Page 1 of 6 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 55

Thread: Rationalism to Nihilism to Faith

  1. #1
    Senior Member Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Last Online
    Friday, March 25th, 2016 @ 07:28 AM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-Celt Australian
    Subrace
    Keltic Nordic
    Country
    Australia Australia
    State
    Victoria Victoria
    Location
    Terra Australis
    Gender
    Age
    32
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Guerilla Philosopher
    Politics
    Aristotelian Nationalist
    Religion
    Roman Catholic
    Posts
    1,811
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts

    Post Rationalism to Nihilism to Faith

    Moody: I hope you read this all first before you prepare to comment.

    I present my argument in favour of nihilism on basis of pure rationalism, then turn to faith to solve the problem and fill in the holes. And we end up with something approvable, from the perspective of European racial, cultural and spiritual preservation. Now, let it begin.

    Suppose I think, therefore I am. Whether I think of this at the time or not, I can only be sure of my own existance via contrast with an Other (something outside myself against which I can become conscious of my own distinction). This Other is the entirety of the external world - trees, keyboard, monitor, 'Spit it Out' by Slipknot playing in the background, etc. Now, for the absolutist descent into nihilism via rationalism and also empiricism, and then Objectivism - the only philosophy whose followers seriously think they've put a bullet through nihilism. First, rationalism.

    Let's run on Descartes' statement that 'I think, therefore I am'. The entire point of Descartes' radical doubt is to provide solid foundation for us to be sure the universe existed. His argument ran somewhat akin to the following: I think, therefore I am. Because I doubt, I must not be perfect. Because I am imperfect, there must be something perfect. This perfect being has no reason to decieve me, and therefore the Other (what is outside the Self against which I can become aware of my own existence) is real. Which is absolute rubbish, given identity is impossible without contrast, which he's presumed to be true and used as fuel for his argument (unknowingly) before he set out to prove it, and so he's stuck in a cycle he can't get out of. The very fact he's aware of his own existence is evidence implies he recieves sense-perceptions, it doesn't prove the Other actually exists. It could be all in his head, chaotic and muddled it may indeed be.

    So what point does his certainty of his own existence, hence a subjective perspective in relation to its own perceptions, start off from? Animal faith - the faith that what's in front of you exists, you can pick it up, throw it, and eat it. That's it - that's the foundation of human existence. Faith isn't good enough for Reason though - faith is an excuse, not a conclusion drawn from evidence. And so we reach nihilism - utter uncertainty. We can't prove via pure rationalism the world exists. Not even Kant, the great philosopher of Western civilization, has solved this.

    Now for the empiricist crash to nihilism. Suppose the external world does indeed exist - for the moment, at least - and that we recieve impressions from this reality as sense data. Sounds realistic enough - we think we know light doesn't exactly go into the brain, it goes into the eyes and the eyes do electro-chemical changes and we get impressions of there being a monitor in front of your head, right now - say, maybe a foot or two away.

    Now let's apply the inconclusively proven working hypothesis () known as Occams Razor. To be honest with ourselves, we aren't even sure if there is an external world at all - all we're aware of is sense impressions, and we can't really base judgements on actual things which exist independently from our consciousness if we're stuck with all the info we can only recieve though our consciousness. So let's cut the excess and it becomes, indeed, quite possible, the 'ghost in the machine' (a better analogy would be Alex from 'A Clockwork Orange' with his eyes held open by wire and force fed propaganda movies by the evil doctor) of the Matrix is real, and it is us - or more to the point, just me, because I've no grounds to believe you people even exist. You might even just be electro-chemical impulses. But on what grounds do I have to say that? I don't even know if 'electro-chemical impulses' are real things - hell, I could possibly be lying straight through my teeth without even knowing it. Whatever teeth are...

    Now let's run off the animal faith argument that existence exists, and reason is our method of acquiring knowledge about the universe via the Law of Non-Contradiction (A is A; A is not non-A) and cause and effect, space, time, etc., are real, external relations and we have free will. What I've just stated is pretty much the metaphysics of Ayn Rand's Objectivism, which is equally nihilistic, despite the fact she'd scream were she alive to read me typing this (she died a while ago. boo hoo. Rationalist...). So let's follow through with it. Now, according to Ayn Rand's Objectivism, man makes a fundamental choice, whether to value his own life or not to. From there, if he wants to live, he has to recognise he needs to work to sustain his life, if he wants to live in a civilized society, he has to recognise he can't claim a right to a contradiction (classical Aristotelian logic, which still works) and therefore he must respect the Non-Aggression Principle and he must not attempt to take the rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of other rational beings (i.e. humans).

