That's rather extreme don't you think? It's the equivalent of me saying leftists are all communist. And I'm sorry, but I haven't watched the debate, so I wouldn't know, thus I'll take your word for it.

You care about using the campus to intimidate people you don't like -- apparently minorities, et. al. — Landru Guide Us

A strange statement to make when I personally agree with most of the current liberal values (while of course disagreeing with their universality)... I don't know which minorities you were referring to.

Yep and the issue is whether particularly odious speaker should be allowed to be invited onto a campus, which give some credence to their views, and which promotes their obvious intended purpose of intimidating miniorities. — Landru Guide Us

So those speakers were odious? Peter Hitchens is the equivalent of a jihadist?

On the basis that your premise is false from the start. Nobody is being banned from speaking. The issue is who is invited to speak. If conservative weirdos want to spout their homophobia on street corners, they have a perfect right. Nobody has a right to speak on a campus at an event unless invited.

See the difference yet? — Landru Guide Us

Ok but these people were invited, otherwise they wouldn't just show up because they felt like it. And since Universities are educational environments, it makes sense to allow students to be exposed to a diversity of views, both conservative and progressive. It's not like conservatives are the equivalent of radical jihadists...

So you're for allowing people to appear on campuses and recruit jihadists to kill Christians right? Because you're for free speech, right? — Landru Guide Us

So were these conservative speakers going to discuss the toppling of England's government, or how to undermine England's national security? Really? How can you compare the two? On what basis?

Yep, people have a right to call for a ban from people using the university system to promote their hatred and plans for discrimination. — Landru Guide Us

So in the name of freedom of speech, they have a right to ban freedom of speech of individuals who promote different values than they believe in? You for real?

Look friend, some conservatives may, but I haven't here. You're talking with me now, not with all conservatives on the Earth...

I think your discourse here is just putting these forums to shame. Everyone else is attempting to offer productive arguments, while all you do is make statements containing blatant generalisations. Just look around for a moment will you? Do you see anyone else behaving this way? No. Because I'm not here to spew propaganda, but rather to discuss an issue rationally. If you give rational arguments, I can respond - but there's no response I can give to blatant "You're lying" type of statements. If you believe I am lying, fair enough, but at least let us show it instead of merely state it.

Of course the history of campuses being used by the right (and the current attempt of corporations to stifle real free speech on campuses) is something you want to distract from by claiming a handful of freedom loving students are the real problem — Landru Guide Us

Look mate... they can love freedom all they want to. But to insult people for not believing like them, to want to BAN others from speaking out their ideas... is that tolerant to you?

So the ridiculous idea -- the meme being propagated by most of the rightwing noise machine right now -- is that students who protest unfair selection of speakers who attacks minorities, the poor, women as part of their rightwing agenda -- are "dangerous" to free speech by expressing their right to free speech by protesting. — Landru Guide Us

No, if it was just protesting. But they want to BAN such speakers. Also they insult them. It;s not just that they disagree with them, and proceed to put some arguments forward.

As if the above was anything but a blatant counterfactual ... We can go on pointing fingers like this all day long, but it's not gonna solve anything...

What could I disagree with there?

Maybe so, I see nothing much to disagree with there, ALTHOUGH, your case isn't philosophically air-tight. I could, if I wanted to, disagree and say that "the right to pursue interests so long as those interests are in agreement with state interests" ; it would apply to both Western states (where state interest is freedom for the individual to choose his pursuits), and Islamic states like Iran, where the state interest is the creation of a flourishing Islamic culture.

No idea is above scrutiny and no person beneath dignity. — Thorongil

Agreed.

You are someone who is free to choose either to condemn or not to condemn an "Islamic" way of life. Therefore, you implicitly reject, by exercising your right to speak freely, those particular Islamic ways of life that would prohibit you from doing so. — Thorongil

It doesn't follow that because I personally disagree with them, others must also disagree.

Socrates advocated: "I am not an Athenian or a Greek, but a citizen of the world." — Thorongil

But let us remember that Socrates deemed it morally despicable if he were to run away from the court which had unfairly sentenced him to death. He argued that since he had accepted those laws from the very beginning, and had been greatly helped by being a citizen, and he never departed to a different region of the world, he had an obligation to follow the law even when he disagreed with it :) Instead, we have people in this thread who argue that homosexuals in Iran SHOULDN'T respect the law of their countries...

Tell, me, Augustino, do you tolerate these things? — Thorongil

No, hence I do everything in my power so that they don't happen on my lands and in my country.

How can you, based on your criteria for "true" tolerance, which these examples all meet? — Thorongil

I have yet to see a society founded upon the morally reprehensible survive and thrive. Those things can and do happen - but they are generally brought to an end by the community in which they happen sooner or later. I believe that communities, having the freedom to govern themselves, necessarily make mistakes and learn from them, just like we have made mistakes and learned from them.

True, but some of them are so barbaric that they need to be eradicated. Hiding behind contrived shibboleths is just an excuse for moral cowardice. — Thorongil

I don't disagree. Keep in mind that I am all for bombing Syria, and annihilating ISIS. Why? Because ISIS poses a threat to the sovereignty and national security of other countries, and therefore other countries have to react by destroying them.

This allows a criticism of other nations for the lack of human rights protection on the basis that the nation's policies are inconsistent with the nation's own self-interest (if you can properly identify the nation's self-interest, which is minimally assumed to be sustainability). — Soylent

This is problematic. A nation's self-interest may not be sustainability at all costs - in other words, a nation may have certain desires regarding the form it wants to exist in which are more important than mere survival. For example, I can imagine an Islamic state having as prime goal the flourishing of an Islamic culture - this can mean a culture which upholds Islamic values and a measure they may want to implement is laws against homosexuality for example. So I suggest instead of disallowing them to do this, which can never be justified because no values are universal - other nations choose to help them in the following way: "We'll take your homosexuals and make them our citizens, and instead we want X reduction in tariffs on Y good". In this way, trade is helped, and both nations fulfill their values, instead of one nation imposing its values on the other.

