There are few books published these days that are worth a second look, but The Suicide of Reason by Lee Harris is one of the exceptions. Many observers currently sense — correctly in my view — that something is fundamentally wrong with the Western world, but they differ substantially in their analysis of the cause(s) of this. The First and Second World Wars were horrible, and most thinking people agree that something went wrong with the Western Cultural Revolution of the 1960s and 70s, which unlike the Chinese Cultural Revolution became institutionalized. But does that mean that everything was fine in the 1950s?- - - - - - - - -
The Communist Manifesto was written already in 1848 by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, and Marx published Das Kapital in 1867. There are those who believe that Marxism could only have been born in a Christian environment, and there are also those who claim that the real father of Communism was Plato in ancient Greece, not Karl Marx. So where exactly did the West go wrong, and just how far back do we have to go before things were “right”? 1950? 1850? Before the Enlightenment and industrialization? Before Christianity? Before Plato?
Even Christian conservative writer Lawrence Auster admits that modern liberalism “would not have come into existence without Christianity, and liberalism can fairly be described as a secularized offshoot of Christianity,” but he thinks that this does not necessarily mean that all forms of Christianity in every context have been or need to be suicidal, which may be true.
The jury is still out on whether Christian universalism is suicidal for Europeans in a world of global communications where most Christians are non-Europeans, yet I am convinced that we must take a look at a dark side of the Enlightenment which can be dubbed the Cult of Reason.
As I argue in my online essay Why Did Europeans Create the Modern World?, the West is now dominated by Darwinists who don’t believe in the theory of evolution, or rather, fail to accept the logical consequences of this theory when applied to human beings.. I stand by my previous statement that if you believe that human beings are the product of evolutionary pressures then there is no such thing as “racism,” which is a totally anti-scientific term.
Various human groups will during thousand and tens of thousands of years of natural selection have adjusted themselves to different natural environments, with results that don’t merely include superficial differences such as skin color but probably also mental differences. Yet absurdly, saying this makes you vilified and labeled a “Nazi” in Western countries today.
I have struggled to explain why. My conclusion is that we live in a society where the ideal is not merely Reason Alone but Thought Alone; we are supposed to create an entire society and physical reality purely by thought, which should result in perfect, cosmic, universal justice and equality for all. Anything and everything that impedes with our ability to create this reality must be banned as “irrational” or “hate.” If God and religion prevent us from creating what we want then God and religion must be removed; the theory of evolution can take care of that for us. However, we must be careful not to follow this theory to its logical conclusion because then biology instead of God would inhibit our ability to create perfect equality between men and women and between humans of all races. In short, we must ban reality.
This is in essence what Political Correctness is all about: Banning any discussion of reality so we can create a perfect world based on Thought Alone. In a strange sense this could ironically be seen as the final culmination of millennia of Western use of reason until we finally succeeded in creating a society based on Reason Alone. Although I cannot pinpoint exactly how I suspect you could successfully argue that there is a form of Platonism underlying this mental construct. After all, in Plato’s world the perfect, unchanging Ideas were physically separated from observed reality. In a way this is exactly what the modern West has created.
The dream of a perfect world of absolute equality may be a beautiful dream but it is a dream, based on many different false beliefs. It will quickly turn into a very real nightmare if you try to implement it. Among the largest of these false beliefs is the idea that man is naturally good and a perfectly rational being. I am personally not ready to embrace the opposite claim either, that man is by nature evil or sinful. My preferred view is that man is flawed and imperfect, yet that is quite sufficient to show that you can never create a perfect society with universal justice, just like you cannot create a perfect building using imperfect building materials.
The perfect world of Reason Alone is beautiful in all its symmetry and mathematical precision.. There is only one problem with it: It is a lie. Unfortunately, the media, the political and intellectual leaders as well as the education system have become passionately dedicated to preserving and upholding this lie as The Only Truth and will ruthlessly harass any dissenters who suggest alternative ideas. This means that there will be no reality check until the entire mental bubble is punctured through a painful crash with actual reality. By the time that happens, the collapse may well take much of the edifice of Western civilization with it.
Read the rest at the Brussels Journal.
22 comments:
Fjordman,
You're trying to create a straw man,the Western liberal dream is of incremental progress not perfection.I can't see the problem with this concept, it led us(part of the way,at least) out of superstition and oppression.So humans are not equal in capabilities,so what? I don't understand what you infer from this-that humans should have differential rights commensurate with their IQs?
What educated person these days would believe that humans are perfectly rational or naturally "good", whatever that means.
The Western liberal project has faltered, not because of pseudo-religious ideas of "perfectibility",there are other reasons.
The failure is due to the adoption, by the mainstream, of hare-brained and originally, marginal, notions of cultural relativism and muticulturalism.
You might have already read -
"Towards the Light" by A.C. Grayling,
If you have not I'd recommend it. It might reduce your pessimism in regard to the future of the magnificent civilization we share.