    He should, if he values his own life, work for his own happiness, i.e. satisfaction.

    How's that nihilistic? Simple: why should one value one's own life? No one's going to provide an adequate reason for that. So we're stuck back on a different type of animal faith this time - animal faith in the 'instinct' to want to survive. Instincts meaning: unexplained motivations.

    Let's follow on from that - why grant universal rights? Ayn Rand bases her reasons on consequentialism. What does that really mean? She's basing it on fear - which is irrational So much for the perfectly rational philosophy.

    So - let's get down to it. Epistemologically, we cannot prove the existence of objects in themselves - so we counter that with animal faith and build from there using reason. There are, indeed, no reasons whatsoever to do anything at all. This is what I was hoping people would pick up on, and Siegfried Augustus (hats off to you ) actually did. He was and remains entirely correct that human choices are fundamentally irrational.

    So - let's take the epistemics of Animal Faith/Reason together and build from there, shall we? It's what scientists do regardless, so it shouldn't be too hard. I'd like to place Richard Dawkin's Selfish Gene Theory at the core - whether it contradicts with Nietzsche or not is irrelevent to this thread (Moody, I've begun to see I think you're right, but I do think a modified explanation of the will to power would fit with it, and I think I've outlined that modified version of the will to power in the WTP and Selfish Gene Theory thread - for those who haven't seen it, I recommend you do before you read on - here ).

    Now I'd like to put foward something I've been thinking of ever since I posted my essay on power, my own theory of social dynamics and evolution. Yockey's culture distortion theory also fits in fairly well, I think, and Philippe Rushton's r-K evolutionary strategies are part of it.

    Scientists have linked depression with a reduction in the chances of passing on your own genes (i.e. breaking up in a relationship with the opposite sex, being turned down, etc.), have demonstrated that love is more addictive than cocaine and that 'love' occurs after several rounds of sex between a couple. I think this is a safe way of saying love is a cover for the purpose of passing on genes and ensuring that organism's natural reproductive strategy (quantity or quality) is adhered to. As in my essay 'The Metaphysics of Power', I hope to focus not on the dualities (good v evil, love v hate, beautiful vs ugly, friend vs enemy) but in the values around which those dualities are built, and where those values come from.

    Those values, I suggest, come from instincts, because as I've demonstrated above by means of nihilism, reason is incapable of creating values, only identifying them on behalf of its master - the instincts. By values I mean something to which subjective importance is placed. It's not hard at all to tie instincts down to race so I'll leave that be, hoping it's obvious to everyone.

    People join together in social groups for three reasons - 1) to ensure survival and efficient use of resources via division of labour, 2) to pass on their genes, and 3) to have some measure of psychological enjoyment, via 1) and 2), and through the extention of personal capacity to act. As in my essay and some earlier writings, I want to put foward a trinity of social volition, social conscious and social unconscious. I might not have used these terms before but I hope this thread and the ideas in this post in particular would be a good companion for my earlier essay on power. By social volition I mean the decision makers of a social group, i.e. the leadership and prime movers of the group. By social conscious I mean the popular ideas and culture of the social group, of which the cultural aristocracy are the custodians. The most important, in my opinion, is the social unconscious, which are the emotions and will of the mass of the social group which has yet to find matching popular ideas.

    When the social unconscious is met with popular ideas which appeal to it, the social unconcious becomes pure will and the social volition is deposed and replaced with one that adheres to the ideas that propelled it there. As example - Germany, 1920's and 30's. After a lost war, millions dead, millions unemployed, the national pride insulted and crushed by the allies, resentment on a massive scale built up in the social unconscious. Hitler blamed the Jews, the Communists blamed the bourgeois. Hitler won out and came to power. He solved the problems which put him on top, and so he ended up with over 90% in every one of the plebecites he had occur.

