 

So you're not interested in answering the question I asked?

Your question was based on misinformation, which I explained to you if you actually read my reply.

Answer my valid question, which you ignored...

How can Anarchists be socialists by your definition of socialism?

reply to post by Pinke

You say radical here, but you also seemed to define all Leftism as radical which seems an inflexible position?

I mean radical leftists. Not the left in general.

Or you're defining your opponent so narrowly

Conversation is impossible without some measure of definition and "narrowing". Otherwise it'll be a back and froth conversation of indefinite maybes.

Please try to engage the topics I'm discussing instead of circumlocating them.

The vast majority of Buddhists for example couldn't be argued to be morally nihilistic IMO.

AYE! Hitting a brick wall talking to you. Every definition I make you proceed to try to deconstruct. Conversation can't happen this way.

Nihilism means theres no objective moral good or evil. Its called essentialism by modern academics - a position reviled by radical feminists.

This is a basic philosophical position of many Buddhists, Hindus (of the Shavite/Tantric traditions), Taoists and Gnostics. Rene Guenon, or a Frithjof Schuon would schematize this as the "Absolute" Godhead perspective, verse the "relative" "demirurgic" perspective. Shaivite Hinduism describes all events occurring in space and time - subject to changing conditions - as maya. To use Hegelian terms, it is the difference between the 'indeterminate' position advanced in the philosophies of Schopenhaur, Kierkagaard, or Nietzsche, and the determinate perspective, advanced by Hegel, C.S Lewis, Whitehead etc.

I'm sorry, to get at the root of peoples political preferences, as in all types of thinking, requires some degree of generalization. Imagine this as a spectrum, with the indeterminate philosophies on one end, and the determinate philosophies at the other. Peoples political allegiances conform to their philosophical allegiances. If they subscribe to a radical (and please do not make issue of my use of adjectival value judgements; I clearly think differently than you) philosophy which denies reality to events which occur in physical reality, considering all determined states as "illusion", than they are likely to subscribe to political philosophies which support their philosophical biases; since an "absolutist" philosophy destroys all hierarchies, a non-hierarchal political system, such as communism or anarchism, would meet their philosophical interests.

you appear to be stating that somewhere between Buddhist or Hindu Monism, the Torah comes up superior?

Did I say that? For me, the ideas in the Torah make a lot of sense. For someone else, it could be Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity or atheism. I'm not passing value judgements. My issue is with totalitarian ideologies. I'm as opposed to radical leftists intent on subverting culture as I am against religious fanatics who want to convert other's to their beliefs systems. The basic feature of both sides is intolerance of the other. A radical has no respect or tolerance for those who disagree with them. Which, as many have noted, is obscenely ironic: people who preach tolerance, end up showing a coarse degree of intolerance for Christians, Jews or conservatives who think differently from them. Underlining their religious politics is a contempt for pluralism - for true difference. Just as I don't expect you two understand my thinking or my own experiences which have led me to accept and embrace a more conservative morality and politics, so too should a leftist understand that people who think differently from them are simply DIFFERENT. The key element here is compromise - which is essentially public and political. You reject my philosophical and political views - and in doing so imply a "superiority" in your position (you don't see me pointing that out, since thats just how life is) but thats a private matter. That's the beauty of living in a liberal democracy. There are two spheres, the private and the public. Leave people be as individuals. No one has the right to pontificate or indoctrinate others into their belief system.

Again, who is this phantom you're fighting?

That's cute. Being ignorant of the literature, naturally you assume I'm generating an imaginary foe. The fact that you didn't even know that there's a battle amongst scientists and scholars about biological gender differences shows how out-of-touch you are with the conversation.

I have a copy.

umm, than what was the point in saying: "- Who are these people who allegedly claim that women and men are biologically the same?"

My claim obviously referred to the influence of biology on psychological differences. Hormonal differences obviously affects behaviour. That this is denied, or underemphasized, by feminists, only reveals there political agendas.