Not what rights you want, what rights would you need, minimally, to pursue your interests, even the most basic interests of food, shelter and security. People will have different wants as a product of the culture or society to which they belong, but the rights they need are not so (at all) culture dependent. — Soylent

This doesn't follow because of the same reasons. If I'm born in ancient Sparta I need different rights to flourish than I do if I am born in modern day Norway. While in modern Norway I may thrive by being given rights such as "free speech", "equal treatment in work", etc., in ancient Sparta I would thrive if I'm given rights such as "free access to military training". If I'm born in the Arab Emirates, I don't need to even pursue my interests such as "food, shelter and security" because the state already guarantees them to me, hence I need different rights in order to flourish there. My interests and the rights that I need to fulfil them change depending on where I am born.

Is it really "universal"?
Yes, by definition. The Declaration applies to the entire planet. (It's not called "the South American" or SE Asian Declaration of Human Rights.) — Bitter Crank

I can write a declaration which says the opposite. What value does this hold? The UN is in no position to guarantee those rights, and therefore cannot claim that they exist.

If everyone doesn't agree with it, how can it be "universal"?
Because it is aspirational rather than contemporaneously descriptive. — Bitter Crank

What's the point of aspiring to something that we know cannot be achieved? To talk about "universal" human rights means to have a body capable of guaranteeing those rights universally. As that is impossible (or if possible, undesirable - because it entails a power structure capable to dominate all of mankind), we cannot talk about them being universal in any real sense of the word.

Isn't this Universal Declaration of Human Rights just another form of western imperialism being forced down the throats of third world dictatorships?
Some dictatorial, authoritarian, plutocratic, human-rights-abusing regimes have complained about that very thing, as a matter of fact. And they are right. If the United Nations could, they would and should deep throat any number of cannibal regimes with the big dick of Universal Human Rights. As it is, the UN can't pull off such an act of universal beneficence because it is pretty much hog-tied by the major and minor powers who could conceivably be found to fall short of universal human rights themselves. So... bad actors can rest, assured of their impunity for the short run, at least. — Bitter Crank

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is toilet paper so long as the UN cannot guarantee them. If the UN can guarantee them, then they risk becoming a global dictatorship. Either way - doesn't look favorable to me.

What could motivate you to look for human rights? How about self-interest? If you have an interest in yourself, and who doesn't, what right(s) would you need to optimize your ability to get as much of the things that you want? That's the start of human rights. — Soylent

I wouldn't call them human rights, I'd call them the rights that a particular state grants its citizens. Again, the justification for calling those rights "human" assumes that there exists a power structure capable of guaranteeing those rights to all humans. As no such structure exists, or can indeed exist (our differences are too many; + it's too dangerous since it would be too powerful), we are left solely with rights granted to us by our nation. And yes, each nation should choose to grant the rights to its citizens which fits the requirements of the time best. As for what rights I want - that is a question that presupposes that I am a member of a certain society. However, being a member of a certain society always-already implies that I have some rights granted. Hence, what rights I want whenever I make a judgement on this is necessarily and inescapably dependent on the rights I have already been granted by my society, as well as by the person my society has made me become. Do not forget - people are to a large degree the products of their societies. The self is the product of the community.

Nature doesn't say we live in societies and communities where we respect property rights, We decided in our own self-interest, and to escape the Hobbesian State of Nature, to submit to a magistrate. Inequality in a society is arbitrary, irrational, paranoid and destructive (i.e., unsustainable). — Soylent

Indeed, and I encourage that. I just don't like this idea of a "global community". It makes no sense to me. A world formed of a multitude of DIFFERENT countries, with different customs and ways of life makes more sense to me.

Rights are such that membership to a group permits protection against harm by appeal to a right, so long as there is a mechanism to uphold the right. If the group is humanity, then rights protect all members of that group (i.e., human rights). If you want to exclude a person or a demographic from protection by appeal to a human right, it is you that needs the argument as to why some humans are to be excluded. Human rights as equal rights have a pretty solid argument from John Rawls in A Theory of Justice, which argues for equal rights as a rational principle. Do you care to take a stab at refuting Rawls? — Soylent

There is no such group as "humanity". If there is, please explain to me its power structures. There is no government governing "humanity", and there is no such thing as "humanity" to be governed in the first place. You're talking as if we all shared the same culture, the same language, the same power structure. We don't. All that exists is different groups of people, under different power structures interacting with each other. The ideal of "humanity" or of a culturally globalised world is just that... an ideal, and not a reality.

So, before I go into the question of refuting Rawls, it is you who must prove that there is a group called humanity. I argue that there is no such group, since it lacks all the features that other groups (such as countries, or families) have: namely power structures, uniform laws, uniform language(s), shared beliefs, shared values, shared practices, shared holidays, shared calendars. And I argue further, namely that our differences are too many for us to ever be one "humanity". Humanity can be talked about by those who are lazy enough to see only superficial similarities, and not the nitty-gritty differences that exist, and can never be eradicated. Where others see identity, I look deeper and see difference. Not only do I see difference, I see value in that difference, and a destruction of that value through the attempt to establish an identity (or equality - same thing).

Yes, I would say you're morally wrong because inequality can only be sustained by the irrational, paranoid and destructive principle that one deserves more because of the arbitrary circumstance of one's birth. — Soylent

It's not a question of deserving or not deserving. It's realising that whether one has more by birth or has less by birth is due to what his community decides to give him/her. And what his community has, is largely dependent on the availability of resources in that region (Nature). The one who has more neither deserves this, nor doesn't deserve this. It is you who is attempting to enforce a morality upon a factual matter of nature. So inequality is sustained by Nature herself, and has nothing to do with man.

