The fruit contains all the previous moments, it could not be what it is without them. If a plant could be aware, it would see that all its earlier stages were a necessary progression to arrive at the conclusion of what it is. It would also see that what it is can’t even be understood without reference to each stage of its dialectic.

When Hegel compares this image to the way a philosophical idea develops, he points out that nature must exist in time, so this development is necessarily time-sequential. But he emphasizes that, again, being last in a sequence is not what he means by “highest” or “last” philosophy. We are speaking of a dialectical process in which each stage retains or “sublates” the former one. Ideas reveal themselves as a theoretical unity, they do not grow or develop in time, like a plant. That would be like saying that 3 “comes before” 4 according to a clock measurement. This coming-before is surely not temporal. Rather, we perceive the sequence in one glance, so to speak, and can recognize that what is last has to be last, but not in the way that events in time are last. — J

Origin is ever-present. It is not a beginning, since all beginning is linked with time. And the present is not just the “now,” today, the moment or a unit of time. It is ever-originating, an achievement of full integration and continuous renewal. Anyone able to “concretize,” i.e., to realize and effect the reality of origin and the present in their entirety, supersedes “beginning” and “end” and the mere here and now. — Jean Gebser, Ever-Present Origin

Bouncing this thread, due to finding a helpful Incomplete Nature cheat-sheet/summary that some kindly soul has posted on GitHub (although incomplete, with some absentials. But the Glossary is worth the effort.)

↪tim wood I feel your pain, like half of America and about 90% of Australia, I'm vastly dissappointed by the re-election of DJT
— Wayfarer

You may want to think twice about that percentage. — Joshs

It says 'a chunk'. According to my preferred afternoon radio host, DJT had a spike in popularity amongst younger men. Older Australians and most female voters rated him negatively. I read somewhere, not that it's significant, that he would have lost any vote were he running in Australia. But, all water under the bridge now.

I don’t think Conze says or implies that.

there is in every soul an organ or instrument of knowledge — Plato, The Republic

In Mahāyāna texts you can find a comparable expression:

All sentient beings without exception have the nature of the Tathāgata. — Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra

Such later Buddhist texts express the concept that all being have the capacity for enlightenment, however, it is a capacity that still needs to be actualised. There are still teachers, teachings, and those needing to be taught.

The purpose of my quoting the Edward Conze text was simply an illustration of the idea of there being a higher truth - something for which I am generally criticized for suggesting. But to get down to basics, this is because I don't think our culture possesses a vertical axis along which the description of 'higher' makes any sense. 'Compared to what?' will be the question. So in posting that, I was suggesting a rather more traditionalist sense of the 'philosophical ascent', that there really is such a domain, that one has to 'ascend' to. (I even think a Hegel might endorse that.)

I suppose another relatively recent piece of popular philosophy I could refer to is Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, where Pirsig says our culture has no 'metaphysics of quality'. Pirsig explores a way of understanding the nature of existence that transcends typical dualistic distinctions, such as subject-object, science-religion, or fact-value. For Pirsig, a fundamental "Quality" underpins and precedes these conceptual splits. Quality isn't merely an attribute or characteristic of something or other, but is the root from which all experiences and understandings emerge. It is dynamic and intrinsic to life itself, a force that gives meaning and value to existence. (Long time since I read it, but I revisited some video interviews with Pirsig, now youtube exists.)

There is a real crisis: democrats are simply denying it completely, while Trump acknowledges it, identifies a false cause and cure, and proposes to go back to the good old days. — unenlightened

But you can bet whatever crises there are, are only going to get worse under The Regime.

Didn't they already have their own gulag since 2002? — javi2541997

Oh yeah, now you mention it...maybe he'll want to send Jack Smith there. But first, he'll have to work out what to charge him with. Telling the truth might be it. Nobody can do that, especially if it contradicts or risks embarrasing Dear Leader.

So - 'no privileged perspective' - is that it?

https://www.smh.com.au/world/north-america/the-alarm-over-elon-musk-and-national-security-has-yet-to-sink-in-20241106-p5koda.html

:lol:

There’s a market for bumper stickers like ‘I bought the car before Elon went crazy'. Californians, who are one of Tesla's largest markets, and also overwhelmingly Democrat, are appalled by his right turn. But with this victory, he's well and truly ensconsed in the echelon of major world magnates on the scale of Nelson Rockefeller and J P Morgan. Which I think is pretty damn scary, considering his general obnoxiousness. :yikes:

Trump allies push to punish Jack Smith in first test of retribution vow
Even as Jack Smith took steps to wind down his Jan. 6 election interference case against Trump, Elon Musk said the special counsel “cannot go unpunished.” ...