Have you read Susan Pinkers "the sexual paradox"? How do you account for the failure of Kibbutz communists to establish a 50/50 division of labor between women and men? These were people ideologically aligned with a non-hierarchal concept of society. They subscribed to the myth that men and women were essentially the same in likes and dislikes; yet, as these epidemiologists discovered, women favoured jobs that involved people - meeting their biologically engrained activity as mothers - whereas men stuck to the usual outdoor occupations.

breast feeding or deny any form of unique hormonal changes that alter mind, brain and body is way out there.

You really beat to death each of my moderate claims. I never said a feminist wouldn't breast feed or have children. My issue is the blatant contradiction between their threes and scientific fact. How can they ignore the seasoned effects of biological evolution on human thinking and behaviour? How can they attribute more to cultural "prejudices", rather than see cultural prejudices as the corollary of biological dictation? The cultural accretions feminism has more than expunged from society (now its mainly men who are discriminated against, particularly in the school and university systems) i.e. right to vote, right to an education, right to a career of their choice. But radical feminism takes it to unnatural and scientifically indefensible degrees.

reply to post by ANOK


This was my question:


As for anarchic socialism. Mind me asking you a question? If you go to the libertarian socialism portal, the "concepts" section encroaches on the personal sphere to an offensive degree. When "free love", and other such ideas float about, people begin to wonder "how would such a concept be brought to fruition"? How could people be forced not to marry, etc? The extremely disturbing tendency of anarchy is it's universalist perspective; it isn't content with decentralizing government - but it deigns to pass judgement on all "types" of "authoritarian power", reserving the right to deem whatever they want "authoritarian". For example, my own conservative, judeo-Christian ethos, would be authoritarian in their eyes, because I subscribe to marriage, the notion of sexual difference (a scientific fact) and a bunch of other things.


As for the difference between the economic and political? As I said already, the economic and political are not mutually exclusive spheres. They interact and affect one another.

Sorry, in advance but your previous post was quite offensive.

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by Pinke

 

I mean radical leftists. Not the left in general.

Conversation is impossible without some measure of definition and "narrowing". Otherwise it'll be a back and froth conversation of indefinite maybes.

Please try to engage the topics I'm discussing instead of circumlocating them.

It was five paragraphs into your original post till you made the following statement:

. This notion is obvious, and eternal, and has been the basic motivator of biological evolution, but since leftists are radical, seeking a world that only exists in their imaginations, amazingly, they are able to ignore the sheer illogic ... [sic]

The above statement doesn't define your 'target' as radical leftists, it defines leftists as radical.

If you spent more time following your own advice and defining your terms rather than waxing over intellectual and assuming I have a severe lack of intelligence capacity I might have some sympathy.

Nihilism means ... [sic]

Oh I know what nihilism means. Nothing I've said indicates that I don't. I disagree with your application of it.

Just as I don't expect you two understand my thinking or my own experiences which have led me to accept and embrace a more conservative morality and politics, so too should a leftist understand that people who think differently from them are simply DIFFERENT.

It's one thing to acknowledge that people think differently, and it's another to let people rampage unopposed through the philosophical country side fighting phantoms. You put forth an argument, I question the worth of that argument when it's primarily attacking ideology no more significanct than a heaven's gate cult.

No one has the right to pontificate or indoctrinate others into their belief system.

I believe people have a right to opinions and ideas.

That's cute. Being ignorant of the literature, naturally you assume I'm generating an imaginary foe. The fact that you didn't even know that there's a battle amongst scientists and scholars about biological gender differences shows how out-of-touch you are with the conversation.

Insulting, arrogant, or simply trying to hide how wrong you were re: Cordelia Fine.

Yes, there is a discussion about biological determinism and how far it impacts; no time did I say otherwise ... even Cordelia Fine acknowledges that! It stands to reason that I would acknowledge that. In fact, the quotes from myself are stating that!

Are you trying to paint me out as part of the imaginary cabal you're debating against by making me out to be ignorant, or are you really just trying to get my back up?

I'm fairly certain if I compared my own philosophical stances to an extreme idealogue in my own head I'd win by default too. The value of that thought experiment is nil.

You still have not demonstrated that the radical leftist feminist movement you're battling exists in any significant way. One of the keys to intellectual dishonesty/propganda is to fight a foe that does not exist to make your position appear more valid and alluring.

