Finding the Key
This essay will be truncated by necessity, but I will try to flesh it out as I am able, time and circumstances allowing. Because it is jumping off my mind onto this page, the writing may be shoddy and the thoughts non-linear, but hopefully the points will be valid and clear.
I begin my analysis with the presumption that there are, in fact, clear and fundamental differences in Leftist and Rightist thought; more specifically, in light of the present inability for each camp to actually have a fruitful debate, I am searching for a common ground of first principles which can be appealed to during an argumentative impasse, and from which can be built a larger and more comprehensive plan for the future of Western Civilization. I will attempt on this blog to do nothing less, and nothing more, than provide a framework of discussion that all life-affirming individuals will accept, a framework that is built on a more complete understanding of just what type of world we live in.
The divide into Left and Right is a simple, and probably insufficient, dichotomy of ideological geneologies, and I expect to discover that they intertwine as much as the double-helix of our DNA, with crossovers and combinations prevalent and significant. Nevertheless, the differences between the geneologies are sufficient to have caused a rupture in the common language of the West; worse, the post-modernism and positivism of the 20th century have compounded the problem, not because of their inferiority, but because of their departure from their brethren. The words that bind and support our culture mean less, because they have, by necessity, been forced to mean more. Whether it is a problem of lay-men versus the initiated, science versus religion, or liberal versus conservative, the gulf between our intended meaning and our received meaning is becoming wider. Because language-based communication is a symbol-oriented, substitutive technique for transmitting and receiving information and knowledge, it seems to me a dire necessity, if we are to coordinate our efforts and survive, that we re-establish a workable code key that we can all embrace.
Much of this will simply consist of updating and modifying our supposed knowledge with the latest data. (As a side note, by knowledge I do not mean anything absolute. Knowledge is simply the deducement of patterns between different pieces of raw data. The usefulness of knowledge then becomes its predictive value, whether the noticed pattern will repeat itself and whether you can plan around it. Nevertheless, because of the weird nature of the universe at the bottom level, where events are governed largely by chance, we can never say that something is or isn't impossible. If a black-hole can radiate particles, and if the earth's atoms could decompose all at once, well, then, anything is possible).
For those familiar with logical positivism, I have already shown my hand. The most characteristic claim of logical positivism asserts that statements are meaningful only insofar as they are verifiable, and that statements can be verified only in two (exclusive) ways: empirical statements, including scientific theories, which are verified by experiment and evidence; and analytic truth, statements which are true or false by definition, and so are also meaningful. However, one of the tenets of logical positivism is to disregard moral philosophy because metaphysical analysis is no longer meaningful. This, I do not agree with.
One of the reasons I cannot not completely agree with logical positivism correlates directly with the task I have laid out. If Western civilization arose out of a discipline of moral philosophy, we do a grave disservice to our culture when we, with a flick of the wrist, discard it and presume that metaphysical analysis has no meaning. In fact, the very success we see around us proves that it has a meaning. Positivism may be correct that there are no metaphysical and verifiable truths, but is not this statement itself something that cannot be verified?
Metaphysics, for me, is simply a shorthand conceptual paradigm, a logical structure and language generator where terms like good and evil do exist and are verifiable, if we begin with the right definition. Nietzsche, in this case, was both correct and incorrect. He posited that 'good' and 'evil' were context-specific, that Master Morality, with virtues of strength, power, and conquering, could without contradiction claim certain things were good that Christian (Slave) Morality, with virtues of meekness, humility, and self-control, claimed were evil, and they could both be right within their particular contexts. Simply, what he was saying is that the terms 'good' and 'evil', since they could evolve, were actually meaningless, and needed to be discarded for a new paradigm of creativity and will to power.
However, is it the case that 'good' and 'evil' evolved, or is it simply that their application evolved? As the needs and evolutionary strategies of mankind evolved, cooperation and humility did indeed become much more important as survival techniques. But, ah!, there you have it. In Master Morality, the survival technique, from the man on up to the society, was strength and honor. 'Good', in this culture, was strength and honor. Therefore, we have a simple substitution. If A (good) = B (strength), and B (strength) = C (survival), then A (good) = C (survival). The definition of 'Good' then becomes Survival Technique, Evolution Strategy, or, as I posit: That Which Affirms Life. 'Evil', then, is That Which Ends Life. The scope and context is still important, but we now have a workable definition that can be verified and implemented.
That these precise definitions exist is enough evidence for me that there is something realistic and necessary in moral philosophy, that its acceptance and implementation has some kind of evolutionary value for us as gene-vehicles. If history is our laboratory, then the results are in and we can be certain: Mankind needs moral philosophy to survive, and any negation of this evolutionary strategy is fraught with unimaginable danger.
And that is the baseline to which I bring all of my thoughts. I am not an atheist, but I believe man to be an animal. I cannot be certain about the mystery that lies beneath, the foundational nothingness from which all particles are built, nor can I explain existence without some tribute to the unseen power that props up space and time, matter and energy, chance and event. I can, however, be certain that we are animals made from the same material as all other animals (genes), live on the same planet and succumb to the same rules as all other organisms, and so play the same game of selection, evolution, survival, and death. Once you accept that the game is survival, that the point is to maximize the good and minimize the evil, the next step is easy: we must learn the rules, and win the game.