Fjordman said: This is in essence what Political Correctness is all about: Banning any discussion of reality so we can create a perfect world based on Thought Alone. In a strange sense this could ironically be seen as the final culmination of millennia of Western use of reason until we finally succeeded in creating a society based on Reason Alone.
I agree with what you're saying here in your essay -- I think you are very right in pointing out how modern liberalism and political correct ideas are built on falsehoods. But, I disagree that all this nonsense is founded in "Reason Alone".
I understand what you're saying -- that liberals/pc people are constructing a reality (that doesn't exist) inside their heads and it bears no resemblance to anything in real life. I agree with that. But they're not doing in through reason. To my mind, they're doing it through an absence of reason -- and, very often, a willful absence.
To reason means to think in a rational or logical way. As you so rightly point out, there's nothing rational or logical about so-called Darwinists who believe that all peoples everywhere are just the same. To conclude that suggests to me a profound absence of intellectualism or no reasoning at all.
I guess I agree with what you're saying, I just don't like how you're putting it. Please, don't taint the good name of Reason! ;-)
Fjordman: "The dream of a perfect world of absolute equality may be a beautiful dream but it is a dream, based on many different false beliefs. It will quickly turn into a very real nightmare if you try to implement it. Among the largest of these false beliefs is the idea that man is naturally good and a perfectly rational being. I am personally not ready to embrace the opposite claim either, that man is by nature evil or sinful. My preferred view is that man is flawed and imperfect, yet that is quite sufficient to show that you can never create a perfect society with universal justice, just like you cannot create a perfect building using imperfect building materials."
I think it was Goethe that said, "There's no such thing as man, only men." And it seems to me that the problems of the West are encapsulated is Goethe's simple observation - the West believes and thus acts as though 'mankind' exists.
Some men are by nature more evil and sinful than other men; such men cannot construct and maintain a reasonable society yet the West continues to act as though they can.
I'm afraid the issue is one of race.
Fjordman article is close to my real world experiences of the climate change and multicultural suicide brigade, their condition is comparable to a scyzophrenic with a god complex and echoes to kill.
To blame christianity is the same as to confuse it with the false god complex of the scyzophrenic. The echoes of climate change and multiculturalism dispaly and act in the same way as an organised religion but they are delusional.
Fjordman, I finally found something I disagree with in what you write - or maybe I did earlier, but I forgot. As someone pointed out before, the liberal thought is actually dogmatic, hence void of reason. You'd enjoy reading Jean Francois Revel - Flight from Truth.
The defenders of today multiculturalism are the communist apologist from the past. This is merely the triumph of ideology over information and here are the purposes of ideology:
1. the instrument of "power"
2. mechanism of defending yourself against information
3. excuse to not be moral, sometimes approving of evil while knowing it is wrong
4. a mean to disregard experience, eliminating or suspending sometimes forever the failure/success criteria.
it's a vary painfull truet for as all to acknowledge, but if we want to be serious, or at list Honest.
we shouldent egnore the the fact that the dicline of dominens of the west in the world and at home run in paralel with the dates of when women got wright to wote in difrent countreys.
the woman vote movment started in france.
sweden was the first one to give the right but they later regreted it and canceld it.
woman got the vote after the first world war, in the us, uk, canada, australia, scandinavia, holland, belgium and portugal.
then when the nazis got to power no one did aniting to stop them even dow they had practicly no military.
at the same time, briten sudenly dident fill like being an empire any more...
then after ww2 woman got the vote in france, germany, italy, Quebec, and basicly every one every one in the west ecept swizerland.
now no onefelt like having any colonis. and france begune with the islamisation, and soon every one folowed.
dosent this fit well france, sweden, the colonies, chamberlain in briten, and then islam.
post hoc ergo procter hoc
And please learn to spell!
PC, you can trace this at the universalist approach of citizenship and voting, not the women vote. Bottom line is that most people shouldn't vote, unless they're willing to do something for their country, they have some sense of how things work and so on. Most people today don't. Birth right citizenship is a stupid concept.
nick, if i learn have to spell, will you learn english?
rebelliousvanilla
i agree with your bottom line, but what kan we do about it? :(
I don't know. I'm a 19 years old girl, why do you ask me how to fix things? You don't even want me to vote. lol
There's nothing that can be done right now due to the general population. We can just make our points and wait until the problems get big enough so that we have to deal with them. Our whole creed is ignoring long term problems and fix short term problems, even if the short term fixes worsen the long term problems. Look at the economic crisis. Or immigration, which is the fixing of a short term issue, which is the birth rates, considering it would have solved itself out as the stupid things that depressed it would have collapsed. We fixed the short term problems that the birth rates entailed, but we created a long term problem. Eventually, the long term problem will become a short term issue. And don't forget, current events form future trends. Let's hope the minaret bans and so on will become a trend.
Fjordman:
The intellectual state which can be described as racial awareness, or awareness of evolution as applied to human beings, was a reality in western culture during the first half of the 20. century. It was the norm in intellectual and common circles to view humanity in this way, of course placing the white race at the top. It was perhaps the most dramatic proof of the adage "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing", since this was a major catalyst on events leading up to and during WW2. We are now in a period of (underestandable) reaction to this intellectual state which is drawing to a close. The result will probably be something in between "living" the racial/evolutional mental state and a total rejection of it, perhaps something like awareness of it but resistance to letting it influence daily affairs - much like christianity in europe after 1648.