The main problem I have with it is that it is upside down. The primary needs are psychological; given sanity, peace of mind, and and awareness, matters social and physiological are either trivially solvable, or trivially unsolvable. — unenlightened

Spot on! Maslow's "therapy" attempts to walk man on a ladder, from obtaining the "lower" needs to obtaining the "higher" needs, which he sees as progressing naturally from the lower ones. However - Maslow fails to realise that obtaining the lower needs presupposes higher needs which are already fulfilled. For example, it's very hard to obtain "love/belonging" if one suffers from anxiety and cannot exit the house. But on the other hand - if one had the higher needs fulfilled - then by default, even if circumstances were such that one couldn't obtain love/belonging, one wouldn't despair.

Yes it can. Change comes from inside, when an overwhelming number of people agree on a certain change of rules/laws/customs. This has been explained a million times, not only to you, but in much more detail to other posters in this thread (in response to Marchesky if I remember correctly).

You think shoulds are universal and objective, such as your "there shouldn't be consequences to breaking the law". You fail to see that your "shoulds" are culturally mediated, and CANNOT be objective nor universal. To my mind for example, the fact that you think there shouldn't be consequences to breaking the law is an abomination. Does that mean my opinion is universal? Of course not. Neither do I mean to claim it is, it is just my opinion. All "shoulds" are culturally mediated.

In fact, the whole POINT of the law is that even if you don't agree with it, you will respect it. That's why there are punishments to failing to obey the law, in order to pragmatically force you to obey it. So the point of the law is never that 100% of people agree with it. A law remains a law if the power structures in the respective community (which, if the community is a democracy, are the 51% majority) agree to.

Did I say there aren't? I say there shouldn't be. — Πετροκότσυφας

Why shouldn't there be? That's a cultural-specific assertion.

Obviously, historically, people of various cultures, the "west" included, haven't bought this kind of crap. — Πετροκότσυφας

And other cultures do accept it and function accordingly... I don't see your point. My whole point is that what counts as "hegemonic discourse" is cultural specific. One culture, for example most of the West right now, treats it as hegemonic discourse. Other cultures, such as the West in Cato's time for example, didn't.

How is it not sequential when it is a hierarchy? It isn't Maslow's List of Needs, but rather Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.

Again, I haven't claimed that the law should never be broken. — Πετροκότσυφας

It's not a question of should or shouldn't. There just are consequences to breaking it, full stop.

Crap. — Πετροκότσυφας

Well - as I look across cultures I don't see that contesting hegemonic discourses is an accepted cultural practice in many parts of the world, and in order to retain my objectivity, I cannot claim that it should be just because in the West it is accepted...

Yes challenging them is one thing, meaning one campaigns for changing the law regarding homosexuality. Notice one can still campaign without participating in homosexual behaviour. This way, no law is broken. But participating in homosexual behavior on the other hand is a breach of the law and has to be punished accordingly by the state, until the law is changed.

As for "hegemonic" discourses, they may be contested, but that is a viable practice only in certain cultures (such as the Western culture).

Oppression occurs between individuals and groups within the same culture too. It even occurs inside the groups. It furthermore occurs between individuals. And neither do I believe that present cultures are alien to one another. — Πετροκότσυφας

Yes, but what is considered to be oppression depends on one's culture, the country one lives in, and the laws there.

I do not know. I never claimed that law should always be respected. You are the one that should answer your questions here, since earlier you claimed that if people want to fight for their rights they can do it, even by guns. — Πετροκότσυφας

Yes of course they can do it. But there are consequences if they fail, and they need to be aware of those consequences and accept them. A revolution by default is outside of the law. So if you do decide to break the law, and you get caught for it, or fail to execute your revolution, then it's your fault and it is only just that you face the consequences. A homosexual in Iran knows what will happen if they get caught being a homosexual. If they don't want those things to happen to them, why take a chance and perform homosexual behavior in Iran?

Cato's words spring from the same source as the words of those who claim that ending the oppression of certain groups (non-heteros, women etc) oppresses them. That is to say, it springs from (fear of losing) privilege. Fear of being unable to oppress. — Πετροκότσυφας

Okay, but you know that oppression is itself cultural. What is oppressive in one culture is merely being just in another. That is the problem. We can't say that one action is oppressive without referencing the culture where it occurs.

If you want to be concrete, yes, I have a problem with Iran hanging homosexuals as long as Iranian homosexuals do not like it. — Πετροκότσυφας

Wait a minute... but what if homosexuality is illegal in Iran, and yet homosexuals still choose to practice it there? If they do this, aren't they breaking the law, and therefore deserve the punishment mandated by law? Afterall, one ought to follow the law even if one doesn't agree with it. Why don't they instead work, build up sufficient money, move to a different country, and then start practicing homosexuality there for example?

What do Cato's words have anything to do with what's being discussed here?

Second, do you think there's anything wrong with asymmetrically polygamous cultures (like Islam) where men are allowed to have multiple wives, while women are allowed only a single husband? Further, do you think there's anything wrong with any culture just because it chooses a different social arrangement, and different gender roles for example?

I honestly don't know what the hell you're talking about. It's more rightwing memes. You seem to have a problem with the Constitution and the values of due process and fairness that underly it. Can't help it if you have ugly self-serving values. Get used to the fact that people you want to oppress aren't going to allow you do so without a fight. — Landru Guide Us

I don't know where I have said I have a problem with the Constitution of any country... Perhaps you'd be so kind to say where I've talked about the Constitution.

Oh God, I love the reverso-meme. You've just spent I don't know how many posts making bizarre coutnerfactual claims with loaded language against "leftist", and now you alleged I'm labeling you.

Perfect projection.

You even threw in the Alinsky meme - classic rightwing memery.

And still no factual content after all these posts. It's all conservatives can do.