...A Trump adviser, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to detail the thinking of the president-elect and his team, said Trump and his team would react extremely poorly if Smith tries to do anything else publicly. The next Justice Department will look “critically” at what Smith’s team did over the past couple of years to “make sure nothing like this ever happens again,” the person said. — Washington Post

The Retribution of the Regime begins. I wonder where they will locate their Gulag Archipalago? Although I suppose when they give amnesty to all the January 6th rioters it will free up some jail space.

And note who is quoted. I wonder if Musk will be DJT's Beria.

The 10 richest people in the world saw their wealth increase by a record margin just one day after former President Donald Trump won the 2024 election, a sign that already wide wealth disparities will likely grow even wider over the next four years due to Trump’s stated economic goals.

According to Bloomberg’s Billionaire Index, those 10 individuals saw their wealth rise by up to $64 billion on Wednesday. That’s the highest daily increase among the 10 wealthiest people in the world ever seen in a single day since Bloomberg started tracking those people’s worth in 2012.

For comparison, the $64 billion figure is equivalent to the annual wages earned by 800,000 American households making the U.S. median income of $80,000 per year. — Truthout

World's Richest Man, Elon Musk, is set to become one of the most powerful (and, I bet, most hated) men in the new Establishment. Let's hope he f***s off to Mars, like he said he would.

That's quite presumptuous, I think my reading is pretty straightforward. — goremand

I think today's culture is generally antagonistic to the idea of spiritual authority. Let's consider it from the perspective of philosophy rather than any kind of religious apologetics. I think the underlying idea is something often found in ancient and pre-modern philosophy in the respect shown to the philosophical greats, as Hadot describes under the heading of sages. In fact, sagacity is a rare quality, comprising a kind of holistic vision. The sages are those who have realised that kind of insight, and who are able to convey it to others. I mean, the Western metaphysical tradition, beginning with Parmenides, has various such figures.

there is in every soul an organ or instrument of knowledge that is purified and kindled afresh by... studies when it has been destroyed and blinded by our ordinary pursuits, a faculty whose preservation outweighs ten thousand eyes; for only by it is reality beheld. Those who share this faith will think your words superlatively true. But those who have and have had no inkling of it will naturally think them all moonshine. For they can see no other benefit from such pursuits worth mentioning. — Plato, The Republic

Geese cackle. They also attack. I don't know that any individual attack is appropriate. But we may most-of-us be under a positive obligation to cackle, as long and as much and as loud as needed - calling for truth, calling out the lies. — tim wood

Depressingly, I feel that hordes of attack geese will not prevail against the might of a corrupted American military-industrial-political complex. (Maybe we could fly into the engines......)

But the old saying that if you give them enough rope, they'll hang themselves has not applied. Here, if you give them enough rope, it's us who hang... — Tom Storm

The point about demagogues is precisely that they turn democracy against itself for their own advantage. That is DJT's MO. If you look at the Wikipedia entry on demagogues, he ticks all the boxes (although the crowd-edited wikipedia has the good sense not to include him as an example.)

I think Conze makes it very clear: insight can not be transmitted or taught to people who lack it — goremand

That was an excerpt. The entire essay is Buddhist Philosophy and Its European Parallels, Philosophy East and West, 1963. Aside from Conze, the principle of monastic lineage in Buddhism and other spiritual traditions assumes the transmission of insight. Which is not to say that every student will be capable of it, or even interested in it. I think you're very much viewing it through the lens of the rejection of dogmatic Christianity and its 'blind faith' - if it sounds like an appeal to religious insight, then what else could it be, right?

Incidentally, another excerpt from that source:

That (i.e. 'sciential philosophy' a.k.a. 'scientism') has the following features: [1] Natural science, particularly that dealing with inorganic matter, has a cognitive value, tells us about the actual structure of the universe, and provides the other branches of knowledge with an ideal standard in that they are the more "scientific" the more they are capable of mathematical formulation and the more they rely on repeatable and publicly verified observations. [2] Man is the highest of beings known to science, and his power and convenience should be promoted at all costs. [3] Spiritual and magical forces cannot influence events, and life after death may be disregarded, because it is unproven by scientific methods. [4] In consequence, "life" means "man's" life in this world, and the task is to ameliorate this life by a social "technique" in harmony with the "welfare" or "will" of "the people." Buddhists must view all these tenets with the utmost distaste.