    Another example: Russia 1917. Russia lost its war with Japan and had its national pride crushed by the Asiatic Japanese. It lost millions in World War 1 and fell into depression, peasant reforms failed to provide for the social unconscious, ineffectual Government led the country nowhere and in come a bunch of agitators should "Peace! Land! Bread!" and wielding a red flag or two. They won.

    Now I put foward a somewhat radical (perhaps not) theory that the social unconscious is directly linked to the evolutionary chances of the mass of its population reproducing itself in line with its natural, evolutionarily built-in reproductive strategy. This depends on 1) the natural environment, 2) the existence of foreigners and their using the resources of said population, and 3) the link between the social unconscious and social conscious. The social consciousness (the meme pool, in other words) will be pervaded by ideas which support the health and well-being of the extended kin-group we know as the population.

    Now, why I predict coming chaos, and some comments.

    First, we have families falling apart, which is quite obviously a bad thing in relation to the natural (i.e. high investment, long term) strategy of whites reproducing. We have low birth rates and skyrocketing youth suicide, mass migration and integration and transfer of resources from whites to racial foreigners, a political/philosophical/social culture that values weakness and tolerance and, in short, bending over for the other guy. Here's where Gramsci's passive/active revolution comes in. Antonio Gramsci said revolutions can (by this I mean 1789 or 1917 type revolutions) occur only when the hegemony (i.e. social conscious) imposed by the ruling class (i.e. social volition) fails. At this point, there is conscious chaos/nihilism and power is up for the taking, and society is significantly ready for a takeover by any well motivated group which reflects the historical necessity and direction of the moment (Gramsci, being a marxist, meant class struggle. I adapt this to mean the need to bring the social conscious and environmental conditions back in line with the population's natural reproductive strategy).

    According to Gramsci, there are two types of revolution, and correspondingly, two types of wars. Active revolution is when the streets run with blood and the flag of the winning team flutters in the breeze over Government buildings. Passive revolution is essentially cultural revolution - it is siezing the universities and other outlets (the media) the cultural aristocracy utilise to reproduce their ideas in the minds of the populaton. War of Position is the active takeover of the economy by a social group (i.e. class warfare - I adapt this to mean the takeover of resources by the leading group of the social unconscious), and War of Maneuver is the takeover of the State.

    I still define the State as an organisation with a monopoly on violence initiation within a section of territory, and I've taken this idea from Carl Schmitt so I hope no one has any objections.

    Now, back to the current environmental conditions of Europeans around the world. First, we have a failing world economy, whatever Alan Greenspan wishes to tell us. The fact is taxes are being jacked up to support the mass migration of racial foreigners, so we can subsidise their breeding strategy. Corporations don't want to handle the load so they offshore jobs, and unemployment rises. We are looted to their advantage. Second, their gangs are taking over our streets, and whites are forming gangs to fight back, or leaving. Witness white flight. LadyGoethe33 and I will testify to that, as will anyone else who does or did live in a thoroughly mixed multiracial area. Feminism, while everyone (most, anyway) thinks it is a joke, filters down into people's minds and divorce rises, and men are looted to look after their families which they are rarely going to see because the mother pointed the finger and shouted sexual assault or something equivalent. There is rage, and it is building up.

    How can I say this? I mean, I don't have any proof in statistics, right? - but then witness the culture young white males buy into. Metal and rap, mostly. Rap, because it is the black expression of social breakdown, and metal, quite simply, because it is white rage gone audio. This is saying something, while everyone is listening to the music and no one is listening to the social unconscious.

    One of the primary reasons I supported Capitalism is that by orientating culture towards the social unconscious of the masses, it gives us a solid impression of what exactly it is that they feel. Perhaps it is a misogynistic view, but males are the prime movers of history. Soon white unemployment, taxes and anti-white crime will rise to the stage where anyone who shouts the right slogan will gain attention, and a well organised faction that can coordinate the rage and squeeze it for all its worth instead of 'moderating' and 'reforming' society will be the one that leads.

    I propose three tasks for the European nationalist movement. 1) Describe how society etc. works. This is what I'm trying to focus on. 2) Build up a motivating myth. I have no doubt Moody would be good for this. 3) Policy and attitudes towards issues which effect our peoples.

    A word on morality vs ethics.

