The split between right and left is fundamental, inextricable, irreconcilable, and permanent. We don’t recognize it because we falsely attribute it to being associated with left and right, when really it deals with how you see the world.
If you see yourself as a being in the presence of higher orders, including physical reality, logic and/or any metaphysical reality that may exist, you tend to think forward from your actions to their conclusions. You do this because their outcome is mediated by the higher orders around you.
If on the other hand you think you are the highest order that exists, and that nature and/or gods are purposeless or random, you are going to think backward from your actions because your actions don’t exist to fulfill a goal, but to perpetuate an ideology. This is because in order to make yourself an order, you need to invent moral reasoning that keeps other humans from murdering you and/or seizing whatever you have.
You can see this split in traditional morality versus modern morality. Traditional morality is about fitting into a natural or divine order; modern morality is about the absolute property rights, including “freedom” and “liberty,” of the individual. It’s a defensive morality, to keep others from interfering so you can do what you want regardless of consequences.
In order to support this defensive morality, they invent the Ideology: a set of rules for what should be according to unproven ideas based on human ideas of what they’d prefer the world to be like. Ideology replaces reality. Let’s review that again:
- Forward thinking: plan ahead from action to consequences, and choose your action based on historical action->consequences (cause->effect) pairings.
- Backward thinking: plan from action to Ideology, meaning that you do only things you can get away with and justify under the ideology, assuming that you can select the conclusion you want based on that want alone, independent of history.
This is why the right/left split exists. Or more accurately: why the right/anything-else split exists. The right is forward thinking, and everyone else has through the magic of Ideology explained away the need for reality itself. You don’t need a logical world, but you need a social consensus and the morality and ideology that goes with it.
Of course, there’s a price. Ideology requires a state because ideology is so massively divisive. Without some kind of central command, no one would do anything to work together with others, and society would fade out like those communes long ago where pot-smokers outnumbered gardeners and toilet-cleaners. Imagine that.
Could there be a society outside of a State?
It’s unclear if the separation needs to be absolute. One thing is clear: cultural enforcement of values, which occurs before people act because it makes them think in a forward manner, is much preferable to the Ideology method, which brings in the law after the mistake has been made for symbolic punishment.
If you live in a society where drunk driving is viewed as worse than bad, people aren’t going to do it. But the instant the State comes in, people are reacting to the rules, not the public opinion. And the public tends to defer enforcement to the cops and courts, and forget about the most important part, which is being intolerant and hateful toward those who engage in taboo behavior.
We’re told that cultural enforcement is bigotry and intolerance, but this is an absurd criticism that assumes that all behavior must be acceptable. Back in realityland, every society is bigoted and intolerant toward something, whether it be murder, child molestation or horse theft.
The further we go down the path of ideology, the farther apart we grow from nature. We are reacting not to reality, and we are not learning how to predict it out of the many factors one must think about, but instead we are reacting to Ideology and its rules, and doing what it demands. If that clashes with reality as it is, that’s too bad.
It’s no surprise that liberalism eats away countries like a cancer. First it kills off culture, and replaces it with police. Then it uses economics to keep everyone in line. And so on, each time growing farther from a clear vision of what reality — the assembled laws of physics, biology, nature, logic, etc. — actually is.
Over time these civilizations fade away. But first, everyone in them becomes miserable because while Ideology is clear, life is a mystery. Stumbling in the dark, they cry out for purpose, and their cries go unheard under the boom of loudspeakers, televisions, iPods and cannons.
43 queries. 0.829 seconds
Religious people are normally the furthest from Nature, although it does depend on the religion. The three Abrahamic religions basically view Nature as the realm of Satan and in opposition to the order that God favours.
They have moral codes in the Bibles, mostly plagiarised (by “Moses”) from the moral code of the ancient Egyptians as set out in the Egyptian “Book of the Dead” and cherry picked into 10 rather lame and debatable (if they would engage in debate) Commandments.
“This is because in order to make yourself an order, you need to invent moral reasoning that keeps other humans from murdering you and/or seizing whatever you have.” This is an interesting notion. Firstly we find that the religious people are in fact statistically more likely than those who do not believe in the supernatural to commit these crimes and the many others that their religion ironically forbids. Of course though, that falls in with their belief in being sinners anyway.
So therefore this god-given moral code does not help to protect anyone. In the case of what Jesus says, the morality comes from allowing the enemy to murder and seize at will and leaving the punishing and rewarding to God. Very few Christians would dream of following such instruction and most find they cannot even bear to absorb those words in the first place.
If the ten commandments were also found in the Egyptian “Book of the Dead” I would think this is evidence for their goodness, not the reverse. This would be because other ancient traditions found these things worthy and important to record. A religious person could even argue that God had of course given all peoples his truth. The longevity of Egyptian Civilization could even attest to their following of God’s truth, collapse occurring after they somehow strayed.
Your other accusation that Christians “basically view Nature as the realm of Satan” is an oversimplification and misrepresentation. Of course many people misunderstand the word of God, even those who claim for themselves the title “Christian,” but that does not somehow make truth less true or goodness less good.
Christians (should) try to focus on the eternal over temporal and worldly affairs. God is eternal and the source of all, including this world. This world contains within it evil and suffering, but this is not a denial of the world as per Buddhism. The world was created by God and also contains within it His beauty, truth and goodness. Man being the most intelligent and capable of His creations was given what no other creature is capable: to act out both good and evil in this world. We can needlessly destroy it, or we can cherish the gift and nurture it to provide the necessities of life.
Comment of the month (:>
If this is the case, I think we should fix religion right away to make it not separate from nature. If God is omnipotent, in my view, nature is his work and there will be no incompatibility between accurate science, philosophy, logic, etc. and worship of God. In fact, I think that idea would be pleasing to any deity.
““This is because in order to make yourself an order, you need to invent moral reasoning that keeps other humans from murdering you and/or seizing whatever you have.” This is an interesting notion. Firstly we find that the religious people are in fact statistically more likely than those who do not believe in the supernatural to commit these crimes and the many others that their religion ironically forbids. Of course though, that falls in with their belief in being sinners anyway.”
I’d have to see a source for that statistic, even as I can see the logic that people who believe in sin may act out the role of sinner, if I understand you correctly. I’ve seen people style themselves as outlaws and sinners once they remove themselves from their religious in-group. I don’t see how that would make someone who didn’t believe in sin LESS likely to commit crimes. Is it like they didn’t have that imprint, so they didn’t have that syndrome going on? Again, let’s see where that’s been demonstrated.
Are moral codes supposed to protect people?
My basic question when I think about a philosophy is, according to this philosophy, why should anyone do anything for anyone else? A moral philosophy provides that reasoning. I’ve studied the Bible a lot and made a big study of the Jefferson Bible, Jesus’ moral philosophy, and I think he’s not trying to protect people. He says “blessed are the poor and the downtrodden because they are close to the Kingdom of Heaven.” and he says it’s more important to forgive your brother than to make a big offering at the temple. But that’s for your soul, isn’t it? It’s up to each individual, always, no matter what situation or belief, to be peaceful or not.
And there’s the question of the meaning of life that goes along with morality.
Moral codes, material possesions, states, governments, art, commerce, all these things eventually become impediments. As you so rightly enunciated:”It’s no surprise that liberalism eats away countries like a cancer. First it kills off culture, and replaces it with police. Then it uses economics to keep everyone in line. And so on, each time growing farther from a clear vision of what reality — the assembled laws of physics, biology, nature, logic, etc. — actually is.”
Yes, we are in the terminal stage, most fitting that “Les Miserables” should be a box office success.