Have you ever read Phenomenology of Perception? — Joshs

Tried, and failed. Too long and too hard. But I've picked up quite a bit from Thompson et al, and from some of his briefer essays.

A person close to me just brought up how they fear for themselves, being trans, as they questioned how hospitable the country will now be towards them given the rhetoric Trump spouts. — substantivalism

Probably not very. It is cited as a factor in the following detailed analysis from the New York Times (gift link).

Let’s Not Lose Sight of Who Trump Is

I really think that the importance of the transgender issue was underappreciated by the Democrats. They simply thought it was the latest civil rights issue when the actual policy was really crazy and offensive to working class voters. — Frances Fukayama

He is talking about wise men with a "rare faculty" whose teachings are based on authority, not personal understanding. — goremand

Or in insight. That was, for instance, the basis of the Buddha's authority - one which was never imposed on others, unlike the tendency in Roman Christianity. Max Weber's distinction between charismatic leadership and traditional authority is relevant here.

I have expressed before the idea that the role of philosophy is to 'take you to the border' - the border of what can be said, explained, expressed in words. Of course the influence of Zen Buddhism is perceptible in that, but the same intuition is expressed in other philosophers.

Those insights are communicated to the student by the teacher. As well as what is learned by their deportment and presence. Of course it's radically un-PC for liberal democracy, I do understand that. That's why I said I'm not going to die on a hill for it.

A further quote from the Hadot entry:

For Hadot, famously, the means for the philosophical student to achieve the “complete reversal of our usual ways of looking at things” epitomized by the Sage were a series of spiritual exercises. These exercises encompassed all of those practices still associated with philosophical teaching and study: reading, listening, dialogue, inquiry, and research. However, they also included practices deliberately aimed at addressing the student’s larger way of life, and demanding daily or continuous repetition: practices of attention (prosoche), meditations (meletai), memorizations of dogmata, self-mastery (enkrateia), the therapy of the passions, the remembrance of good things, the accomplishment of duties, and the cultivation of indifference towards indifferent things (PWL 84). Hadot acknowledges his use of the term “spiritual exercises” may create anxieties, by associating philosophical practices more closely with religious devotion than typically done (Nussbaum 1996, 353-4; Cooper 2010).

Anxieties, indeed.

It's yet another field where we the plebs must defer to the experts, like we already do with scientists, doctors, lawyers etc. — goremand

It would be bleak if you take such a bleak view. If you were a piano student, presumably you would select a teacher who was an expert in teaching piano, and you would admire and hope to emulate excellent pianists. Of course there are natural virtuosos but even they usually have teachers to bring forth their innate ability

I would say that there is no such thing as a presuppositionless philosophy. If philosophy begins with questioning, it is also the case that to question is to already have in mind the matter about which one is inquiring. — Joshs

I agree that philosophy begins with a problem or with questions that need to be asked. I suppose amongst the problematics of Platonism was the nature of knowledge, the good, the true, the beautiful, the just, and such large and difficult-to-define questions. But also notice the significance of aporia in those dialogues - questions which can't be answered and for which no easy solution presents itself. One could argue that aporetic questions themselves invite a kind of epochē, a sense of not knowing (and knowing one doesn't know, as opposed to further speculations and conceptual proliferation.)

Returning to epochē, scholars have noted the relationship between Pyrrho and India. Compare this brief snippet from Indian philosophy which is germane to the point:

Emptiness is a mode of perception, a way of looking at experience. It adds nothing to and takes nothing away from the raw data of physical and mental events. You look at events in the mind and the senses with no thought of whether there's anything lying behind them.

This mode is called emptiness because it's empty of the presuppositions we usually add to experience to make sense of it: the stories and world-views we fashion to explain who we are and the world we live in.

I think that opens up a mode of being which is focussed on paying close attention to what is actually so. As distinct from the construction of elaborate theories based largely on abstractions. Which leads to

the observation that this discourse appears to allow endless recursion? — J

Today's philosophy inheres in a tangled web of concepts and symbolic values, requiring considerable training in intellectual history. Of course stories, world-views, 'the metaphors we live by' serve a purpose, they're an inextricable part of our constitution as social creatures. But lived truth, the immediate awareness of what is so, is of a different order. I think the basis of philosophy as 'love~wisdom' has to be oriented around a kind of direct and vivid awareness.