    I define morality as a priori behavioural restrictions. I don't think it exists, but is the remains of theology. Ethics I'll define as post-experience conditioned behaviour, and I think this most certainly exists. Kant's statement that "act so that the maxim by which you act may become universal law for all" (I admit I don't remember the exact wording, but it's something similar) is adhered to by everyone across the planet no matter what they do. It is always that "under these conditions..." is affixed in front of the universally applicable maxim. I don't think it's much of a morality at all. As before, I still hold to virtue ethics.

    For Moody: I intend on moving from prescriptive ideology to descriptive study. Hope that's ok with you. I've begun to understand your somewhat mythical stance. It is symbolism that recruits and drives people once it's matched with their instincts, but I honestly wonder if we recruit people on Skadi or whether we end up looting the best of Stormfront. In any case, peace, and comments are welcome.
    Last edited by Jack; Tuesday, December 16th, 2003 at 12:04 AM.
    All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream at night, in the dusky recesses of their minds, wake in the day to find that it was vanity. But the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams, with open eyes, to make it possible.

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Last Online
    Tuesday, March 13th, 2018 @ 09:14 AM
    Status
    Prolonged Absence
    Ethnicity
    Dutch
    Gender
    Posts
    2,671
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    Post

    Good post, Aloysha, and I agree with most of what you said. I don't really get the following though:

    One of the primary reasons I supported Capitalism is that by orientating culture towards the social unconscious of the masses, it gives us a solid impression of what exactly it is that they feel.
    How would Capitalism do that? Wouldn't some form of democracy with referanda be better suited to such a cause? Just wondering.

    And why did you say 'I supported Capitalism'; did you change your mind on the subject? If so, why? Personally I'm still not sure about the economic question.

  3. #3
    Senior Member Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Last Online
    Friday, March 25th, 2016 @ 07:28 AM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-Celt Australian
    Subrace
    Keltic Nordic
    Country
    Australia Australia
    State
    Victoria Victoria
    Location
    Terra Australis
    Gender
    Age
    32
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Guerilla Philosopher
    Politics
    Aristotelian Nationalist
    Religion
    Roman Catholic
    Posts
    1,811
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts

    Post

    How would Capitalism do that? Wouldn't some form of democracy with referanda be better suited to such a cause? Just wondering.
    I'm a strong believer that actions are reflections of inner states (psychologically) of individuals, and Capitalism allows individuals to spend their money on what they want. Art serves the purpose of being an expression and encouraging the expression of an inner, psychological state. If you look at a man's (whether he buys it or creates it himself matters little) favourite art you will get a glimpse of what he feels. By art I mean literature, painting, music, etc. Democracy is worse because people can be persuaded to support goals which seem good to them but are worse in the long term - as an example I put foward feminism. Sounded great but now take a look around. Capitalism, however, is based on buying and selling what people react to, and it's in constant evolution, reflecting and 'hugging' the population and their social unconscious. Besides that, voting is near always restricted to adults (e.g. 21 and over) and the vast majority of these adults are living fine lives. Only when time goes on, those who were teenagers living not-so-fine-lives begin to vote, and democracy is fundamentally flawed. Referenda are worse, because people are only given a yes/no option on a predefined question. On one hand, administration in non-political (i.e. welfare, road development, etc.) areas need to be decentralised to the level of local communities, while military and police administration needs to be centralised.

    And why did you say 'I supported Capitalism'; did you change your mind on the subject? If so, why? Personally I'm still not sure about the economic question.
    I still think Capitalism as an economic system would be fine - another way of putting it is that I think Capitalism is the only feasible economic system. But I do not follow Capitalism as an ideology any longer because man isn't pinned down by ideas such as property rights, he is held in check by power. Rights are ideals backing claims to power. I've come to see a sort of 'Japanese Capitalism' as a suitable for the Greater-European world.

    Here's how it works. When the social unconscious reaches breaking stage, political power (i.e. sovereign power to initiate violence) needs to be transferred by whatever means possible from the hands of the system into politically white hands. All the rules go out the window until the environment is stabilised whereupon white capitalism (what Norman Lowell advocates - I find almost nothing at fault (by which I mean inconsistent) with his economics thinking), under the guard of the State, would be free to develop. I'd like to read more of what he's got to say, but from what I've heard he's put foward the best mix of racialism and capitalism within the State.
    All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream at night, in the dusky recesses of their minds, wake in the day to find that it was vanity. But the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams, with open eyes, to make it possible.