And no, I won't "argue" with your bizarre counterfactual memes. They have no factual content. Rather I will identify them as ugly little narrative - the rightwing meme. It is how the rightwing mind functions. — Landru Guide Us

"Hurr hurr I have no argument, instead I'll point my finger" Really? That's low, I expected more from you. I'm disappointed.

No, you didn't. You related bizarre rightwing memes with no factual content, and pretended that you were "in danger" from the left That's the poor put upon conservative meme. It has no content. I asked you for an example, and you can't give it. Instead you ranted that students who protest rightwing agendas are a threat to you.

In contrast, the right has armed militias, a vast network of media outlets, a pernicious ideology that calls on killing people, billionaire supporters and minions like Planned Parenthood shooter.

So your posts are typical rightwing reverso-memes - projecting on normal people the reality of the Right's violence and dangerous activities.

It's what conservative do. — Landru Guide Us

You've probably repeated in different forms "it's what conservatives can do". If you have any proper, real content, except finger pointing and acting like a baby who just saw his teddy bear go out the window, then please put it up so that we may indeed discuss it like real men and women.

As for not giving examples, I've given quite a few. If you opened that article about hard-line leftist students, you would see that, since Student Unions can and do decide who comes up on a university campus, they have banned or stopped certain speakers -

Students recently campaigned to ban feminist Germaine Greer from speaking at Cardiff University because her views were considered offensive to transgender people.
On Thursday, Oxford students tried to ‘shut down’ a debate involving Miss Greer because of her view that a post-operative transgender female could not be a woman.

Cambridge University took down an internet video of historian David Starkey, who is known for his robustly un-PC views, after student union officials and lecturers accused him of racism

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3338867/Universities-dominated-Left-wing-hate-mobs-Professor-says-free-speech-stifled-challenging-views-shouted-down.html#ixzz3v2YXo5Gs

Now stopping people from speaking is intolerant. Shutting people down from speaking is intolerant. Insulting people for the views they hold is intolerant. At least in the West it is.

Depends what meaning we attach to "WORLD-PAIN". I choose to be charitable :)

I don't have time to look out examples for you. They're not hard to find. The branding, by sections of the Left, of many critics of Islamism (including Muslims and ex-Muslims) as "Islamophobic" (e.g., in Left-leaning student unions, one of which refused to condemn ISIS because they thought such a condemnation would be Islamophobic), the association of Islamists and the far Left in the UK (e.g., the Respect Party and the Stop the War coalition), and the toleration of Hamas with its reactionary politics among the supporters of the Palestinian movement, are well-known examples. The trajectory of Left-wing politics has been towards identity politics for the past several decades. In identity politics, what is important is the group, or as you say, the "community", and if a person's values and ambitions do not coincide with what are thought to be the collective values and ambitions of their group (race, sex, whatever), then they're stuffed. — jamalrob

Yes but I wouldn't agree with these views, hence why I haven't identified as Left. I don't agree, for example, that we must not go to war to destroy ISIS. I was always pro bombing Syria and pro totally destroying these Islamic terrorists. I am pro attacking and destroying organisations and even civilisations if they pose a serious threat to our national security. However, I am against interfering with the region apart from actions which are a response towards threats and/or attacks originating from there. I think civilisations and cultures should maintain their cultural integrity, all the while trading and interacting economically with each other - this would hopefully minimise the need of armed conflict between them over the long term.

Equally though, neither do I accept the right of religious conservatives, tribal sheikhs, absolute monarchies, and corrupt authoritarians, to impose their interpretation of Islam on millions of people. Why should they represent the true voice of the community, just because they managed to grab the power and have managed to hang on to it, often brutally? You talk as if you think the regimes of the Middle East were established by peaceful consensus by accepted people's representatives, but this is very far from the truth. — jamalrob

Even if established otherwise - it's up to the people themselves to fight for changes from inside if they want them. They may agree with an authoritarian regime, which wasn't established with their explicit consent. Why would you assume they don't?

What I advocate is to make ideas available, for whoever can make use of them, rather than imposing anything. — jamalrob

Yes, I don't disagree with this. But ideas are often the result of misinformation, which is potentially more dangerous than lack of information, for the masses of people. For the intellectual elite, of course it's a different story - because they have the skills necessary to understand how ideas relate to one another, and what gives rise to particular ideas (the conditions for their possibility). However, when your average lad from the West in a secular society reads a title like "Study shows unmarried women who have frequent sex are happier than unmarried women who don't", what will he think of his Christian, abstinent lady friend? He'll be like "Hurr hurr... she's losing her life, how stupid she is, I knew all along!" - all the while failing to understand that the criteria for happiness in a secular community is different than the criteria of happiness in a religious community; so while a study done in a secular community may reveal such findings, it doesn't mean that they translate and can be applicable to religious communities who have a different criteria of happiness. So. How is our average man, when exposed to such news, be able to come to a reasonable, and tolerant view of different values? How can we build communities which tolerate different ways of life instead of being antagonistic to one another? (I don't see a way of achieving this apart from assigning an intellectual elite with the job of policing information - we can't expect your average man to have an IQ > 130 - and even this solution is highly problematic) So much of conflicts around the world have a cultural foundation today - because we don't respect each other's values well, and try to think that we are correct in an absolute sense, and others are wrong in the same absolute sense. That's why countries like Portugal have internal conflicts between Catholics, and secularists, especially amongst the young people.

You accuse me of presuming, and this is true to a degree: I presume that what human beings share is more important than any supposed racial, ethnic, or cultural differences, which is why I treat the values I believe in necessarily as universal. — jamalrob

Well what all human beings share is the desire to be free to be who they want to be, and not be oppressed for it (again, even this isn't certain, but I personally believe it). So this necessitates that we allow others to hold different values than we do, without ostracising them for it. This includes the religious-minded, the dogmatists, the authoritarians, etc. with the exception of when they attempt to impose things on us, when of course we have the right to react and stop them. However, this is not a philosophically air-tight argument -> which is why I prefer my version: for pragmatic reasons, to avoid conflict, we must not interfere with others' culture, and they must not interfere with ours. "My land, my rules, your land, your rules". This is better since it doesn't justify it morally, something that I think would be impossible, however it does accept submission to the rules of others on their lands.