There are feminists that believe we should celebrate difference. There are feminists that believe we should strive to have masculine options in behaviour. There are no significantly relevant theorists who would deny gender difference entirely and there are many who embrace it.

what was the point in saying: "- Who are these people who allegedly claim that women and men are biologically the same?"

My claim obviously referred to the influence of biology on psychological differences. Hormonal differences obviously affects behaviour. That this is denied, or underemphasized, by feminists, only reveals there political agendas.

I bolded the part that demonstrates why I ask the question. There is not a single feminist theorist of significant relevance or power that would match the criteria of denying gender difference to the extent you claim.

You claim to only be discussing radical feminists or leftists but seem to use this excuse at your leisure. I know for a fact you would think I under emphasize gender difference, and I'm nowhere near radical.

Final note: I was not stating that you deny feminists breast feed I was stating that you're revealing hormonal changes in breast feeding like it would be some revelation to a number of feminists of note, yet Cordelia Fine isn't one of those feminists outside of the poorly worded wikipedia article you used as an example.

Perhaps you should pick a particular left or feminist theorist of note to engage instead of cherry picking whatever suits your own agenda at the time and insulting people who are discoursing with you.

Nice chatting as always.

reply to post by Pinke

Oh I know what nihilism means. Nothing I've said indicates that I don't.

You said: [

Though you haven't defined nihilism precisely here,

I then gave you a precise definition of what I meant by Nihilism. But somehow it doesn't meet your needs. Now, you're saying you disagree with my application of the word, which is tantamount to making issue of the word "night" and making issue of my application of it to the darkness that follows daytime.

I believe people have a right to opinions and ideas.

You seem to love dishonest and elliptical debate.

This is what I wrote: No one has the right to pontificate or indoctrinate others into their belief system.

Your response seems to be another avoidance, which again implies a disagreement with what I wrote. If your spiritual and philosophical views are anarchic i.e. antinomian, fine. But keep in mind that by believing that you essentially deny other people the freedom to trod their own course in life - a path different from your own. Anarchism is just another rabarbative totalitarian doctrine that seeks to impose a conceptual framework and worldview on others.

I and millions of other's will always oppose that. And that is simply because reality - human nature, science, etc, opposes the authoritarian impulse that tries to change nature. Humans think differently; conservatism - a trend which emerges naturally in nature, will always rise up again and again to stymie anarchic ambitions: look at the book of judges for an interesting example of anarchy being rejected in favour of monarchy. Its not a new idea; it has no utopian value. It's just another myth that seems to have captured a large contingent amongst leftists.

Additionally, by denying people the right to marry - as libertarian socialist thinkers are theorizing - that requires mind numbing social controls on peoples thinking and feeling. I mentioned the Kibbutz as an example for how systemically erroneous leftist assumptions are; they wanted a non-hierarchal world which transcends things like gender difference. Fine biological differences exist (as you concede) but not psychological or behavioural differences! There's some lacuna, an unbridgeable gap, between differences in biology, and how we think, feel and act, according to radical leftist doctrine. Even though hormones are the link between physiology and psychology - and so behaviour, cultural norms, - somehow, this doesn't suffice to explain the penchant of women for typically private, personal and emotional activities. This isn't to say we should crystallize it - as orthodox religious movements have historically done - into law. Rightly have feminist opposed that. Women have every right to vote, think, and pursue whatever they desire to. But we also shouldn't move to the opposite extreme.

The kibbutz failed to homogenize woman into the vanilla male. Woman are different; they think differently, feel differently, and act differently, on average (since this in itself is a generalized statement, based on statistical evidence, as well as common experience).

Now, if this has been undermined, a sacred dogma of leftist spirituality has been challenged: the world cannot exist in a "non-dual" context. The very inertia of existence opposes it. Every act ossifies into habit. Every feeling becomes hardened into a thought or words. Social norms are unavoidable; conformity exists whether it's mindless liberal conformity or mindless conservative conformity.

Yes, there is a discussion about biological determinism and how far it impacts; no time did I say otherwise ... even Cordelia Fine acknowledges that! It stands to reason that I would acknowledge that. In fact, the quotes from myself are stating that!