Generally speaking, I think you are too pessimistic and perhaps bitter, Fjordman. The west will defeat the current islamic infiltration, there is not a shred of doubt about it. The public are now nearly fully roused and ready to give resistance. Only the seethrough-thin skirt of the multicultural elites hold them back. The watershed occurred with the Swiss vote recently. Resistance to Islam in Europe has now become the recognized prerogative of the people, the norm. It will spread in the coming weeks and months. The years ahead will see the progressive expulsion of immigrants from europe, sometimes violent, sometimes not.
mriggs: I have never said that it is impossible to expel Islam from the West, only that the current ideological-political order needs to break down before that can happen, which will in itself probably be quite messy. But the situation is no doubt serious, and the longer we wait the higher the risk for permanent damage to our countries becomes.
rebelliousvanilla
i'm only a year older then you.
but anyway, have but this for solution, woman will elect woman politician's, that will be responsebole for thing like education, health, maybe energy, and things like that.
man will elect man, to be responseble for things like defence, crime, immigration, Forein policy, finans, and any other subgect that might be dangerous or Risky.
I think Ayn Rand walked right into this trap...
Am reading her biography "Goddess of the Market" and am recognizing this:
The perfect world of Reason Alone is beautiful in all its symmetry and mathematical precision.. There is only one problem with it: It is a lie.
Which she pursued for decades of amphetamine abuse, discarding her good Conservative and Libertarian friends, chosing instead to remain in her seclusive 'Collective' of passive disciples. Cultural relativism runs deep in her strange world.
It's a sobering experience to read about her life and weird behaviour. As in 'getting off an amphetamine high'. Other thinkers knew their limitations, she didn't.
Henrik, the world of reason alone isn't a lie. The world of reason alone doesn't exist. We are the people who use reason.
And to say she was a prophet of cultural relativism is sort of weird, considering she rejected relativism.
PC, the problem with today's women is that they're brainwashed into crap. For example, I live in Romania. If women didn't vote, the former communists would have won every single election except the last one. But again, women in my country weren't brainwashed into thinking feminism cares about them and we were never coddled to be housewives because we didn't afford that. My mother basically had two jobs - being a housewife and a full time employee and she did this for most of her life. Until lately, when I analyzed the way my family works, I took what she did for granted. Now, when I start to do things she used to do, I realize how unseen some things might be. And to be honest, I don't want female ministers because they're women. I could care the less, I actually think that on average men are a lot better at leading.
By the way, energy is super important from a security perspective. lol. And if I was a PM, I'd do away with the minister of education, I'd do away with the one of energy and make a department under the ministry of defense. Thinking of it, my cabinet would have like 4-5 ministers. Probably the multi-culti morons and the feminists would hate being starved of their funds. The academia would too because they'd have to lower their costs.
your right about energy, but as you said about your mother and yourself, you work as hard as man. dont you think you should get the same amount of power?.
maybe you can give energy to lesbians ;)
PC, the thing is, most women don't work as hard as a man. Just check the studies on this. Anyway, how hard you work is irrelevant, considering the only thing that matters is what you deliver. And sure, I'd like being a prime minister. I'd do a better job than these fools - but again, it would be hard to do something worse. Just look at cash for clunkers. The US government is borrowing money to give to people to destroy perfectly working cars, in order so that they take more debt to buy imported cars and run up the trade deficit. GENIUS! lol
It's not really about being a man or a woman, it's about being the best for the job, in my opinion. I voted a few times already because we had a lot of elections and I never voted for a woman so far. I'll be honest about it - most women aren't bright enough(the standard deviation is smaller on the IQ scale, which make women be closer to the average, while men are on the extreme more often) nor hard working enough. Growing up, I remember that I was thinking that feminism is about teaching women to better themselves and how to deal with being both a mother and an employee. I didn't expect it to treat femininity with contempt and to answer the latter with just have an abortion. Still, the problem is the ever extending notion of voting rights and not having any restrictions related to the quality of the voter, not women voting per say. Also, the problem is that nothing is countering this conversion of women into victims by feminism. IT's complex.
And to say she was a prophet of cultural relativism is sort of weird, considering she rejected relativism.
I did not say that. Really, I didn't.
What I said is that cultural relativism does run deep in her strange world, and I stand by that. It is not only her works that matter, also her personal life. She discards tradition, does not understand identification with it, and in her works as well as in her private life had some strange personal relationships.
Her books, "Atlas Shrugged" in particular, are milestones. I just can't, in any way, use her as provider of a comprehensive philosophy for life.
Reason does not impel our impressions and our actions; it follows them.
Russell Kirk
xlbrl wrote: "Reason does not impel our impressions and our actions; it follows them.Russell Kirk." Was that in Little Man in Big China?
Post a Comment