I've read Human, All Too Human, but translated by Marion Faber. It's been awhile since though - do you have any specific part that you are referring to?

more-than-human — StreetlightX

What is this "more-than-human"?

Sure it does, but one mustn't confuse philosophy's being able to be used as a crutch for philosophy being nothing other than a crutch. This sort of instrumentalization of philosophy as a tool for the consolidation of egos denies the autonomy of philosophy as that which subjects us to it's own imperatives, travels according to it's own history, and co-opts thought by disorientating it with respect to it's comfortable zones habitation. If philosophy ends up helping you with your 'suffering', then so be it. But philosophy is no more one's teddy bear for all that. Philosophy doesn't serve anyone, not least the "miserable". — StreetlightX

But I don't think it's used as a crutch. A crutch suggests a cripple, and it suggests a temporary aid, not a fix to one's condition. If the crook was straightened, he would no longer be in need of the crutch. I think one job of philosophy is to straighten the crook. You seem to think that helping angsty young men with their psychic turmoil through philosophy is providing them with a crutch.

Notice that this view that "philosophy doesn't serve anyone" is itself a philosophical position, one that I dare say can't be very well defended. Surely you have to agree that we can't say "agriculture doesn't serve anyone", or "tailoring doesn't serve anyone", or "science doesn't serve anyone". These domains all have a practical purpose. Even literature, history, and poetry have practical purposes: namely in allowing us to understand other human beings, society, our own emotions, etc. better. Goethe wrote The Sorrows of Young Werther based on his own emotional turmoil for example - it served a very practical purpose, which was sublimation. Had he not killed the protagonist, he may have very well killed himself. I don't see why we should excuse philosophy from serving anyone. Afterall, philosophy is created by human beings, and if we had found it useless, we certainly would have got rid of it. It's man who is the master and maker of philosophy, not the other way around - although I do sympathise and agree that philosophy also changes man, and through the process man does become a "slave" to philosophy/Reason.

I agree that one who does philosophy must submit themselves to the demands of Reason, and must be rigurous in his thought. Otherwise he'd be doing a perversion of philosophy. But these "rules of the game" do not indicate or suggest that philosophy is not useful to man.

You say you're turning right-wing, and then proceed to espouse a position that these days is very characteristic of the Left, namely identity politics and multiculturalism. The idea that Europeans should not condemn the barbaric and oppressive practices of certain regimes in Islamic countries, because this is an imperialist attack on all Muslims, is now the standard far Left position, sadly — jamalrob

It's interesting you say this. Can you provide some sources which identify with the Left and claim that cultures must respect themselves and allow each other to govern themselves as they see fit, instead of attempt to impose certain values one upon the other? Can you name a Left source which states that "equality for all" isn't a universal value and therefore it doesn't have to be shared by the whole world?

As if the most powerful and most conservative sections of the Islamic world are the legitimate representatives of Muslim people, those that we must respect in the name of diversity. As if we should respect laws that oppress women, as somehow embodying a sacrosanct culture, while those women have no say in changing these laws. "It's their fundamental right to decide", you say, but fail to note that most Muslims, least of all women, have no such right to decide. — jamalrob

Why should they have a right to decide in a democratic fashion? If their state hasn't granted them such a right, why should they have it? Remember that human beings start by having no more rights than a tiger has; whatever rights they get afterwards, they get because of their state. You presuppose those Leftist values of equality etc. etc. when you speak like you do above. But you forget that these communities may not share those values.

I said it's the fundamental right of their community to decide. If their community has decided by the way it has organised itself that they shall be ruled by an authoritarian regime who makes all decision for the masses, than that's how it should be. If the masses are no longer happy with it, they need to start and organise a revolution to change their society as they deem fit, as it has always happened through history. When people weren't happy, it wasn't that foreigners intervened to settle the matter. When Martin Luther King was fighting for black equality, it was from inside American culture, with no external intervention. If Muslim women truly want a say in how they should dress, etc. then why don't they organise themselves? Why must we go in there to tell them about equality, about having to choose how they want to live, etc.?

The truth is, that in many of those communities, women DO NOT WANT more freedom. I haven't lived in Islamic countries to know their culture well enough to be able to give you a concrete example, but, for example, my grandmother is Eastern European and she could never conceive of a woman being happy if she didn't have a husband who was the head of the family and the source of authority on which she relied. She couldn't conceive of herself as happy if she had to manage finances, pay the taxes, etc. And she was very happy focusing on being a teacher (her job), taking care of young kids and teaching them, and at home doing the housework, while her husband did everything that had to do with family representation in society. If you went to her and started talking about this "women should have a right to decide" blah blah, she would kick you out of the house. You presuppose everyone shares those values, but that is false. And she felt quite bad that in modern society women like her were looked down upon as being inferior. She never felt she was inferior. She actually felt moral superiority. I'm not saying that she really was morally superior, as I don't believe one culture is superior to another. However, I am merely telling you how she felt (and she felt that way because towards the end of her life, when she moved to a different country, she felt oppressed and looked down upon by others), and the fact that your view of the world neglects that there are people like this, while the right-wing view I have exposed takes into account for this and doesn't oppress those people, even when they are minorities, and doesn't encourage that they be disconsidered for holding different values.

The other sad part is that the Left has mobilised science in order to prove its values being the "most natural". But again, all experiments are flawed, as they are performed on people who already, a priori, share the values of the Left. This scientific basis of morality is also dangerous - it ignores the fact that morality is cultural. What is shameful in one culture, may be a source of pride in another - and there is no right answer that science can determine about which is better. It is all cultural specific.