I feel your pain, like half of America and about 90% of Australia, I'm vastly dissappointed by the re-election of DJT, although I will stop posting about it as it serves no purpose other than sounding off. But one of the very many regrettable things about it is that it bakes his mendacity in to the highest levels of public discourse. He's said he's going to purge the bureuacracy of those who have expressed critical opinions about him and the January 6th atrocity, and so on.

Us ordinary citizens can't do a lot about that, of course, but the only antidote to lies is truth and the hope that others will heed it.

He only seems obscurantist because you don’t understand him — Joshs

I understand what I've read about him, and of him.

In any case, I stand by the initial point - that the absence of presuppositions is what was intended by epochē, both in Husserl and in the original skeptics.

Probably not obscurantist enough for him to blather about.

Isn't there a relationship between not entertaining presuppositions, and the epochē of ancient skepticism, revived by Husserl? Recall that ancient and Pyrrhonian skepticism differed from modern skepticism by simply 'withholding assent from that which is not evident' and strictly attending to the quality of phenomena as they appear.

(...) true teaching is based on an authority which legitimizes itself by the exemplary life and charismatic quality of its exponents.
— Wayfarer

I have to ask, is this what you yourself believe? — goremand

I wouldn't 'die on a hill' defending it, and I recognise that it is something often exploited by the unscrupulous to exploit the gullible, but I do. As the snippet from Pierre Hadot notes, it is also associated with ancient philosophy where the figure of the Sage personified philosophical wisdom.

What theory of consciousness allows the statement "you could be conscious even without an external world" to be true? — Brenner T

Franklin Merrell-Wolff was an American mystic and esoteric philosopher. After formal education in philosophy and mathematics at Stanford and Harvard, Wolff devoted himself to the goal of transcending the normal limits of human consciousness. Franklin Merrell-Wolff’s philosophy of consciousness centers on the idea of "Consciousness without an object," a term he coined to describe a fundamental state of awareness that transcends the ordinary subject-object duality of experience. In Merrell-Wolff’s view, this state represents the pure essence of consciousness, existing independently of any perceptual content, thoughts, or objects to be aware of. It is an experience of pure awareness or self-luminous being, which is foundational and inherently beyond the usual categories of mind and matter.

Merrell-Wolff asserts that this "Consciousness-without-an-object" is the ground of all experience and cannot be fully grasped through intellectual or sensory means. It is instead encountered in a state he describes as "introception," a kind of direct, non-dual awareness that bypasses the conventional processes of thinking and perceiving. In this state, distinctions such as self and other, subject and object, dissolve, leaving only a unified consciousness that Merrell-Wolff equates with a transcendent reality or "unconditioned consciousness."

For Merrell-Wolff, this pure consciousness is not merely an abstract concept but a living, experiential reality that one can realize through spiritual practice. He views it as the ultimate truth or reality, which can be known intuitively rather than through discursive reasoning. His philosophy therefore emphasizes inner transformation and the cultivation of a contemplative awareness that opens one to the experience of this unconditioned consciousness, which he describes as a state of profound peace, freedom, and insight beyond ordinary knowledge.

This is essentially the same as what is conveyed by the yogic term 'nirvikalpa samadhi' which is from Sanskrit, where "nir-" means "without" or "devoid of," and "vikalpa" comes from vi- (a prefix indicating separation or distinction) and kalpa (which can mean "concept," "imagination," or "idea"). Thus, nirvikalpa literally translates to "without concepts" or "free from thought and distinctions." Samadhi refers to a state of meditative absorption or unity. Taken together, nirvikalpa samadhi refers to a state of consciousness in which there are no mental modifications, distinctions, or conceptualizations—only undivided, absolute awareness.

I get it, but one might want to consider the fact that even bacteria are aware of their existence. How else could they discriminate between cell population densities, good and bad environments, or how to protect themselves against antibiotics etc. Awareness of existence seems pretty ubiquitous among organisms, not only fashionable primates who can talk. — jkop

There’s a germ of truth in that but amoeba aren’t aware that they’re aware. The burden of self awareness only begins to appear with much more highly developed organisms.

I think the crucial, and depressing, point is that the voters don’t think it matters, and/or they don’t believe these things about Trump. Polls show even disapproval of the Jan 6th outrage became muted over the intervening years. The point is, it has been clear from day 1 that many people swallow Trump’s lies wholesale, which is why he puts so much effort into denigrating the media. Fox audiences believe Trump over the NY TImes and WaPo. If the electorate mainly comprised those readers Trump would have been walloped.