  4. #4
    Senior Member Moody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Last Online
    Tuesday, July 10th, 2012 @ 09:18 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    Albion
    Subrace
    Paleo-Atlantid
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    State
    Essex Essex
    Location
    England
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Investigator of Souls
    Politics
    Pan-Germanic Nationalist
    Religion
    Runosophy
    Posts
    1,904
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    9
    Thanked in
    9 Posts

    Post Descartes

    Aloysha; "Suppose I think, therefore I am".

    Moody; As everyone knows, this is Descartes' "cogito ergo sum" ("I think therefore I am"). According to this, the only thing I can be sure of is that I am thinking, therefore, at least as a subjective-thinking-being I exist.

    Aloysha; "Whether I think of this at the time or not, I can only be sure of my own existance via contrast with an Other (something outside myself against which I can become conscious of my own distinction)."

    Moody; No; Descartes says that all this supposed 'otherness' could be an illusion; you have not gone beyond the subjectivity of your 'thinking'. You can only be 'sure' that you think - the whole world could be the figment of your imagination.

    Aloysha; "So what point does his certainty of his own existence, hence a subjective perspective in relation to its own perceptions, start off from? Animal faith - the faith that what's in front of you exists, you can pick it up, throw it, and eat it".

    Moody; Not so; it 'starts off from' THINKING - the 'idea' [hence 'idealism']. The world 'in front of you' could, as he avers, be an illusion projected by an evil demon.
    Of course, the idealism which resulted from Descartes' view was scoffed at by Johnson, who, by kicking a stone 'in front of him', said "I refute idealism thus!"
    No, Descartes' position becomes trapped in the self-perpetuating circle of idealism [everything is a figment of my thinking], not so-called 'animal faith'(?).
    The way out of idealism's impasse is via the 'private language' argument [first articulated by Nietzsche].
    This says that if there is nothing other than subjectivity, then none of us [since we, like Descartes, are all insular 'subjectivities'] would be able to communicate with each other.
    We would all speak 'private languages' which would be incomprehensible; but the fact is the opposite; we are all able to communicate to a lesser or greater degree.
    We must therefore all be inter-linked, subjectively and objectively.
    This itself brings in the value of the Folk.
    Last edited by Moody; Tuesday, December 16th, 2003 at 04:51 PM. Reason: minor corrections
    Why are there beings at all, & why not rather nothing?
    [Leibniz/Heidegger]

  5. #5
    Senior Member Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Last Online
    Friday, March 25th, 2016 @ 07:28 AM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-Celt Australian
    Subrace
    Keltic Nordic
    Country
    Australia Australia
    State
    Victoria Victoria
    Location
    Terra Australis
    Gender
    Age
    32
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Guerilla Philosopher
    Politics
    Aristotelian Nationalist
    Religion
    Roman Catholic
    Posts
    1,811
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts

    Post

    Quote Originally Posted by Moody Lawless
    Aloysha; "Suppose I think, therefore I am".

    Moody; As everyone knows, this is Descartes' "cogito ergo sum" ("I think therefore I am"). According to this, the only thing I can be sure of is that I am thinking, therefore, at least as a subjective-thinking-being I exist.
    I agree.

    Aloysha; "Whether I think of this at the time or not, I can only be sure of my own existance via contrast with an Other (something outside myself against which I can become conscious of my own distinction)."

    Moody; No; Descartes says that all this supposed 'otherness' could be an illusion; you have not gone beyond the subjectivity of your 'thinking'. You can only be 'sure' that you think - the whole world could be the figment of your imagination.
    Assuming the imagination is part of subjectivity, this is impossible, as we cannot but think in terms of what we have already percieved, and our 'Selfness' is our thinking being. For example: try thinking of a colour you've never seen before. You can't. The Other must at least be in the form of sense impressions, if not sense impressions derived from the actual thing in itself.

    Aloysha; "So what point does his certainty of his own existence, hence a subjective perspective in relation to its own perceptions, start off from? Animal faith - the faith that what's in front of you exists, you can pick it up, throw it, and eat it".