'Hurr hurr you care about suffering? Read some zizek instead, that's really interesting!' Yeah, I guess if you're the kind of person who 'totally fell in love with Amsterdam' when you visited it. It all just makes me want to eat a bullet, more than usual. — The Great Whatever

Good point.

Frankly, there's few things that I feel are 'play' more than the abstraction of suffering that is purveyed by many who talk about it here. Maybe it's not 'hip', but if you want to talk about suffering, then fine, let's talk about poverty, let's talk about war, let's talk about cultural alienation, let's talk about disease, let's talk about systemic disenfranchisement, love lost, friends and family passing. — StreetlightX

Sure, these are also important matters to discuss, I don't think anyone has argued that they shouldn't be discussed. In fact, underlying the sense that has here been called "Weltschmertz" are often these problems.

The 'life's difficulties' you refer to seem to look suspiciously like the sort of 'life difficulties' espoused by angsty young men who, while perhaps really, honestly are struggling with psychic turmoil, aren't so much doing philosophy than inflecting their attempt to grapple with their issues through it's rhetoric. There's nothing wrong with that, but a spade is a spade is a spade. — StreetlightX

So, in your opinion philosophy holds no potential to help angsty young men overcome their psychic turmoil?

But I'm happy to affirm philosophy as a discipline, one that does require an investment in time, knowledge and understanding - like any other discipline, rather than something can be be sprouted off the top of one's head as if Athena from Zeus. For some reason, this annoys people, because apparently the humanities aren't allowed to have any specialized knowledge, and unlike sciences, is supposed to be graspable by anyone, anywhere, because arts are supposed to be easy and intuitive or some nonsense. It isn't, and too bad for anyone who thinks it is. — StreetlightX

Well I think of philosophy as a serious discipline, and I agree that it's not something that anyone can sprout off, as most common folk often believe. Serious philosophy requires rigour and submitting oneself to reason itself and its capacity to determine truth from falsity. However, I still disagree with you. I still believe that the problem of personal suffering is essential, and I remind you that many schools of philosophy (Epicureanism, Stoicism, Cyrenaicism, Skepticism, etc.) were aimed at solving precisely this problem, that you deem to be insignificant to philosophy. And yes, this type of philosophy aimed at resolving personal suffering does take effort and dedication - otherwise, we wouldn't see people complaining about Weltschmertz. The fact we do see it happen, suggests exactly the fact that excellence is as difficult as it is rare.

This is the poor persecuted conservative meme. All rightwing memes are counterfactual, but this one is a doozy. — Landru Guide Us

Classical, another instance of labeling :) Also another instance of attempting to get a reaction out of me. Curious that those tactics written of long ago by Saul Alinsky have become so well in-grained into left activists. So let me put things straight. What you wrote above is no argument, but an unsupported generalisation backed up by labeling aimed at marginalisation through ridicule and rhetoric.

Of course you can't even give an example of this alleged "intolerance." — Landru Guide Us

I did. It's in the post above :) .

as if college kids hold political power. — Landru Guide Us

In their communities, universities, yes they do (ever heard of sororities/fraternities in US, and societies and student unions in UK?). Power isn't achieved only by money or political office. It's also achieved by numbers, especially if the numbers are concentrated in one small community such as becomes the case in a University (also, student-led organisations have quite a lot of power in influencing what happens in their local community, the university). The fact that left-wingers disagree with right-wingers is not a problem in itself. What the problem is, is that they brush aside right-wingers with arrogance, and self-righteousness, without understanding that they could be wrong. They do not defeat right-wingers by argument... but rather by protests, by insulting, by labeling and by instigating - that is what is wrong.

A classic. Progressives work for political equal rights for various minorities, and rightwingers claim that fighting for equal rights is "intolerance." A perfect example of the pathological projection of the conservative mind. Freaky. — Landru Guide Us

Well it is intolerance when you assume, without prior demonstration, that "equal rights" is universally a value, and therefore you can impose it on other people. Who are you to fight to impose "equal rights" on me? Maybe I don't like this "equal rights". Am I morally wrong if I don't? If you say yes, then you need to mobilise an argument which explains both the origin of this value "equal rights" and its universality. Something that is sorely lacking at the moment.

Pretty silly thinking you could get away with this lumpen conservative underclass rhetoric here. — Landru Guide Us

Well I fail to see a counter argument Landru. As far as I see, yes I did "get away with it", as you say. I've argued that there are no objective moral values, and it is very hard for us to figure out which the correct values are for a certain situation. Therefore this mandates epistemic humility, instead of seeking to "fight for" equal rights, or any other particular value. It also mandates that while we ourselves hold values, we respect the right of different communities and cultures to hold different values than we do, instead of attempting to put "equal rights" down their throats, and then labeling them as intolerant and holding them morally culpable when they refuse.

The version of the Right that I supported above short-circuits the Left by a tripartite move: first, denying the existence of God (which the Left needs more than the Right), second denying that the values of the Left are universal and absolute (and denying that the Right must share them, which you and mcdoodle assume it does, or otherwise it should in order to remain moral), third affirming difference and toleration of different values as pragmatic rules aimed at preventing intra-cultural conflict given our inability to decide on universal and absolute values.

In my experience when people describe themselves as becoming more right-wing, they often have to posit some sort of imaginary leftist position that they feel they can measure their shift against. The use of 'etc.' seems like a lazy marker to me of this. — mcdoodle

Considering that in the quoted bit "etc" refers merely to some labels that some Leftists use to (mis)label the Right. How is that lazy or suggesting an imaginary leftist position?