If you follow your curt replies, it's understandable why I reply as I do. You misdirect me with your comments. One second, you imply there's no conversation about the differences in gender biology on psychology and behaviour.(and imagining that I simply meant biology is asinine; obviously tits and balls make us biologically different. It should go without saying that I was referring to biologies relationship to psychology. Your problem is that you play too many games) Another time you say I haven't properly defined nihilism - when I do, your problem becomes "you disagree with my application" of it. Nihilism is nihilism. If you have no notions of an objective good or evil, thats nihilism. What distinction could there be between the concept in itself and its application? If someone doesn't live according to any rules - antinomianly - then they're nihilists. You may not like the term because of it's scathing moral overtones, but it is what it is.

I'm fairly certain if I compared my own philosophical stances to an extreme idealogue in my own head I'd win by default too. The value of that thought experiment is nil.

So that'll be your tune? More games? I'm not implying conspiracy. I'm positing first, the relationship between non-dualist philosophies (such as in eastern religions, the philosophies of Kiergegaard, Schopenhauer, or Nietzsche) and radical politics. This is nothing new. I'm not the first to notice the connections. It's in fact leftists who parade their spirituality and boast of the beauty of a non-dual world society.

Look at John Lennons song "IMAGINE". No heaven, no hell? no good, no bad? All white and foggy, like in the music video. A seriously depressing world, if you ask me.

I get people are different. I'm noting merely a pattern between philosophy and politics. You may not subscribe to it, but many do; and ultimately, the politics is derivative, and suckles from the teet of radical philosophical doctrines.

The Torah is significant to me because of it's realism. It's about a unity between the indeterminate and the determinate, the ideal and the practical. It's the moral challenge of living that matters, not the utopian urge towards self transcendence. This again is the difference between the private and the public. The mystic can seek self transience; but he should acknowledge it's proper place in the scheme of life, and not try to totalize it by forcing it upon others.

There are feminists that believe we should celebrate difference.

And I support such feminists. My beef is not with them. This thread is in no way a polemic against feminism.

There are feminists that believe we should strive to have masculine options in behaviour.

The issue is the relationship between biology, psychology and culture. Take "non-gender specific" toys. Proponents of such measures thinks it's a stereotype to market boys toys to boys and girls toys to girls. So, in recent commercials, they have a boy playing with barbies and a girl playing with a nerf gun. Is this justified? No, it's an equivalence and a whitewash of actual, scientifically demonstrable differences between males and females. To market to one or the other does not imply "discrimination' as they dogmatically imagine. It simply recognizes a reality: boys are more likely to enjoy nerf guns while girls are more likely to enjoy barbies. It fulfills a basic existential need, a need primed by biological evolution. I feel such people need a crash course in evolutionary theory. Being a mother requires a greater sense of empathy and emotion; emotion is soft, delicate and refined. Barbies emerged naturally, developed by females for female children because it met a basic psychological fancy of theirs - to preen and pamper dolls. Boys conversely, being the product of millions of years of biological evolution, enjoy more violent things: testosterone being responsible for aggression and violence. So, naturally, boys would prefer nerf guns. To make these differences unimportant, and to market in the exact opposite directions, is not only counter-intuitive, but it's plainly irrational. It's a flight against space and time and determinacy. They don't like that stereotypers exist, that typing matters, so they attempt to counter it through unreasonable counter-marketing. Sure, it may intrigue the children of liberal parents who have been taught to see such irregularity as good and normal, but it's still not rational. It still does not acknowledge the scientific date, biological fact. Despite this, it challenges the norm almost for the sake of just challenging the norm.

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by ANOK

 

This was my question:

As for anarchic socialism. Mind me asking you a question? If you go to the libertarian socialism portal, the "concepts" section encroaches on the personal sphere to an offensive degree. When "free love", and other such ideas float about, people begin to wonder "how would such a concept be brought to fruition"? How could people be forced not to marry, etc? The extremely disturbing tendency of anarchy is it's universalist perspective; it isn't content with decentralizing government - but it deigns to pass judgement on all "types" of "authoritarian power", reserving the right to deem whatever they want "authoritarian". For example, my own conservative, judeo-Christian ethos, would be authoritarian in their eyes, because I subscribe to marriage, the notion of sexual difference (a scientific fact) and a bunch of other things.

