Omitted from this discussion is mention of Adam Smith's first book, the "Theory of Moral Sentiments." As the foremost figure of the Scottish Enlightenment, Smith established a firm bridge between reason and the resulting sentiments by which actual human decisions are made. Smith's first book is arguably the single greatest work of the period, and was hugely influential when it was published in 1759. Smith himself considered it his greatest contribution, and he made extensive revisions in 1790, the year of his death. Today it is nearly forgotten, save Russ Robert's "How Adam Smith Can Change Your Life." The incomparable Thomas Sowell discusses Smith's "Theory" in his book, "A Conflict of Visions."
Steven, thank you for reading the postmodernists so I don't have to. It reminds me of a conversation I had in a dorm room of the Studentendorf of the Free University of Berlin when I was a grad student there in 1965-66. It was between two Marxists, one Chilean and one Somali, who disputed who had read more Marx. I had read virtually none, but I had traveled throughout the Warsaw Pact countries (except for Poland), and I now knew what life was like under "realized" Marxism. BTW I also knew that the Chilean, who participated in the takeover of the FU's Mensa the following year, was a truly horrible person. And since you mentioned Heidegger, one must always attach the historical note that he was a real Nazi and the Rector of the University of Freiburg; never apologized, but wrote of that time as "the greatest stupidity of his life."
It seems to me that the greatest threat to the religion, culture and politics of the America comes from the far right in the form of the politics advocated, and until recently practiced behinds the scenes by Opus Dei the founder of which was a full-blown sociopath, as indeed is Opus Dei as a collective body/entity.
Two recent books describe the situation in great detail, showing how contrary to the high-sounding hype about traditional virtues etc is rotten to the core.
Meanwhile the US President is a religiously and culturally illiterate nihilistic barbarian, a pathological liar and a life time grifter/conman/fraudster.
The question arises as to who now controls the acceptable forms of religion culture and politics.
It seems to me that the secretive cult Opus Dei is the number one suspect. The founder of opus ei was a full blown sociopath.
Two recent books describe the behind the scenes machination of opus dei.
1. OPUS by Gareth Gore describes in great detail the sociopathic character and actions of its founder (in particular) and opus dei altogether.
2. STENCH by David Brock the title alone provides a one word description of the applied politics of opus dei
J D Vance is a recent very zealous (zealot) convert to opus dei.
These two references provide a glimpse of the company that he keeps and advocates.
I can't disagree with any of this but I think he sets up a straw man which isn't particularly relevant. I don't think the fundamental argument is between liberalism and conservatism Both support the conviction that elitism can be functional. I'm skeptical of this assertion. In addition to notable Marxist scholars, I think that C. Wright Mills might have been mentioned, along with other non-Marxists or anarchists including Thomas Picketty, Jared Diamond, Joseph Stiglitz and others. Focusing on some of the more extreme post-modernists, without referencing people who are highly regarded and not viewed as extreme (perhaps with the exception of Mills) seems a bit manipulative. On the other hand, I think illuminating the question of how to achieve competent decision making in complex society is invaluable. In my opinion, no one has contributed more usefully to this question than David Graeber, co-author of The Dawn of Everything. Yes, Graeber was a proclaimed anarchist thinker and one of the founders of Occupy Wall Street, which seems not to have detracted from his high regard as a scholar.
Nice historical tour, but what's the elevator pitch? Maybe something like: if you grok the [unchanging] ground truth connecting Exodus through the New Testament to American constitutional ideas, then you'll also see logical (or legal) positivism, and all its related political-philosophical isms, as detours, distractions, and failures.?
Well, if so, then yeah.
p.s. hobby horses are not, of course, ponies - but see: Peeling the Onion of Progressive Delusion, at paul530.substack.com
Good fodder for my own thinking. Thank you! I've been stewing my own thoughts with the hope that I might correlate certain aspects of Han-dynasty era Chinese ideas with socalled post modernism. I'm working on idea that a late-Han "trend" called "abstruseness" (xuanxue -- don't try to pronounce it unless you know spoken Chinese) was a vibrant form of postmodernism avant la lettre.
Omitted from this discussion is mention of Adam Smith's first book, the "Theory of Moral Sentiments." As the foremost figure of the Scottish Enlightenment, Smith established a firm bridge between reason and the resulting sentiments by which actual human decisions are made. Smith's first book is arguably the single greatest work of the period, and was hugely influential when it was published in 1759. Smith himself considered it his greatest contribution, and he made extensive revisions in 1790, the year of his death. Today it is nearly forgotten, save Russ Robert's "How Adam Smith Can Change Your Life." The incomparable Thomas Sowell discusses Smith's "Theory" in his book, "A Conflict of Visions."