And that is where I will stop for today. Perhaps more later.
I begin my analysis with the presumption that there are, in fact, clear and fundamental differences in Leftist and Rightist thought; more specifically, in light of the present inability for each camp to actually have a fruitful debate, I am searching for a common ground of first principles which can be appealed to during an argumentative impasse, and from which can be built a larger and more comprehensive plan for the future of Western Civilization. I will attempt on this blog to do nothing less, and nothing more, than provide a framework of discussion that all life-affirming individuals will accept, a framework that is built on a more complete understanding of just what type of world we live in.
The divide into Left and Right is a simple, and probably insufficient, dichotomy of ideological geneologies, and I expect to discover that they intertwine as much as the double-helix of our DNA, with crossovers and combinations prevalent and significant. Nevertheless, the differences between the geneologies are sufficient to have caused a rupture in the common language of the West; worse, the post-modernism and positivism of the 20th century have compounded the problem, not because of their inferiority, but because of their departure from their brethren. The words that bind and support our culture mean less, because they have, by necessity, been forced to mean more. Whether it is a problem of lay-men versus the initiated, science versus religion, or liberal versus conservative, the gulf between our intended meaning and our received meaning is becoming wider. Because language-based communication is a symbol-oriented, substitutive technique for transmitting and receiving information and knowledge, it seems to me a dire necessity, if we are to coordinate our efforts and survive, that we re-establish a workable code key that we can all embrace.
Much of this will simply consist of updating and modifying our supposed knowledge with the latest data. (As a side note, by knowledge I do not mean anything absolute. Knowledge is simply the deducement of patterns between different pieces of raw data. The usefulness of knowledge then becomes its predictive value, whether the noticed pattern will repeat itself and whether you can plan around it. Nevertheless, because of the weird nature of the universe at the bottom level, where events are governed largely by chance, we can never say that something is or isn't impossible. If a black-hole can radiate particles, and if the earth's atoms could decompose all at once, well, then, anything is possible).
For those familiar with logical positivism, I have already shown my hand. The most characteristic claim of logical positivism asserts that statements are meaningful only insofar as they are verifiable, and that statements can be verified only in two (exclusive) ways: empirical statements, including scientific theories, which are verified by experiment and evidence; and analytic truth, statements which are true or false by definition, and so are also meaningful. However, one of the tenets of logical positivism is to disregard moral philosophy because metaphysical analysis is no longer meaningful. This, I do not agree with.
One of the reasons I cannot not completely agree with logical positivism correlates directly with the task I have laid out. If Western civilization arose out of a discipline of moral philosophy, we do a grave disservice to our culture when we, with a flick of the wrist, discard it and presume that metaphysical analysis has no meaning. In fact, the very success we see around us proves that it has a meaning. Positivism may be correct that there are no metaphysical and verifiable truths, but is not this statement itself something that cannot be verified?
Metaphysics, for me, is simply a shorthand conceptual paradigm, a logical structure and language generator where terms like good and evil do exist and are verifiable, if we begin with the right definition. Nietzsche, in this case, was both correct and incorrect. He posited that 'good' and 'evil' were context-specific, that Master Morality, with virtues of strength, power, and conquering, could without contradiction claim certain things were good that Christian (Slave) Morality, with virtues of meekness, humility, and self-control, claimed were evil, and they could both be right within their particular contexts. Simply, what he was saying is that the terms 'good' and 'evil', since they could evolve, were actually meaningless, and needed to be discarded for a new paradigm of creativity and will to power.
However, is it the case that 'good' and 'evil' evolved, or is it simply that their application evolved? As the needs and evolutionary strategies of mankind evolved, cooperation and humility did indeed become much more important as survival techniques. But, ah!, there you have it. In Master Morality, the survival technique, from the man on up to the society, was strength and honor. 'Good', in this culture, was strength and honor. Therefore, we have a simple substitution. If A (good) = B (strength), and B (strength) = C (survival), then A (good) = C (survival). The definition of 'Good' then becomes Survival Technique, Evolution Strategy, or, as I posit: That Which Affirms Life. 'Evil', then, is That Which Ends Life. The scope and context is still important, but we now have a workable definition that can be verified and implemented.
That these precise definitions exist is enough evidence for me that there is something realistic and necessary in moral philosophy, that its acceptance and implementation has some kind of evolutionary value for us as gene-vehicles. If history is our laboratory, then the results are in and we can be certain: Mankind needs moral philosophy to survive, and any negation of this evolutionary strategy is fraught with unimaginable danger.
And that is the baseline to which I bring all of my thoughts. I am not an atheist, but I believe man to be an animal. I cannot be certain about the mystery that lies beneath, the foundational nothingness from which all particles are built, nor can I explain existence without some tribute to the unseen power that props up space and time, matter and energy, chance and event. I can, however, be certain that we are animals made from the same material as all other animals (genes), live on the same planet and succumb to the same rules as all other organisms, and so play the same game of selection, evolution, survival, and death. Once you accept that the game is survival, that the point is to maximize the good and minimize the evil, the next step is easy: we must learn the rules, and win the game.
And that is where I will stop for today. Perhaps more later.
posted by John Aristides at 12:32 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home