As for the difference between the economic and political? As I said already, the economic and political are not mutually exclusive spheres. They interact and affect one another.

Anarchic socialism lol. It's not anarchic, nor anarchy, it is anarchism, the first two mean chaos, the latter is a political system for the liberation of the working class. Socialism is a none-state economic system, even Marxism.
Anarchism is not a free for all, it is an organized system. Anarchists consider the capitalist system to be anarchy, a completely uncontrolled chaos of a system with no guarantee of economic stability.

The only difference between anarchism and Marxism is the anarchists were socialists who apposed the political system of Marxism, and preferred direct action. The final goal was the same, free association...

In the anarchist, Marxist and socialist sense, free association (also called free association of producers or, as Marx often called it, community of freely associated individuals) is a kind of relation between individuals where there is no state, social class or authority, in a society that has abolished the private property of means of production. Once private property is abolished, individuals are no longer deprived of access to means of production so they can freely associate themselves (without social constraint) to produce and reproduce their own conditions of existence and fulfill their needs and desires.

Free association (communism and anarchism)

What is the libertarian socialism "portal"? Forced to marry, what? You are reading peoples ideas, not what libertarian socialism actually is. I pointed out in my other reply that you have to realise what is peoples ideas about a system, and what that system actually is. I can't answer for what other people claim. All I can do is explain the ideas of the original anarchists and socialists.

If people want to get married they would be free to do so, if someone is trying to force their morality on you then they are not libertarian, they authoritarian, regardless of the label they put on themselves. There are a lot of people who call themselves socialist or anarchist, but completely fail to understand either.

Of course anarchism passes judgment on all form of authority, it is apposed to all forms of authority. That is why they support the economic system of socialism because it requires no authority, and because it puts the means of production in the hands of the workers no state authority is necessary. Only capitalism requires a state system.

This why 'anarcho-capitalism' is an oxymoron, because capitalism is an authoritative economic system, private owners have authority over their workers, and because of their economic power they control the state.

Economics and politics do effect each other, we wheel effects the road but that doesn't make the road a wheel.

Socialism is an economic system, anarchism is a political system. This why Bakunin said this...

"freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice... Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality"

In other words a socialist economy with a state system is not freedom, a libertarian socialist economy is freedom.

BTW you still haven't answered my question? Why do people keep ignoring this?

How can Anarchists be socialists by your definition of socialism?

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by Pinke

 

You said: Though you haven't defined nihilism precisely here,

There are different facets and takes to nihilism. Buddhism certainly doesn't follow moral nihilism as far as I'm concerned.

Now, you're saying you disagree with my application of the word, which is tantamount to making issue of the word "night" and making issue of my application of it to the darkness that follows daytime.

No, I just clearly disagree with the logic that since one part of nihilism applies, the whole lot of it must therefore apply.

conservatism - a trend which emerges naturally in nature, will always rise up again and again to stymie anarchic ambitions

Conservatism, like many other political movements, is a staunch defender of nature ... whenever it suits them. You follow it because it aligns with your idea of nature and your belief that nature is full of eternal wisdom. Essentially, the seperation of races as a concept could be attached to conservatism. Does seperation occur in nature? Absolutely. Yet, I believe racial seperation is wrong.

Additionally, by denying people the right to marry - as libertarian socialist thinkers are theorizing - that requires mind numbing social controls on peoples thinking and feeling.

I think this is the equivolent of taking a brick, placing it in your mouth, and then telling me you're not taking more than you can chew. Best stick to the conversation at hand.

I mentioned the Kibbutz example

As an example of cherry picking a weak argument to compare your conservative philosophy to. Pick something more robust next time.

Fine biological differences exist (as you concede) but not psychological or behavioural differences!

Please indicate where myself, or Cordelia Fine completely dismiss psychological or behavioural differences. You won't be able to. Again, who are you arguing with? Without an opponent, your argument is void. Until you can take the time to understand other's positions you're just making things up as you go along.