I regard it as a fine achievement that in matters of race, gender and sexual preference, the UK is a more liberal and tolerant place than when I was young, and that this is often nowadays not a right/left issue: the British Conservatives introduced gay marriage, for instance. — mcdoodle

The Left, to a large degree, has succeeded in making it unacceptable in the cultural landscape of Europe to even consider, for example, the possibility that gay marriage should be illegal as an option. Someone who does this today, either from the Left or from the Right, will be thoroughly shouted at (discredited out of hand) by all the Leftist intellectual elite (which is in fact 90% of our intellectual elite) (look what's happening to Donald Trump). Hence the Right doesn't even have a choice there - they have to introduce gay marriage if they want to stay in power and avoid criticism - it becomes a pragmatic issue. But this is the result of the Left which has imposed its values over most of the West.

If you go look in the elite intellectual circles of European and American Universities (especially English speaking) you will find that a vast vast majority of students are hard-line Leftist. Dare to say that gay marriage should be illegal, they will not even talk to you. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3338867/Universities-dominated-Left-wing-hate-mobs-Professor-says-free-speech-stifled-challenging-views-shouted-down.html). You will be thrown out and looked down upon. The Left has so thoroughly dominated the intellectual circles of Europe that they have effectively created a culture where it has become unacceptable to go away from the party line. If you do, you are a racist, xenophobe, misogynist etc. They have done exactly what I am saying: they have imposed a way of life on everyone, justifying it as these values being "universal". The problem is that a vast number of European/American citizens do not agree with these values. In fact, a lot of these changes bear no historical nor rational necessity based on traditional Western values of occurring.

Are leftists from here trying to impose these values on unwilling foreigners on their own soil? I see no sign of this, but would welcome evidence. Is there some? — mcdoodle

NGOs going to the Middle East to teach Muslim women how to be Western for example. The West attempting to impose democracy over different regions of the globe (including Africa and the Middle East). The West's continuous attempt to attack Russia's authoritarian regime as being morally wrong. Need I list more?

I see no evidence actually that leftists have much power anywhere at present, South America excepted. — mcdoodle

Go on a University campus in the UK :) Even the English Conservatives count as left now - because they have been forced to become leftist in spirit, while in letter they remain right-wing.

Do you mean that at heart you too would like to be racist, sexist and homophobic, or what? What are your specific complaints, and who are specific examples of the perpetrators? Without specifics this is all rhetoric. — mcdoodle

No. I mean that this culturally intolerant Left is dangerous, and it is dangerous to the world, as well as to the West itself - because they think they absolutely have the right values, and therefore must enforce these values by force and ostracisation if necessary. It's not the homosexuals, or other races, or etc. who are dangerous. It's the Left. The Left has ensured that across the Western world, one will be treated as a social outcast if they dare not submit in belief towards mantras such as "equality for all", "equal rights for homosexuals", etc. It's good to have discussions and talk about whether gay marriage should be legal or not, and of course vote on it, and perhaps even approve it. But to attempt to impose it, and consider anyone who disagrees to be a monster morally speaking - that is terribly wrong, and terribly dangerous.

Tackling bits and pieces that were the result of post-editing and I hadn't seen before:

Amazon produced the first season of a tv series based on a Ray Bradbury short story where the Axis won WW2. It's called 'The Man in the High Castle', and it's set in 1962 in an America divided between Nazis Germany and Imperial Japan. As such, you get exposed to a different set of values promoted by those societies, and the dissidents living in it. It's interesting, if grim.

The biggest value in those societies seems to be promotion of the state apparatus. Individual lives (unless you're high command or Emperor) are to be sacrificed to the state. And of course all those lives not deemed worthwhile are either subjugated or exterminated. — Marchesk

Don't forget who produced those movies (ie, progressives, liberals). Hence the values of those societies are most likely a strawman - in fact, I believe that if Nazi Germany had won the war, it wouldn't have been long until Hitler, as well as the regime based on the fuhrer's dictatorship was eliminated by the Germans themselves. Let us not forget that there were several assassination attempts on Hitler's life even during the war - in all likelihood, if the war had ended, there would have been an increase in such attempts, as more and more would focus their attention on internal affairs.

Also, do not forget that Hitler himself was a National SOCIALIST, who greatly respected Karl Marx, agreeing with almost his entire ideology, with the only significant difference being the focus on the importance of the Volk (race), whereas Marx emphasised the international proletariat (http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/hitler-and-the-socialist-dream-1186455.html) . State control has never so much been a right-wing emphasis, but rather a left wing one. I mean it makes sense if one believes with absolute certainty that they hold the right values to use even the power of the state if necessary to make those values universal.

And that's where I become less relativistic about things. I do want to people to be told that female circumcision is wrong — Marchesk

Sure, because in our culture, it makes sense for female circumcision to be wrong, and hence we can argue, and prove, from our basic values that it is wrong. But these are most likely not the basic values of Islamic countries. Hence from within their systems, in cannot be proven to be wrong. However, their systems can change, and probably will, but it takes time, and they need to change from the inside. People themselves have to decide if they want to continue having female circumcision, or they don't, based on their own internal criteria.

It's also a question of who doesn't want the imposing. Would American slaves before the Civil War have welcomed a foreign power putting an end to the institution? What if the foreign power had the means to flip things and put blacks in power to subjugate the whites? Then would the blacks be resentful of the foreign power, or become close allies? — Marchesk

Yes they would have welcomed the foreign power, and even befriended them. (Although I doubt that the foreign power wouldn't just take matters in its own hands and colonise both the blacks and the whites). But if you consider how the blacks gained equal rights, you would realise that it was through internal criticism of culture - using the culture's own values, they showed that there was a contradiction there, which led, slowly, to them gaining equal rights, and the culture responding to their criticism.