    Moody; Not so; it 'starts off from' THINKING - the 'idea' [hence 'idealism']. The world 'in front of you' could, as he avers, be an illusion projected by an evil demon.
    Of course, the idealism which resulted from Descartes' view was scoffed at by Johnson, who, by kicking a stone 'in front of him', said "I refute idealism thus!"
    No, Descartes' position becomes trapped in the self-perpetuating circle of idealism [everything is a figment of my thinking], not so-called 'animal faith'(?).
    Animal Faith is an idea I picked out of a short writing on the ideas of Georges Santayana in this forum, posted by OnionPeeler. Descartes' very awareness of his own existence is dependent on his ability to contrast himself with something outside his subjectivity. It does, indeed, come down to animal faith (that existence exists and sense impressions are derived from actual things in themselves which hold to existence), which is automatic once one has reached a certain age (all models of child psychological development cover this. Piaget called this the 'concrete operation stage' generally reached at eight years of age, once 3rd dimensional thinking has set in properly and the animal faith that things exist regardless of you cutting off sense perceptions).

    The way out of idealism's impasse is via the 'private language' argument [first articulated by Nietzsche].
    Obviously this is something I did not pay a great deal of attention to when reading Nietzsche. If you could point to a section (or sections) of one or more of his books in regards to this argument, I'd appreciate it and read up on it as soon as I can.

    This says that if there is nothing other than subjectivity, then none of us [since we, like Descartes, are all insular 'subjectivities'] would be able to communicate with each other.
    If there is nothing other than subjectivity, the communication with other subjectivities is a moot point - all of the other people you are aware of are figments of your imagination.

    We would all speak 'private languages' which would be incomprehensible; but the fact is the opposite; we are all able to communicate to a lesser or greater degree.
    We must therefore all be inter-linked, subjectively and objectively.
    This doesn't necessarily follow, but I partially agree with your point. I think the idea we are linked subjectively (I believe you're thinking in terms of a group soul, correct me if I'm wrong) is dependent on the fact we have similar, biologically and environmentally grounded outlooks.
    All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream at night, in the dusky recesses of their minds, wake in the day to find that it was vanity. But the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams, with open eyes, to make it possible.

  6. #6
    Senior Member Moody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Last Online
    Tuesday, July 10th, 2012 @ 09:18 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    Albion
    Subrace
    Paleo-Atlantid
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    State
    Essex Essex
    Location
    England
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Investigator of Souls
    Politics
    Pan-Germanic Nationalist
    Religion
    Runosophy
    Posts
    1,904
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    9
    Thanked in
    9 Posts

    Post Against the 'Blank Slate' argument

    Aloysha; "We cannot but think in terms of what we have already percieved, and our 'Selfness' is our thinking being. For example: try thinking of a colour you've never seen before. You can't. The Other must at least be in the form of sense impressions, if not sense impressions derived from the actual thing in itself.

    Moody; Not so; artists, writers, musicians etc., are able to create things in their minds which have never been seen before.
    Anyone can imagine all kinds of monsters and phantasms not seen before.
    One can imagine things which have NEVER existed.
    Indeed, such things exist ONLY in people's imaginations.
    See fantasy genres etc., as well as religious experience [not to mention supernatural activity].

    Millions of people around the world are convinced that a God of some kind not only exists, but has actually created the World itself!
    They have no "sense impresssion" of that God derived "from the actual thing itself" [of course, some of them would tell you that they HAVE seen God, but not all of them!]

    Also, look into things like the 'language instinct', i.e., those parts of our thinking which are not dependent on prior perceptions, but are hard-wired in at birth and before.
    To say that ALL our thoughts ["we cannot but think"] are derivative of sense experience suggests that we are born as mere 'tabula rasa', as blank sheets of paper awaiting the impress of experience.
    This cannot be so; not only are there instinctual aspects as suggested, but there are also imaginative abilities.
    In the latter case, a 'genius' is he who is able to create things never seen before.
    Why are there beings at all, & why not rather nothing?
    [Leibniz/Heidegger]

  7. #7
    Senior Member Moody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Last Online
    Tuesday, July 10th, 2012 @ 09:18 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    Albion
    Subrace
    Paleo-Atlantid
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    State
    Essex Essex
    Location
    England
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Investigator of Souls
    Politics
    Pan-Germanic Nationalist
    Religion
    Runosophy
    Posts
    1,904
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    9
    Thanked in
    9 Posts

    Post Doubt and Descartes

    Aloysha; "Animal Faith: Descartes' very awareness of his own existence is dependent on his ability to contrast himself with something outside his subjectivity".