From biology to philosophy isn’t a lateral move, on this view; we’re going up the ladder a rung, looking down on our previous viewpoint from a higher and more perspicuous and more general one. And, completing the picture, once we’re at the philosophy level, there are no more rungs. — J

I will sometimes argue that there is such a thing as the philosophical ascent, generally understood as moving from a state of ignorance to insight or enlightenment. And also that there are degrees of knowledge, the 'analogy of the Divided Line' in the Republic being a paradigm for that.

A couple of sources which make the idea of higher knowledge explicit:

The "perennial philosophy" is in this context defined as a doctrine which holds (1 )that as far as worth-while knowledge is concerned not all men are equal, but that there is a hierarchy of persons, some of whom, through what they are, can know much more than others; (2) that there is a hierarchy also of the levels of reality, some of which are more "real," because more exalted than others; and (3) that the wise men of old have found a wisdom which is true, although it has no empirical basis in observations which can be made by everyone and everybody; and that in fact there is a rare and unordinary faculty in some of us by which we can attain direct contact with actual reality through the Prajñāpāramitā of the Buddhists, the logos of Parmenides, the sophia of Aristotle and others, Spinoza's amor dei intellectualis, and so on; and (4) that true teaching is based on an authority which legitimizes itself by the exemplary life and charismatic quality of its exponents. — Edward Conze

The Sage was the living embodiment of wisdom, “the highest activity human beings can engage in . . . which is linked intimately to the excellence and virtue of the soul” (WAP 220). Across the schools, Socrates himself was agreed to have been perhaps the only living exemplification of such a figure (his avowed agnoia notwithstanding). Pyrrho and Epicurus were also accorded this elevated status in their respective schools, just as Sextius and Cato were deemed sages by Seneca, and Plotinus by Porphyry. Yet more important than documenting the lives of historical philosophers (although this was another ancient literary genre) was the idea of the Sage as “transcendent norm.” The aim, by picturing such figures, was to give “an idealized description of the specifics of the way of life” that was characteristic of the each of the different schools. — About Pierre Hadot, IEP

OK, ‘heated’, not ‘violent’. Which it undoubtedly is.

And just to clarify,what do you mean by tolerance and inclusivity have gone to far? — Swanty

I gave an example that I thought illustrates some of the issues, which was apparently interpreted by yourself as 'discriminatory against Muslims', although it wasn't intended as such.

The fact that you react so violently at the mere mention kind of illustrates the point at issue.

So what's the problem with religious people not wanting to be forced to display a pride flag?
Aren't conservatives Christians of the same mindset? — Swanty

Sure! 100%. I really do understand the issues that conservatives have with many aspects of modern culture and society. One of the questions in the OP is whether the principles of tolerance and inclusiveness have gone 'too far'. I put case that up as an example of those kinds of tensions. My post was not at all intended as discriminatory against Muslims.

India stills has an unofficial caste system, where there is a caste considered so worthless that they are untouchable. — Bob Ross

India has also absorbed and practices Western style democracy, it's often noted that it's the 'world's largest democracy.' No doubt there are many social activists and movements who campaign against caste barriers.

Ask yourself your motivation for that and what info leads you to believe migrants are extremely in their interpretation of Islam? — Swanty

Your question is inappropriately parsed. In any case I wasn't referring to 'most Muslims'. I said there is sometimes a tension between Islamic principles and Western liberal values. I gave the example of Hamtramck Michigan where a council mainly comprising Muslim members banned the Pride Flag. My point was mainly to address the question of tolerance, and what it means to tolerate an attitude that is itself not committed to tolerance.

Why are you asking me for enlightenment when you already presumptously claimed to know about Islam and what migrants face? — Swanty

I made a remark about a particular situation in North America, that I thought illustrates the tension between liberalism and Islam, and that it must be a tough conflict for refugee advocates to handle. So, tell me in what respect I am mistaken, I'm always open to correction.

Have you heard of Sufism wayfarer,and how many Muslims have you interacted with to draw your incorrect conclusions? — Swanty

Please enlighten me. What conclusion did I draw that was wrong?

China is a totalitarian regime; harvests the organs of North Korean defectors to sell in the market; uses North Korean defector females as sex slaves; bans free speech; bans freedom of religion; has concentration camps; helps recapture North Korean defectors; … need I go on? — Bob Ross

I do see your point.

I did actually watch the 2024 movie Civil War the other week. But no, I don't actually see out-and-out armed conflict in the US. I think the real threats are more likely debt defaults, banking system collapses, environmental catasrophe, that kind of thing, for which there are many plausible scenarios. But that's for another thread.