I understand this distinction to be between positive rights and negative rights, wherein a person in a society claims to have positive rights that entail some action is taken by a government (e.g., a guaranteed standard of living) and negative rights entail the government refrain from acting in a way that violates a right (e.g., freedom of speech). You seem to be arguing that the political left make some positive rights claims, whereas the political right make only negative rights claims. It is not clear to me this is an accurate description of the respective positions. In particular, I can conceive of a leftist position that aims at equality through negative rights and distinguishes itself from the political right in terms of the negative rights that are claimed. — Soylent

There's nothing in particular that I disagree with here.

The problem is you are disrespecting the worse plumber. You say he ought to be a better plumber, even though that isn't at all necessary as an individual. (indeed, it might be WRONG for him, as being a better plumber might affect what else he does, to the detriment of himself or society). You are actually ignoring how the worse plumber is better in other ways. You are not simply admitting the better plumber is better at plumbing. You are saying the worse plumber is a less deserving person because he doesn't have the greatest plumbing skills. — TheWillowOfDarkness

No, this is false. While I may have less respect (which is not the same as disrespect) towards him when it comes to plumbing, I may have much higher respect for him when it comes to kindness, loyalty, and moral character compared to the better plumber. Therefore I am not saying that he is less deserving, nor am I saying that he necessarily must be a better plumber than he already is. That is for him to decide, because only he can know if his time is better spent developing his plumbing skills, or otherwise, for example, doing his duty and taking care of his children, etc.

But this misses the crucial question: what work is valued an how much? — TheWillowOfDarkness

Depends on the context of this question. If we expand the question, and ask should society value the work of the lawyer more than that of the plumber and so forth, then we'll get into a very big mess. I agree that there needs to be some government regulations here, and a pure free market won't do.

So does the better plumber deserve more money than the worse plumber? Maybe, for his better plumbing work... but then what of the worse plumber does some sort of other work or activity? What if he gives-up hours he could have spend practicing plumbing to help out his family? Or entertain is friends? Or plant trees to rejuvenate a local environment? — TheWillowOfDarkness

If the worse plumber does some other work, then he'll surely be more deserving in that other work than the better plumber who focuses just on plumbing. He'll probably be much more respected for his social and moral values compared to the better plumber, who while better at his craft, is sorely lacking compared to the worse plumber in the moral sphere. He'll be rewarded by having more people desire to be his friends, and desire to be in his company, as he is a good citizen, expousing values that other people would like to emulate. So while for plumbing he will be paid less, for his other activities he will earn awards that the better plumber will not.

Then exactly how much more does the better plumber deserve for the better plumbing? — TheWillowOfDarkness

He should earn exactly what his work deserves. It being better work, it will deserve more, but most likely not in the range of one of them starving, and the other being a billionaire. I'm not saying no reward for the worse plumber, and ALL rewards for the better plumber. Each according to their work.

You think those who excel are worth more than those who do not. Not merely in a monetary reward sense, but in a value sense. You think those who excel should be adored of the who a merely average or the mediocre. It's an ego thing. You think those who excel should be said to be better people, to occupy a special place of "genius" where they are understood to be for more amazing or important than anyone else. — TheWillowOfDarkness

In the domain where they excel, they should be respected more than others. Not across all domains though. It would make no sense to say that the best lawyer deserves more respect as a lawyer than the best plumber deserves respect in-so-far as he is the best plumber. So I think that people need to be rewarded according to their work. Best work means best rewards.

Well, there have been more than a few societies who decided that imposing their way on others was not only okay, but necessary. The Romans weren't exactly live and let live. — Marchesk

Exactly. When that happens, it becomes a threat to other societies, and the discussion becomes open for the possibility of war, to defend oneself. That is why I emphasised supra-cultural norms, such as "my land, my rules, your land, your rules" to promote toleration of other countries/cultures instead of mutual violence. There's no moral need to do this; just a pragmatic need. It's much better for both to respect each other, and nothing is to be gained by subjugating other cultures.

Usually it is wrong to impose things from the outside (although, is that an absolute or something?). And it often has bad consequences, because nobody likes to be imposed upon. But on the other hand, at what point do we decide that we're all in this together on the same planet? — Marchesk

It's only an absolute in-so-far as it's a meta-statement applicable to different ways of life. It's not in the same class of statements as rules which apply within a particular way of life, but rather the very structure that governs ways of life themselves.

As for being on the same planet... we're only on the same planet in-so-far as we can affect each other - in-so-far as we share a way of life. Which, I dare say, is not that much. We much rather live in our small communities, than on the planet. We are on the same planet when it comes to things like global warming etc. which affects all of us, but when it comes to day to day matters, we certainly live very little on the same planet, although globalisation and trade have changed things a little.

That sounds good and reasonable and all, and it is for many things. But then you have things like female circumcision, child soldiers, genocide sometimes, and what not where your land is some people in the land treating others very badly. — Marchesk

Sure, as cruel as female circumcision, child soldiers, genocide etc. sounds to us, I believe that it is not OUR responsability to fix it, but the responsability of those countries where it happens. Most certainly their citizens aren't happy either, and sooner or later, as they have always done in history, they will take action themselves and fix their own problems, by the sword if needed.

As a parallel, I can say your house, your rules, but if I found out you were beating and doing terrible things to your spouse, children, or roommates, then I will be motivated to take some sort of action. — Marchesk

Yes, because we live in the same country, so naturally if you find out that I undertake illegal actions (according to the laws of our country), which are against the law which governs us both, then you are entitled to take action. But if we lived in different countries, and say in my country it was acceptable by law to use physical violence in certain circumstances (such as if my family was rude to me), then according to what law will you judge me to have done wrong? The law of your country? That certainly doesn't seem fair.

As Wittgenstein has stated, and I agree with him, criticisms of ways of life can only come from inside. From inside a culture or a country, people can decide they no longer want a certain law/rule, and thereby get rid of it, by force if necessary. But it is wrong when somebody imposes things from the outside.