    Moody; On the contrary; Descartes says that his own THINKING ['cogito'] is the only thing that he CANNOT DOUBT.
    Descartes proposed 'de omnibus dubitandum', i.e., to 'doubt everything'.
    Therefore, while he doubts everything "outside his subjectivity", he cannot doubt his thinking; he infers from this [somewhat glibly] that he 'is': - 'cogito' [I think], 'ergo sum' [therefore I exist as a thinking thing].
    Therefore he continues at that point to doubt the existence of everything except his thinking 'self', that introspective soul-stuff.
    This is developed by Berkeley and his 'esse est percipi', where everything 'out-side' is IMMATERIAL, and the product/projection of mind ['to be is to be perceived'].

    Aloysha; "It all comes down to animal faith (that existence exists and sense impressions are derived from actual things in themselves which hold to existence)

    Moody; This may be your own view, but it is not derivable from Descartes and is therefore an invalid inference. Your argument doesn't follow because you have misunderstood the 'cogito' which is an attempt to evade scepticism.
    Because of this fundamental flaw, your argument is doomed as it leaps from one invalidity to another.
    Why are there beings at all, & why not rather nothing?
    [Leibniz/Heidegger]

  8. #8
    Senior Member Moody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Last Online
    Tuesday, July 10th, 2012 @ 09:18 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    Albion
    Subrace
    Paleo-Atlantid
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    State
    Essex Essex
    Location
    England
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Investigator of Souls
    Politics
    Pan-Germanic Nationalist
    Religion
    Runosophy
    Posts
    1,904
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    9
    Thanked in
    9 Posts

    Post Nietzsche ref.

    Aloysha; "Obviously this ['private language'] is something I did not pay a great deal of attention to when reading Nietzsche. If you could point to a section (or sections) of one or more of his books in regards to this argument, I'd appreciate it and read up on it as soon as I can".

    Moody; You need Nietzsche's book, 'Die Frohliche Wissenschaft', published in 1882 [usually called 'The Gay Science' or 'The Joyful Wisdom' in its English translations]. Go to sections 354/355, for example, for more on this idea, and see also Arthur Danto's book, 'Nietzsche as a Philosopher' for related arguments etc.,
    Why are there beings at all, & why not rather nothing?
    [Leibniz/Heidegger]

  9. #9
    Senior Member Moody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Last Online
    Tuesday, July 10th, 2012 @ 09:18 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    Albion
    Subrace
    Paleo-Atlantid
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    State
    Essex Essex
    Location
    England
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Investigator of Souls
    Politics
    Pan-Germanic Nationalist
    Religion
    Runosophy
    Posts
    1,904
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    9
    Thanked in
    9 Posts

    Post On Solipsism etc.,

    Aloysha; "If there is nothing other than subjectivity, the communication with other subjectivities is a moot point - all of the other people you are aware of are figments of your imagination".

    Moody; No, Idealism in this sense is the view that only minds (note the plural) and mental representations exist, and that there is no independently existing external world-view.

    What you are referring to above is actually 'solipsism', i.e., the view that nothing exists except one's own self and the contents of its consciousness.

    The solipsist cannot, as you have, speak of "other people", and also ground his position in someone called "Descartes" [who lived and died over three centuries ago]; and he cannot discuss these ideas with other "subjectivities" ... if he does, then it must follow that the so-called solipsist ADMITS the existence of a MULTIPLE subjectivities!
    If not, why does he talk like that?

    No, that is an idealist position, and the idealist is saying that there is ONLY subjectivities; and that it is only the objective world that is an unreal product of these various projected subjectivities.