Although I did note Peter Hartcher's OP on the outcome in the US Election thread.

Not for nothing is Afghanistan called 'the graveyard of empires'.

I wonder if these kinds of historical parallels really are an accurate portrayal of this moment. I've said this often, and of course there is endless blather about Trump, but I think the single, biggest social factor in his rise is television (and the various new media it has given rise to). Modern entertainment media is so incredibly vivid and real-looking that I honestly think a lot of people can't differentiate reality from illusion at all; they honestly believe that existence is a movie. And Donald Trump is a kind of fantasy figure in that world. After all it's widely acknowledged that the TV show The Apprentice was a major factor in keeping his business and image alive after many business failures. And that show was all fantasy: the opulent suites where the show was set were presented as being Trump's but in reality, they had to be built by the network because the actual offices were pretty dingey. So Trump's never-ending refrain of 'Fake News' is more descriptive of him than of any actual media (with the exceptions of those media trying to be part of his fantasy world). Trump is the demagogue that modern media enabled, allowing tens of millions to vicariously inhabit his fantasy, rich man's world, while thumbing his nose at the Government and the law. As I said, with this victory, all of his Big Lies will now become part of the fabric of US culture. It's extremely warped, and it will have consequences, when the sets come tumbling down and reality barges in. But that won't be in the form of electoral defeat so much as the catastrophic consequences of greed, hatred and delusion.

But then you realized this is trouble: a core democratic value is tolerance.

Which is fine, you thought, except people take it too far, allow themselves to be paralyzed by a mamby-pamby cultural relativism. — Srap Tasmaner

There can be a troubling contradiction in extending the value of liberal tolerance to those who don't necessarily support or understand the liberal attitudes that fostered it.

Case in point is the difficulties faced by Islamic migrants and refugees coming to Western cultures. Islam doesn't recognise the separation of church and state, and in theory at least, can only support Shariah law. At the same time, refugee support groups and activists do all they can to support Islamic refugees, even despite this tension. But this can have difficult consequences when Islamic conservatism conflicts with Western libertarianism. The town of Hamtramck, Michigan, made headlines in 2023 for being the first US city with a majority Muslim council. Great joy amongst supporters of cultural diversity. But one of the first things they did was to ban displays of LGBT flags on public property on the grounds that homosexuality is forbidden in Islamic law. (I wonder how Green Left activists who are strident in defense of both refugee and LGBT rights manage to reconcile this conflict.)

Then from the right, there's considerable hostility towards liberalism on different grounds, for example Deneen's Why Liberalism Failed. But it's on the far right that you also find the most virulent forms of white supremacy, which also undermines liberalism and is far from representing the best of Western culture in my opinion. The invocation of Nazi symbolism by these groups is far from coincidental in my view.

(On an old forum, far far away, there was an exceptionally annoying poster who's entire shtick was the internet meme that Beethoven was actually African or had descended from an African progenitor. By suggesting Beethoven was Black, the meme challenges the exclusivity of European high culture and disrupts the narrative that classical music is solely the legacy of white Europeans. The Green Left have many of these kinds of dubious memes.)

I suppose what excarbates all of this is the absence of any kind of common cultural ground, any sense that 'what unites us is more important than what divides us', as Obama used to say. But then, conservatives would say that this is because Western culture destroyed its own heritage by undermining Judeo Christian values, and that in the absence of any sense of revealed truth, there can only ever be a kaleidoscope of opinions.

//but then, the way Biblical religion is constituted was bound to engender fragmentation, as it was divisive from its inception. It's a real can of worms. Perhaps it is a problem with ideologies of all kinds.//

For those who are upset at my rhetoric (and perhaps the lens by which I am analyzing this), I challenge you to try to justify, in your response to this OP, e.g., why Western, democratic values should not be forcibly imposed on obviously degenerate, inferior societies at least in principle—like Talibanian Afghanistan, North Korea, Iran, China, India, etc — Bob Ross

I agree with some aspects of your OP but I think it's framed in a somewhat inflammatory way. I agree with you, for example, that the European liberal tradition (in the broad sense) and its associated values are valuable and worth preserving. The Taliban and some of the other failed states are not really examples of alternative political systems, but the failure of politics altogether. But lumping China and India in with that - both of which have considerably longer histories of civilisation than does Europe - veers pretty close to out-and-out racism.

I'm with you in opposing the reflexive denigration of both liberalism and Western cultural values, but I think it could be approached in a far more nuanced way. (Also agree with the above that Trump/MAGA is a serious internal threat to liberalism.)