Steven, thank you for reading the postmodernists so I don't have to. It reminds me of a conversation I had in a dorm room of the Studentendorf of the Free University of Berlin when I was a grad student there in 1965-66. It was between two Marxists, one Chilean and one Somali, who disputed who had read more Marx. I had read virtually none, but I had traveled throughout the Warsaw Pact countries (except for Poland), and I now knew what life was like under "realized" Marxism. BTW I also knew that the Chilean, who participated in the takeover of the FU's Mensa the following year, was a truly horrible person. And since you mentioned Heidegger, one must always attach the historical note that he was a real Nazi and the Rector of the University of Freiburg; never apologized, but wrote of that time as "the greatest stupidity of his life."
This is another of those posts that just stretch my brains. It is a pleasure to read intelligent thought.
Types of Justice diagram might be combined with Pournelle's chart:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pournelle_chart_color.gif
This is why Objectivism is my favorite philosophy, and Ayn Rand is my favorite philosopher.
Objectivism is a totally Godless philosophy and world-view
Its "god" is the hard edged machine.
I'm glad I read that.
It seems to me that the greatest threat to the religion, culture and politics of the America comes from the far right in the form of the politics advocated, and until recently practiced behinds the scenes by Opus Dei the founder of which was a full-blown sociopath, as indeed is Opus Dei as a collective body/entity.
Two recent books describe the situation in great detail, showing how contrary to the high-sounding hype about traditional virtues etc is rotten to the core.
1. OPUS by Gareth Gore
2. STENCH by David Brock
Meanwhile the US President is a religiously and culturally illiterate nihilistic barbarian, a pathological liar and a life time grifter/conman/fraudster.
The question arises as to who now controls the acceptable forms of religion culture and politics.
It seems to me that the secretive cult Opus Dei is the number one suspect. The founder of opus ei was a full blown sociopath.
Two recent books describe the behind the scenes machination of opus dei.
1. OPUS by Gareth Gore describes in great detail the sociopathic character and actions of its founder (in particular) and opus dei altogether.
2. STENCH by David Brock the title alone provides a one word description of the applied politics of opus dei
J D Vance is a recent very zealous (zealot) convert to opus dei.
These two references provide a glimpse of the company that he keeps and advocates.
http://www.thenerdreich.com/unhumans-jd-vance-and-the-language-of-genocide
http://www.splcenter.org/resources/hate-watch/cpac-attendees-america-under-attack
Donald Trump gave and introductory rant at this gab-fest.
I can't disagree with any of this but I think he sets up a straw man which isn't particularly relevant. I don't think the fundamental argument is between liberalism and conservatism Both support the conviction that elitism can be functional. I'm skeptical of this assertion. In addition to notable Marxist scholars, I think that C. Wright Mills might have been mentioned, along with other non-Marxists or anarchists including Thomas Picketty, Jared Diamond, Joseph Stiglitz and others. Focusing on some of the more extreme post-modernists, without referencing people who are highly regarded and not viewed as extreme (perhaps with the exception of Mills) seems a bit manipulative. On the other hand, I think illuminating the question of how to achieve competent decision making in complex society is invaluable. In my opinion, no one has contributed more usefully to this question than David Graeber, co-author of The Dawn of Everything. Yes, Graeber was a proclaimed anarchist thinker and one of the founders of Occupy Wall Street, which seems not to have detracted from his high regard as a scholar.
Nice historical tour, but what's the elevator pitch? Maybe something like: if you grok the [unchanging] ground truth connecting Exodus through the New Testament to American constitutional ideas, then you'll also see logical (or legal) positivism, and all its related political-philosophical isms, as detours, distractions, and failures.?
Well, if so, then yeah.
p.s. hobby horses are not, of course, ponies - but see: Peeling the Onion of Progressive Delusion, at paul530.substack.com
Thank you for publishing this article. It has helped me clarify my thoughts.
Good fodder for my own thinking. Thank you! I've been stewing my own thoughts with the hope that I might correlate certain aspects of Han-dynasty era Chinese ideas with socalled post modernism. I'm working on idea that a late-Han "trend" called "abstruseness" (xuanxue -- don't try to pronounce it unless you know spoken Chinese) was a vibrant form of postmodernism avant la lettre.