    Once this is admitted, it is easy to see how the private language argument kicks in, and how the fog of absolute idealism is swept away.
    THIS is the logical and rational argument out of solipsism, not your 'animal faith'.
    Why are there beings at all, & why not rather nothing?
    [Leibniz/Heidegger]

  10. #10
    Senior Member Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Last Online
    Friday, March 25th, 2016 @ 07:28 AM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-Celt Australian
    Subrace
    Keltic Nordic
    Country
    Australia Australia
    State
    Victoria Victoria
    Location
    Terra Australis
    Gender
    Age
    32
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Guerilla Philosopher
    Politics
    Aristotelian Nationalist
    Religion
    Roman Catholic
    Posts
    1,811
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts

    Post

    Quote Originally Posted by Moody Lawless
    Solipsism precludes the use of language, for example, which is an activity goverened by agreed upon rules.

    Therefore language [very important to any Nationalist cause anyway] shows how solipsism, egoism, anomie, nihilism, anarchism etc., are doomed as philosophical positions [e.g., you have to use the rules of language to tell me you are against rules].

    Language can therefore be a paradigm for this inter-connected out-look [Nietzsche, being a philologist was well placed to discover this insight]; it connects with concepts such as psychological archetypes, race-souls, cultures [memes?],various group-particular instincts and, yes, biological types also.
    I'm still reading Carl Jung, and I've yet to be convinced of psychological archetypes, but I'll leave that be. Group instincts, the actions resulting from them, their filtration and refinement into art, music, literature, politics, religion - that is what I term the 'race-soul', but perhaps from my perspective I should call it the 'social mind', the structure of the social volition, social conscious and social unconscious (I believe it lessens in density the wider you view it - say, it will be strong in a 2000 man riot, it'll be intensely unified, in a nation, somewhat less unified, and an entire race-continent/Culture (e.g. Europe) it will be less unified than that - but all the more stronger because of the sheer numbers and quality in it). All, race soul/social mind, cultures, group instincts are rooted in biology.

    Moody; On the contrary; Descartes says that his own THINKING ['cogito'] is the only thing that he CANNOT DOUBT.
    Descartes proposed 'de omnibus dubitandum', i.e., to 'doubt everything'.
    Therefore, while he doubts everything "outside his subjectivity", he cannot doubt his thinking; he infers from this [somewhat glibly] that he 'is': - 'cogito' [I think], 'ergo sum' [therefore I exist as a thinking thing].
    I understand this. I suspect that you do not understand what I've been trying to say. The very fact that he is even aware of himself, that he has something to think about, is dependent on the fact that he has something against which to contrast himself and so become conscious of his own existence/mind.

    Moody; This may be your own view, but it is not derivable from Descartes and is therefore an invalid inference. Your argument doesn't follow because you have misunderstood the 'cogito' which is an attempt to evade scepticism.
    Not at all. In his life, Descartes had his mind, his sense perceptions. His mind organises and interprets his sense data. Descartes has become conscious of his mind because there is something to become conscious in relation to - there is something to define it against, a difference that seperates one thing from another. Descartes may 'doubt everything' but the reason he is conscious of his own existence, his first certainty, is that there is something against which to contrast, though he may have all the suspicions he wants , that's what his consciousness depends on.

    Moody; This may be your own view, but it is not derivable from Descartes and is therefore an invalid inference. Your argument doesn't follow because you have misunderstood the 'cogito' which is an attempt to evade scepticism.
    I don't think I have misunderstood Descartes.

    Because of this fundamental flaw, your argument is doomed as it leaps from one invalidity to another.
    Perhaps you could start by explaining how I've 'misunderstood' Descartes.
    All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream at night, in the dusky recesses of their minds, wake in the day to find that it was vanity. But the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams, with open eyes, to make it possible.

Page 1 of 6 12345 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Racial Nihilism
    By Caledonian in forum Political Theory
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: Sunday, May 14th, 2017, 04:32 AM
  2. Nihilism - The Continuity of Life
    By Egil in forum Modern
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: Wednesday, November 14th, 2007, 12:27 PM
  3. Nihilism - What is the Solution?
    By Jack in forum Metaphysics
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: Monday, December 11th, 2006, 12:59 PM
  4. Some Thoughts on Rationalism
    By daemu in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Wednesday, March 22nd, 2006, 07:00 PM
  5. Radical Traditionalism and Nihilism
    By Siegfried in forum Political Theory
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: Monday, October 17th, 2005, 03:54 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •