all 23 comments

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Nazi Germany was both idealistic and pragmatic there's not a contradiction when your ideas are already based on natural order and soyence. Also about Lebensraum (Living Space, not OY VEY YOU DON'T DESERVE THAT LAND SPACE) Hitler wanted those lands to be autarchic not because of some cartoon villain 'muh slavs don't deserve it!!11' stupid shit, Germany didn't have a bunch of colonies to rely on for its resources and as a result its only option to survive in a world hostile to Germany was to expand so it had enough resources within its borders to not be crushed. It's pretty logical, I don't know why you continue to assert comic book Nazism constantly.

I agree with you though, but rightist philosophy I read never has any contradiction to the principle of being both realist and in line with higher values. I think Yockey is a perfect mixture of this and I recommend everyone to read Imperium, The Enemy of Europe, and The Proclamation of London.

[–]Edjean50 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Do you believe Hitler wanted to ethnically replace the Eastern European people with Germans or just set up autonomous client states and just use their resources?

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

neither

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Ye, Hitler wanted those lands for autarky but he did not need to wipe out the slavs from those lands. Hitler needed the grain, iron ore, and manganese of Ukraine, the oil of the Caucasus, and the tungsten of Krasnodar. Simply driving the Russians off those lands and annexing or puppetizing those lands would've made those resources accessible for Germany.

He did not need genocide and brutalize millions of slavs living there. That's where the ideology came in.

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That didn't happen nor was it planned, that's where jewish propaganda comes in.

Hitler wanted to genocide slavs just as much as Putin wants to end all civilisation on the planet, that is not at all unless you believe jews.

[–]LGBTQIAIDSAnally Injected Death Sentence 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

B. Natural law: There are certain patterns that repeat in history. Societies that abandon values like patriarchy, asabiya, nationalism, religiosity, worship of ancestors, martial values, eugenics, [and] modesty decline and collapse. Those that abide by them flourish. You gauge from this that it is God's will that these values be adhered to. This is how the universe is designed and you must abide by these principles. It is the right order of things.

I've had this on my mind on and off these past few days, since I've been thinking again about just why societies apex and then degenerate in a somewhat circular fashion.

'Patriarchy': I think this one is practically a necessity. As soon as a society has something resembling equality between the sexes, birth rates seem to plummet. Whatever the higher powers are, they clearly favour 'patriarchy'.

Asabiyyah: This one has been the one most on my mind lately. Asabiyyah in the Khaldunian sense (probably best translated as ethnic/racial/tribal solidarity) is obviously practically non-existent in an ever-growing part of the world. Furthermore, Khaldun makes it clear that people with more asabiyyah tend to conquer those with less. Thus we see that powers with more asabiyyah like China and Russia are viewed as threats to places with weaker asabiyyah like Taiwan and the Ukraine.

Nationalism: I'd probably subsume this into asabiyyah, which is surely a prerequisite for both tribalism and nationalism. Also, ethnonationalism is probably subsumable to a tribalism writ large.

Religiosity: The first thing that comes to my mind is the way that religiosity can actually serve Left-liberalism through the proliferation of a 'progressive Christianity', one that is clearly the product of the dominant Left-liberal ideology's warping of Christianity. For example, that propagated by this inbred- and retarded-looking queer nutcase from the 'Chosen Family Church' https://www.tiktok.com/@revjefftheartist

For who God is non-binary, queer and autistic. However, his arguments for the first two effectively claim that any non-living object is non-binary and queer, and are some of the most stupid I've yet heard: https://youtu.be/eXjNvvkstuA

Non-Binary:

God does not have gender, so, by definition, God is non-binary.

The vast majority of objects in the world do 'not have gender'. By this same reasoning, footballs are also non-binary.

Queer:

God is not explicitly sexual; and since asexuality is part of the LGBTQ spectrum, we can say that God is queer.

Here he effectively makes the same stupid argument as above. The vast majority of objects in the world are 'not explicitly sexual'. By this same reasoning, footballs are also asexual and thus queer.

There is obviously some kind of logical fallacy in his argument, but I don't know the precise name of it. The lack of some human property (gender or sexuality) simply can't be ascribed to non-humans to infer the presence of their opposites, or else practically everything is agendered, asexual, non-binary, queer and transgendered (because non-binary is apparently regarded as a subset of transgender, and since something can't be both agendered and transgendered, we run into yet another obvious problem with these arguments).

This kind of religiosity, I imagine, is unlikely to even remotely delay any kind of civilizational decline. So we are really looking at something like conservative religiosity rather than mere religiosity per se.

Ancestor worship is a pretty obvious one, since it perfectly complements ethnonationalism: one's ancestors are obviously by and large people of one's race.

[–]Rakean93Identitarian socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

It's pretty reasonable but still ideological. The fact that you summed up two viewpoints in a few lines doesn't mean that they are completely self-evident and uncontroversial. In the first example you say "That which is good for the group and the individual" is good but only "That which is maladaptive for the group" is bad, so you are proposing some form of collectivism or socialism here. But a lot of people believe in individualism.

Besides that, most governments try to stick to a pragmatic approach while staying true to the commonly shared values. You can get those values by religion, tradition, philosophy, mithology and many more, but those are still ideological in nature.

Now I'm going to guess, but since you are not the first I saw lately pushing this pragmatist agenda, and since this is usually linked to a very pro Russia stance, I think that this derives from the fact that United Russia as a party has pragmatism in his platform. But United Russia is based on the assumption of Russian imperialism (greater Russia), orthodox Christianity and patriotism as commonly shared values that are not worth to be discussed. If you try to apply this pragmatic approach in the West, the commonly shared values will be those of liberalism.

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It's pretty reasonable but still ideological. The fact that you summed up two viewpoints in a few lines doesn't mean that they are completely self-evident and uncontroversial. In the first example you say "That which is good for the group and the individual" is good but only "That which is maladaptive for the group" is bad, so you are proposing some form of collectivism or socialism here. But a lot of people believe in individualism.

The issue I'd argue is that there is a universal trend for things that are maladaptive and adaptive aka dharma or adharma. If different civilizations started with the objective that survival and improvement of the nation within was the greatest good, they'd all arrive more or less at the same solutions. Just like how all liberal regimes have arrived at the same policies: hate speech laws, media gaslighting, LGBT indoctrination at school, and feminist laws that penalize men and masculine behavior.

I'd argue that this objective is the obvious goal for any civilization or group as groups that don't prioritize such goals will be defeated in competition with groups that do. A type of natural selection of ideologies.

Religions went through this natural selection already. Islam, Christianity and the other great faiths survived for thosuands of years because they promoted good outcomes for their adherent populations: high fertility, modesty, chastity, love of kin, sacrifice for the community etc.

Religions that did not produce good outcome died off. For example, in Russia, there was a cult in which men chopped off their balls. This cult didn't survive as it produced eunuchs and did not increase in numbers or strength.

[–]NeoRail 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

We've discussed our historical disagreements in the other thread, so I will address your thoughts on morality here. Personally, my view is that states are founded by men and as such are an expression of the will and character of those men. Consequently, a true state is governed by positive law informed by the nature and qualities of those men, and nothing else. Looking at this broad category of human natures and qualities, what is the defining element that should play a primary role? According to the Traditionalist view, this would be transcendent values - experiential spirituality, honour, courage, wisdom, autonomy, detachment, etc. etc. This is the only foundation for a state or a morality that I would consider acceptable.

The two options that you list are not acceptable to me, because they are still stuck in the order of means and not the order of ends. The Darwinist view assigns primary importance to biological life, but what makes biological life valuable is that it gives us the freedom to use it as we see fit. It is a means to an end. When it is assigned primary importance, it actually contradicts some of the qualities you want in your ideal state. In certain cases honour can make survival more, not less, difficult. The same applies for generosity and altruism. The importance of these things is affirmed through life and in life, but not for life.

As to natural law, there can be variations in how it is conceptualised, but I do not consider natural law to have spiritual considerations at all, because it is limited to the natural world. It is called natural law, not supernatural law, after all. In this view, human beings are trapped within the world of material cause and effect, and end up acting as puppets of the laws of nature and the world, rather than making these laws. The natural law approach lacks the transcendent values that free the human being and allow it to assert itself autonomously in and upon the world, as would be the case with a man who places central value in things not of this world, such as spirituality and honour, and which would enable such a man to act independently regardless of the material circumstances.

If we look at morality and pragmatism more broadly, I think that morality is certainly secondary to and derivative of transcendent values, and any morality which is not such is worthless. There are plenty of examples of such forms of morality today. As to pragmatism, its purpose is the implementation and service of a principle, which must be freely taken up by men for its intrinsic value. In the Traditional world, principles are something that a man takes up freely and of his own will, and applies freely and of his own will - including also in the context of state formation, etc. That is my full view of the matter.

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

According to the Traditionalist view, this would be transcendent values - experiential spirituality, honour, courage, wisdom, autonomy, detachment, etc. etc. This is the only foundation for a state or a morality that I would consider acceptable.

What's the basis of these transcendental values? Is it the word of God, or is it evolutionarily adaptive? Why would you consider these values transcendental rather than others? It seems to be purely arbitrary in the sense that one picks these values simply because these values feel good. In the same vein, isn't free sex or going to Africa and giving food to niglets a transcendental value as well, since it feels good?

The Darwinist view assigns primary importance to biological life

That's fundamental. All morality starts from life. Our very sense of morality comes from evolutionary pressures that caused us to develop such feelings in order to preserve life. Morals such as honor or courage only have meaning in the context of human life. They hold no value in some barren wasteland like mars.

The issue is, is one of finding meaning and purpose in life. You can derive a sort of meaning from a darwinian view that you are the product of billions of years of evolution and it is your purpose in life to conform to adaptive behaviors. Your purpose of being born is to serve your tribe and spread your genes.

In certain cases honour can make survival more, not less, difficult. The same applies for generosity and altruism. The importance of these things is affirmed through life and in life, but not for life.

I'll concede, this is a solid point. The issue again comes to why exactly are values such as generosity and altruism considered good or essential? How did these values come to be in the first place? They have become so because they were evolutionarily adaptive. A nation that abandons such values will have low trust and support amongst themselves and will collapse in the face of one that has not dropped these values.

The objective of conforming to and abiding by natural law/evoltuionarily adaptive behavior leads you to the same end of cherishing such values.

It is called natural law, not supernatural law, after all. In this view, human beings are trapped within the world of material cause and effect, and end up acting as puppets of the laws of nature and the world, rather than making these laws.

Unfortunately, this is the point where I become somewhat Reddit. The supernatural law is something that is vague and incomprehensible. You cannot establish a solid moral or intellectual foundation upon something you have no evidence or cannot even fully qualify. How do you know you have a soul? How do you know whether this soul goes to heaven, hell, Valhalla, purgatory, or Elysium after death? How does one measure the value of one soul against another?

As u/LGBTQIAIDS put it in another post a while back, such emphasis on souls and other forms of abstract, magical (I don't like to use this term but still) beliefs opens the door to ruinous egalitarianism. For example, the Christian belief in souls and that we are made in the image of God. If you hold such a belief, it is only logical for you to work from that to radical egalitarianism.

What physical(material) differences races have is immaterial before what they have in common: God-given eternal souls. After all, you can't claim that the soul of one race is better than other or the soul of a heterosexual is more deserving of heaven than that of a homosexual for the simple reason that you can't measure souls or see them.

[–]NeoRail 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

What's the basis of these transcendental values?

The basis of transcendental values is that they complete things - transcendence is superior to nature because it is not confined by it, therefore it being based in transcendence means having greater inner freedom and more Being. Uniting the natural world with what transcends the natural world grants a quality of completeness, clarity and independence. Following transcendental values contributes to growth in this domain - to give an example, let us take a look at courage. Courage is a transcendental quality because it affirms the independence of the personality in the face of death, it affirms spirit over matter. It is not an evolutionarily useful quality at all, because it endangers life in order to benefit that which is more than life. Taking the materialist perspective on this issue ends up transforming courage into a kind of disability, hence the utterly ridiculous but popular belief in some circles that "men are expendable" since their only roles according to this Darwinist worldview is to inseminate and fight for the protection of others, as if men are idiotic automatons completely lacking in self-awareness.

To return to the more general point, these transcendent values can be affirmed in the form of commandments of God, but they can also be affirmed in most other spiritual worldviews, including for example that of the Ancient Greeks, which considered the world as a divine order and a cosmos which included both material and immaterial elements.

That's fundamental. All morality starts from life.

I can agree with this second statement, but with the reservations that not all forms of morality have an objective and meaningful character, and that this does not in itself imply biological life has primacy.

Our very sense of morality comes from evolutionary pressures that caused us to develop such feelings in order to preserve life.

This is not really true, because history has many examples of forms of morality that do not at all aim to preserve life. These examples can be both positive and negative. As to where morality comes from, that is a more difficult matter to address.

Morals such as honor or courage only have meaning in the context of human life. They hold no value in some barren wasteland like mars.

I partly agree with this, but your perspective is too materialistic. If our definition of human beings includes not only material but also spiritual aspects, it is perfectly sensible to think that by far the most objective meaning will be found - expressed in one form or another - in human life, with Mars having very, very little relevance in the grand scheme of things. This is a bit of a tricky subject, however, since the Anthropocentrist position is also wrong - from a Traditionalist perspective, the only thing that makes humans special is our much greater ability to participate in the divine order.

The issue is, is one of finding meaning and purpose in life.

I agree, but finding meaning in life does not necessarily mean deriving meaning from life, or at least, life conceived unilaterally to the exclusion of the spirit.

You can derive a sort of meaning from a darwinian view that you are the product of billions of years of evolution and it is your purpose in life to conform to adaptive behaviors.

I do not find this vision compelling because it's essentially an appeal to nature, but not all people naturally follow "adaptive behaviours". Many people are not capable of being "adaptive" at all, and some value other things higher than being "adaptive" - heroes, saints, philosophers etc. all prioritise other things above "adaptive behaviours". Personally, I also can't see the meaning in living your life according to a set of rules just because they perpetuate life. Materialistically, it makes more sense to focus on the individual life instead of "the continuation of the species". In fact, I think nature itself affirms this - some animals, like rabbits for example, occasionally kill their young.

I'll concede, this is a solid point. The issue again comes to why exactly are values such as generosity and altruism considered good or essential? How did these values come to be in the first place? They have become so because they were evolutionarily adaptive. A nation that abandons such values will have low trust and support amongst themselves and will collapse in the face of one that has not dropped these values.

I disagree. I have an alterative explanation on what makes these values important and why they are so widespread. While virtues are to an extent culturally constructed, I think that all authentic virtues have a transcendent character, hence why they are valued. Charity, for example, not only benefits social cohesion, but also develops detachment from material goods and the material world. Just like with the earlier example of courage, this increases the inner freedom of the human personality and makes men fearless. These qualities of independence and fearlessness are what helps moral societies triumph over immoral ones - not some sense of materialistic solidarity, which is ultimately the solidarity proper to criminals, traitors and thieves.

Unfortunately, this is the point where I become somewhat Reddit. The supernatural law is something that is vague and incomprehensible. You cannot establish a solid moral or intellectual foundation upon something you have no evidence or cannot even fully qualify. How do you know you have a soul? How do you know whether this soul goes to heaven, hell, Valhalla, purgatory, or Elysium after death? How does one measure the value of one soul against another?

You ask some very good questions, but I disagree that it is impossible to establish solid moral and intellectual structures on the basis of transcendent values - every Traditional culture has done this. The Greeks, the Romans, the civilisation of India - all of these are good examples of just that.

As to your questions, the Traditional conception is that you either dedicate your life to spiritual pursuits in order to experience spiritual reality yourself, or you have to take those who have experienced it on their word. Those are the only options. Just like the average person depends on an expert builder to build a house properly, so it is also with spirituality. Only people who have invested sufficient effort can claim to know anything about it. The rest have to trust them, or else give up on the pursuit entirely - be it spirituality, or construction, or dentistry. The two major issues today (in the "Kali Yuga") is that people have indeed given up on spirituality, and that the Traditional structures and institutions which preserved and transmitted spiritual knowledge have been destroyed. If we were having this conversation in an ancient Greek city, I would be able to refer you to a mystery cult where you would be able to experience spirituality for yourself, but such institutions no longer exist. Nevertheless, even today there are still some valid methods for getting answers for the questions you asked through direct spiritual experience - they are just harder and less accessible. There are also philosophical ways to rationally address your questions, but traditionally the normal way to address them is through spiritual experience.

such emphasis on souls and other forms of abstract, magical (I don't like to use this term but still) beliefs opens the door to ruinous egalitarianism...

What physical(material) differences...

I don't know if you are aware of this, but I actually had a fairly in-depth discussion with the user you mentioned on this matter. Here is his initial comment. You can find my attempt to refute him below. I will quote my most relevant arguments:

Doctrines that acknowledge the existence of the soul are radically, extremely inegalitarian, and we have historical evidence of this dating back to Plato, at the very least. No two souls are the same, and each differs from each on the basis of character, personality, dignity, wisdom, virtue, nature, affinities, capacity and lastly, content - much of which is received organically from a traditional society. Your demand for deciding on an exclusive preference for either body or soul is also completely unjustifiable and would have disastrous intellectual consequences for anyone who takes it seriously, because each of those is obviously important in its own way. Not to mention that rather than souls, your problem seems to be with the definition of human beings as interchangable, atomised and purely rational actors, which is a decidedly modern definition and has nothing to do at all with the traditional concept of the soul.

To summarise some of the other things we covered in that thread, we discussed Cartesianism and the modern re-definition of the soul as a purely rational faculty, which is a kind of blank slatism and is also completely antitraditional. In Traditional civilisations, the soul was not at all abstract but had very concrete features. I also rejected the claim that moral and spiritual qualities are unverifiable, which I consider completely self-evident and see no need in proving. Finally, I raised the point that ancient, European, pagan ethnoreligions still assigned primacy to the soul over the body, and yet this did not in any way prejudice their ability to function as ethnoreligions - consequently, the claim that assigning primacy to the spirit automatically presupposes some sort of all-encompassing egalitarianism must necessarily be a false one.

[–]LGBTQIAIDSAnally Injected Death Sentence 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

As I have had more time to reflect on our last few replies to each other, and regarding your last paragraph as the next step in this discussion, let us continue for a short time longer in the hope that you can convince me of the merits of Platonism or Aristotelianism or Evolianism or whichever philosophical school it is that you appear to adhere to, one which is evidently not Cartesianism.

Where we last ended was on the soul: I was arguing against 'popular dualism' (to which Cartesian dualism is greatly similar, particularly in its interactionism) whereas you perceived my comment as attacking some other kind of dualism, presumably either Platonism or Aristotelianism, neither of which I have more than a cursory understanding of.

To my memory, Plato's typology was that the soul is composed of desire, reason and thumos. Aristotle rejected this in favour of another typology in which the soul is composed of nutritive soul-part (shared by all living things), a locomotive soul-part (shared by animals including men) and a rational soul-part (which sets Man apart from animal). Aristotle seemed to reduce desire from a single soul-part to three categories of desire which are located in at least two of three soul-parts. Epithumia, he locates in the locomotive; boulesis, he locates in the rational. Thumos, having also been reduced from soul-part to a mere third category of desire, appears to be reduced to a mere 'phantasia'.

I welcome any correction that you might make to what is probably a paragraph which could use great improvement, and is simply the product of my memory combined with a few notes I took from several decent papers on the topic of thumos, and then condensed. I write this in the hope that we are this time on the same page concerning these Socratic conceptions of the soul.

In Traditional civilisations, the soul was not at all abstract but had very concrete features. I also rejected the claim that moral and spiritual qualities are unverifiable, which I consider completely self-evident and see no need in proving.

This jumps out to me as the thing which seems to me most obviously disagreeable, and it is on here that I will focus. Last time, you dismissed what I know as the 'Cartesian mind' (which for Descartes I believe is numerically identical with the soul) and seemed to agree that—perhaps because of how minimalistic Descartes' claims are concerning the nature of this soul—that it is indeed the gateway towards egalitarianism that I accuse it of being. My argument was that because there are few properties of this soul—among them nonspatiality, that it is a reasoning thing, that it is created by God, that it exists both prenatally and posthumously, that it is irreducible to body or brain, that it has a two-way causal relation with the body (interactionism)—and that these things are essentially either 'Yes' or 'No' and not 'Better' or 'Worse', we have no grounds on which to assert the superiority or inferiority of persons. For if all people indeed a possess a soul that possesses these qualities, and the worth of a person is judged predominantly if not solely on this soul, then all that we can do is say that all persons are effectively equal because each soul possesses these exact same properties to no greater nor lesser extent than any other. This is obviously to me a conclusion which must be avoided, hence what I described as a physicalist drift away from dualism. However, you have argued for some other kind of dualism rather than moved in the physicalist direction.

Now, the Platonic and Aristotelian conceptions of the soul, to me, whilst undoubtedly less minimalistic than their Cartesian counterpart, suffer from much the same problem. For whilst we eschew the Cartesian mind's properties, all that we have to replace them with are soul-parts which, though unlike the Cartesian properties in that boulesis, epithumia, and thumos likely differ in each person, still cannot be measured in any obvious way to determine who is superior and who is not.

Now we might say at this point that thumos is something that is measurable. And we might say that those with high thumos can be identified because they have high 'intrinsic motivation', high self-esteem and certain other observable relational properties (a la Donald Trump or Elon Musk); whereas someone with low thumos is essentially a 'Last Man' who seeks to achieve little if anything at all in life. But such an observation could be attributed just as easily to a psychological concept (such as the aforementioned 'intrinsic motivation', something which may at some point be found to have a neuroscientific explanation if we have faith in the claims of modern 'eliminativist' philosophers like Churchland) or even to the influence of what we know as sociological concepts, such as the Japanese ikigai or Protestant work ethic, upon individuals. So much of what has been philosophized can be psychologized, sociologized or otherwise scientized. Freud, for example, has been recorded as once remarking that he was essentially psychologizing Schopenhauerian philosophy: that is, that certain key claims of Schopenhauer matched his more 'scientific' (keeping in mind that I view psychoanalysis as pseudoscientific, although still more scientific than philosophy) findings.

I must wonder just who possessing of a scientific mind would accept something such as either of these tripartite conceptions of the soul? For how am I to verify just which man's typology, if either, is indeed correct? Why should I accept Plato over Aristotle or vice versa? And if every valuable insight from philosophy such as thumos—which for me are (usually) those which are later scientized once scientific advancement reaches a level at which such ideas can be put to test—can be reached through scientific means, will not science erode the value of philosophy as it proves that of it which is provable, leaving only that which cannot be?

All that I have said of the Cartesian mind also holds true of the Christian soul, as Caspar has observed. How can we have an actually 'inegalitarian dualism' that is more useful for a new social order than a more NatSoc-like physicalism that can easier attribute human worth to the body and gene? Christianity (and Cartesianism, were it not repressed and largely wiped out by the mid-eighteenth century) must surely lead to egalitarianism precisely because the alleged content or properties of the soul plain and simply encourage it. Hence the common claim in these quarters, that contemporary Left-liberalism is some kind of mutant bastard child of Christianity that simply took this underlying egalitarianism and then cut out God, original sin (except for White people) and a few other things, thus leading to the conclusion that a dualist creed—not a physicalist one—led us to where we are today.

[–]NeoRail 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

To my memory, Plato's typology was that the soul is composed of desire, reason and thumos.

You are referring to the tripartite soul, yes, but there are other elements that also need to be considered. It should also be noted that there are some ambiguities when we speak about "reason" in Ancient Greek thought - the spiritual noetic intellect and the rational logos are both considered forms of reason. I can't comment on the views of Aristotle because I have only read small bits and pieces by him. I consider Aristotle to be a more rationalistic thinker, so I do not like him.

This jumps out to me as the thing which seems to me most obviously disagreeable, and it is on here that I will focus.

This is good, because the section you have quoted is perhaps the most central part of my argument.

My argument was that because there are few properties of this soul—among them nonspatiality, that it is a reasoning thing, that it is created by God, that it exists both prenatally and posthumously, that it is irreducible to body or brain, that it has a two-way causal relation with the body (interactionism)—and that these things are essentially either 'Yes' or 'No' and not 'Better' or 'Worse', we have no grounds on which to assert the superiority or inferiority of persons.

Examining everything you mentioned here in full would be an extraordinarily massive endeavour. The problem for me here is that, in my view, it is not hard to establish through various means that your claims are incorrect - the issue consists in being able to set the record straight. Even in Traditional religions, there is a very broad degree of variety in how souls are considered and described. This is so because of two reasons: first, the people articulating these ideas about the soul can be competent to a lesser or greater degree, and second, their ideas about the soul will generally be associated with the methods they use to interact with it and with the character of their civilisation. Buddhists, for example, deny the existence of the soul altogether even though they work with it more directly than most other religions - you can find more on this in the writings of Coomaraswamy, but essentially their views are owed to the use of an apophatic, practical method. This is probably a good example of the degree of difference, but I am struggling to find a way to address all of your points in a concise manner. The crux of the issue is that the soul is an extremely complex entity, there are various ways to define it and there are various different ways in which it is possible to interact with it. I have to refer to the master builder analogy I made earlier - perhaps if you raised all these points to an extremely advanced and highly intelligent Tibetan Buddhist, he may be able to address them easily and quickly. As for me, all I can do is use the method of counterexample.

among them nonspatiality

Different aspects of the soul are assigned spatial qualities in Hinduism, and also for example in Christianity, hence the idea of the resurrected soul-body complex at the Second Coming.

that it is a reasoning thing

Some religions assign the soul more emotional and devotional qualities, like Christianity. Others deny it is a thing at all, like Buddhism.

that it is created by God

This is not universal at all, more advanced metaphysical systems like Hinduism put the theistic God in a subordinate position to the cosmic laws and to Brahman.

that it exists both prenatally and posthumously

This is not the case for all religious systems, I think you are referring mainly to the Abrahamic religions here.

that it is irreducible to body or brain

Technically correct statement. There is nuance and diversity of opinion, however, on the matter of how the soul and the body are connected.

that it has a two-way causal relation with the body

I think various Hindu schools of thought would disagree with you on this. It is a complex issue.

As you can see, the scope of the points you have raised here is extremely broad. I hope that my use of counterexamples has been sufficient to address them. There are still some useful things which can be said about the rest of your argument, which I will now discuss.

For if all people indeed a possess a soul that possesses these qualities, and the worth of a person is judged predominantly if not solely on this soul, then all that we can do is say that all persons are effectively equal because each soul possesses these exact same properties to no greater nor lesser extent than any other.

The properties you have examined are essentially doctrinal claims about the nature of the soul, and are strongly linked to the spiritual methodology of religious traditions. These are universal properties which apply to every soul, and consequently are the same for everyone, as you have suggested - even an unrepentant sinner, destined for hell according to Christian theology, would have a soul that has the same properties as a Christian does in this general and universal sense. As this example demonstrates, however, on the plane of the concrete and the particular, extremely drastic differences may exist, so that one man ends up a saint, and another is sent to hell. There is obvious qualitative discrimination between the two.

To illustrate my point better, I will briefly go over some of the things I mentioned earlier:

No two souls are the same, and each differs from each on the basis of character, personality, dignity, wisdom, virtue, nature, affinities, capacity and lastly, content - much of which is received organically from a traditional society.

This description of the soul I gave earlier is very concrete. There is no rigid split between spiritual and material life, the two go together, and the first governs the second. Character, personality and nature are all attributed to things which are either inborn to the soul, or were acquired through experience - the way a man conducts himself, his psychological qualities, his style of expression etc. all stem from the soul. His interests, skills and affinities are a fundamental part of him and say something deeper about him. His sense of honour and dishonour, his understanding and practice of virtue, the wisdom he has, all of these things differentiate him from other men and are attributed to the soul. Finally, the acquired cultural heritage, the traditions and customs a man inherits, were also considered a part of his being in Traditional civilisations. The household gods of classical societies are one good example of this at the family level. Even the physical qualities of the body were considered the product of the soul, and reflected its nature - beauty, health, strength, intelligence, all these things were considered products of the soul. Plato, for example, also considered memory to be a faculty of the soul - for the purposes of the discussion, it is irrelevant if this belief is correct or incorrect, what matters is that from a Platonic perspective, essentially every meaningful difference between human beings is owed to the soul.

I could not possibly do justice to all the things discussed in so few words, but I hope that what I have said will prove valuable in some manner. Now, it is time to address the second half of your post.

[–]NeoRail 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

So much of what has been philosophized can be psychologized, sociologized or otherwise scientized. Freud, for example, has been recorded as once remarking that he was essentially psychologizing Schopenhauerian philosophy: that is, that certain key claims of Schopenhauer matched his more 'scientific' (keeping in mind that I view psychoanalysis as pseudoscientific, although still more scientific than philosophy) findings.

This is essentially reiterating my previous claim that everything is downstream from metaphysics and philosophy, only in different termss. It should not be surprising that alternative explanations for the mind, society, the conception of knowledge etc. can be offered by various scientistic approaches, because all of these approaches are rooted in a presupposed metaphysics and philosophy, however defectively understood or applied. Modern materialist science is itself a form of natural philosophy, as we discussed earlier.

I must wonder just who possessing of a scientific mind would accept something such as either of these tripartite conceptions of the soul? For how am I to verify just which man's typology, if either, is indeed correct?

Not with the tools of a modern materialist sub-branch of natural philosophy which we refer to as science, which by design exclude non-quantitative phenomena, at any rate. If you wish to verify these things for yourself, there are a plethora of traditional methods available, which of course presuppose an entirely different methodology.

Why should I accept Plato over Aristotle or vice versa?

There are some people who would argue this rationally, but I am not one of those. I would rather you think what you believe to be correct, regardless of what it is. My objection to your initial post was your framing of the soul as some sort of abstract and levelling egalitarian concept, when historically the exact opposite has been the case.

will not science erode the value of philosophy as it proves that of it which is provable, leaving only that which cannot be?

It will not, because that would be the same as science eroding its own value, given that it is a subordinate branch of philosophy and draws its legitimacy from it.

All that I have said of the Cartesian mind also holds true of the Christian soul, as Caspar has observed.

That's not really true, as I demonstrated with my example about the sinner earlier. Not to mention that to my knowledge both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches have much more developed conceptions of the soul than is commonly known, most Christians are just completely ignorant of those conceptions and instead rely on the modernist, secular Cartesian model.

physicalism that can easier attribute human worth to the body and gene?

Well, that's wrong, so you would obviously have to deal with that problem. I assume you remember the example I gave to demonstrate the falseness of this notion in our previous conversation. Countless other examples can be given. A quick look at the members of the aristocracy today is sufficient proof.

(and Cartesianism, were it not repressed and largely wiped out by the mid-eighteenth century)

What do you consider to have replaced Cartesianism? If I recall correctly, in our last thread you agreed that the modern understanding of a human being is essentially that it is a "sovereign rational actor", with humanity being defined as our common ability to use the reasoning faculty.

must surely lead to egalitarianism precisely because the alleged content or properties of the soul plain and simply encourage it.

An indefensible claim. In order to stick to what to you sounds plausible, you end up entertaining the utterly ridiculous.

Hence the common claim in these quarters, that contemporary Left-liberalism is some kind of mutant bastard child of Christianity that simply took this underlying egalitarianism and then cut out God, original sin (except for White people) and a few other things, thus leading to the conclusion that a dualist creed—not a physicalist one—led us to where we are today.

There is nothing even remotely dualist about modern leftism, absolutely everything in leftism is constantly reduced to matter and is completely lacking in any transcendent character - the conception of the mind is materialist, the conception of society is materialist and the conception of morality is materialist-utilitarian too. Critiques like this can only really point at the superficial moralism and zealotry of modern leftists, but this is by no means something only the religious have a monopoly on. A great example of this is Dawkins, who is an extremely materialist individual, yet a no less zealous, puritanical and bigoted one for all that.

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

given that it is a subordinate branch of philosophy and draws its legitimacy from it.

Science draws its legitimacy from the fact that it works.

[–]NeoRail 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

On a popular level, you are correct. The problem is that that is still completely nonsensical. In the first place, knowledge isn't supposed to "work" - it simply is. To say that the "scientific" perspective is always correct just because science has resulted in the production of advanced technology is logically incoherent and completely arbitrary. The former does not follow from the latter at all, not even a bit. Initial proponents of the empirical method had far humbler goals and understood their scientific pursuits as merely one way of knowing things, with rather limited applications at that.

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

The Greeks, the Romans, the civilisation of India - all of these are good examples of just that.

The problem is that they don't stand up to modern scientific scrutiny.

[–]NeoRail 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Modern civilisation doesn't stand up to modern scientific scrutiny either. "Modern scientific scrutiny" isn't really a thing, it's just one of many empty buzzwords used for political reasons.

[–][deleted]  (5 children)

[deleted]

    [–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

    The core issue at the heart of the modern world and its rot is the question of purpose and meaning.

    Why do we exist? Why do our societies exist? Why should I live a moral life or care about my heritage or community at all?

    The answer of the liberal-modernist establishment is identical to the Nietzschean one: there is no meaning.

    The liberals simply took this answer to its logical conclusion. So what if my grandchildren become 70 IQ mulattoes and live in a dustbin? What if Congolese gang rapists burn my ancestral cemetery and rape my sister? What if I engage in sodomy, do drugs, and rape kids? Why is it wrong? Why is anything wrong in the absence of any grand meaning?

    Are we not just a random arrangement of quarks and leptons that assumed this formation by pure happenstance? When we die, do we not simply change the arrangement of said particles? Then, do our lives and actions have any meanings? Aren't they just meaningless rearrangements of particles?

    A world in which humans lack this sense of purpose or meaning is a world doomed to die like the current liberal west. Declining birth rates, immigrant invasions, and collapsing moral and social outcomes.

    The only way one can draw any meaning from this world is through God or a sense of natural law.

    Natural law/evolutionarily adaptive behavior is the expression of God's will in that societies that stray from adaptive values (For example, patriarchy, nationalism, piety, martial vigor, modesty, chastity, hardiness) atrophy and lose out in the eternal contest of nations.

    You can draw meaning from that in either of two ways. Either you could hold that natural law/dharma is God's will and your purpose in life is to abide by it. Or you could interpret it in a biological way: You are a product of billions of years of evolution and it is your biological duty and purpose to abide by dharma/adaptive behaviors. That is your purpose.

    [–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    The answer of the liberal-modernist establishment is identical to the Nietzschean one: there is no meaning.

    That's false. The Nietzschean answer is to stare the abyss in the face and overcome it by creating your own meaning based on a radical affirmation of power, beauty, and vitality.

    [–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    creating your own meaning

    No one has done this successfully. Certainly not Nietzsche himself who fucked his own sister and was confined to a mental ward for the last years of his life.

    [–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    No one has done this successfully.

    What are you talking about? I do it every day.

    Certainly not Nietzsche himself who fucked his own sister and was confined to a mental ward for the last years of his life.

    Ad hominem.