Now, if this has been undermined, a sacred dogma of leftist spirituality has been challenged: the world cannot exist in a "non-dual" context.

Of course, you're talking about this tiny tiny tiny tiny group of still un-named leftist psychopaths that believe women and men are exactly the same.

One second, you imply there's no conversation about the differences in gender biology on psychology and behaviour.

I've never implied there is no conversation. This is the second time I'm correcting you on that.

I have implied that your extremist left feminist is a phantom that exists only in your head at worst and an insignificant cult at best.

It should go without saying that I was referring to biologies relationship to psychology. Your problem is that you play too many games

You keep focusing on this, yet I understood just fine. My problem is that, on a general basis, feminist philosophy is well beyond implying that women's psychology is completely disconnected from gender. If you stuck to one topic and didn't insist on using as many large words as possible (and circumventing the ATS character limit) then I might care.

Another time you say I haven't properly defined nihilism - when I do, your problem becomes "you disagree with my application" of it.
If you have no notions of an objective good or evil, thats nihilism. What distinction could there be between the concept in itself and its application? If someone doesn't live according to any rules - antinomianly - then they're nihilists.

Buddhism called, it left an answering machine message regarding its thoughts on good and evil and a list of rules it follows. Unfortunately I don't have the character limit left to deal with it.

Barbies ... I believe we should treat people as people the best we can. I spent at least 10 of the most important years of my life carrying out inane gender mimicry and tasks that I should enjoy but I clearly got nothing from due to the types of advertising you're talking about. I spent even more years on the recieving end of sentences such as 'but you're a [gender] and you should be [activity]'.

The world doesn't cater for the millions of people like me. You might say, 'oh well it shouldn't, you're in the minority!' Marie Curie (physicist), Marie Mayer (physicist), Rita Levi-Montalcini etc ... There is the potential for us minorities to have immense effects on the world around us if we're allowed and our interests nurtured. For that to happen though, you have to understand us first.

Make me a thread with a proposed solution to that problem and you'll have my interest instead of contempt.

I imagine this conversation has run its course though.

reply to post by ANOK

Forced to marry, what? You are reading peoples ideas, not

Sorry, the Libertarian socialist portal at wikipedia, in which a list of associated concepts is enumerated.

Forced to marry, what? You are reading peoples ideas, not what libertarian socialism actually is.

Yes, I realize that.. Anarchism was also someones "idea". The ideas broached via the portal section are the extension of the Anarchic premise into the private and personal sphere: free love challenges the historical human norm of man-woman marriages. Not only is that flagrantly radical, and counter intuitive, but it is also vigorously anti-democratic. If anarchism means the loosening of government controls - that's fine. I'm a libertarian myself. However, if they intend to use the socialist architecture built into the governmental system to uproot peoples views on things, I absolutely, unequivocally oppose it, as it goes against basic a rule of human nature: mans rebelliousness. Rebelliousness is not just "rebellion" against God, as you'd probably assume. But it's a rebellion against any order - whether anarchic, statist, imposed from without. The essential feature being the individualistic desire to be true to oneself; if the external, communal system contradicts that individuals feelings, he will rebel.. If being true means recognizing an order in the world that supports a conservative metaphysics, than thats what it will be for that person, and society should respect and honour that difference.

I've read quite a bit on this subject. Almost every anarchist writer I've come by, Chomsky, Asimokopos, Mclaren, etc harbours this ambition: not just to change the outer constructs of society, but to assume control over peoples thinking and beliefs by reshaping public institutions.

Judaism emerged naturally; in fact, if you've studied the history of near east civilization, it seems to have been a necessary countervail to the excesses of near eastern cultures. I'm not saying Judaism is "only" right. Rather, it appeals to some peoples existential take on life. It's different. And it's good that it's different. No culture has a "monopoly" on truth; not Jews, or Buddhists, or Muslims. Each has their own unique vantage point. Each carves out their own niche, and interprets their own sense of order, to the experience we call life. To subvert that natural right, that essential human mission, is a menacing offence to the natural order. Nature has created the big and small, the liberal and conservative, the extroverted and introverted. Radical ideologies seeks to make everyone the same.