Philosophy Now Forum

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2024 9:23 pm

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2024 8:13 pm Q: On what basis?

A: Symbolical, metaphysical, aesthetic principally.

You asked, I answered. If you think it bollocks I can respect your view.

But I definitely do not agree with that assessment.

If this was directed at me I don't what it's responding to or, really, how.

Directed to Sculptor.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2024 8:10 pm

AJ: However, my take from lots of reading, and some historical analysis, is that since the 1960s that the family-valuation I refer to, and the family itself, has suffered as a result of the sexual revolution (of which homosexuality is a part).

Iwannaplato: And the 50s led to the 60s.

Understood. And I am certainly not dismissing the 1960s as the origin of decadence. It overflowed with a great deal that was highly positive.

Certainly I am not advocating for a return to the Fifties.

There is only now — and going forward.

My point with the 50s is that people who blame the 60s for current problems, as they see them, haven't really dealt with the fifties. Not that the fifties was also a source of decadence - it was, but that wasn't the point - but that there were problems in the old ideas of men, women and sexuality, consumerism, trusting authority, conformism and more - that led to the 60s. I don't think these have been dealt with by, for example, conservatives. You've not said you want to go back in time, but once I see transvaluation of values applied to the 60s, it sounds like what went before was values. Then the 60s and beyond transvaluedy, and transvaluing is the problem. But from earlier perspectives transvaluation occurred in the 50s and earlier. Or in the Civil War of the Revolution (thinking of the US).

How well did it all go the last time before when the dominant values were conservative around many of these issues and why did it unravel?

Are there swings of overcompensation?

Do people on the right or traditionalists or conservatives realize that they had a PC and it had power and that was problematic?

Indirectly there's criticism of guilt coming from those groups. They see the Left as purveyors of guilt (and shame). There's some truth in this. But do they realize that the predecessors on their side were purveyors of shame (and guilt)?

and then, there's my sense that these culture wars are being used to keep us focused on the relatively powerless those those with incredible power can get more.

I have to hand it to the Liberal-Lefty-Wokist-Marxists... you/they are truly experts on Projection and Turning-The-Tables. Flash Schizoid voodoo doll writes some gross homoerotic poetry and pornography, and the Conservatives are to blame for it, and "must be secretly homos"... see how the Liberal-Left cannot actually engage rational, philosophical arguments, but need to focus on smears, insults, and attacking reputation, like a bunch of gossipy schoolgirls? I blame Hairball for this mess...

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 22, 2024 12:34 am I have to hand it to the Liberal-Lefty-Wokist-Marxists... you/they are truly experts on Projection and Turning-The-Tables. Flash Schizoid voodoo doll writes some gross homoerotic poetry and pornography, and the Conservatives are to blame for it, and "must be secretly homos"... see how the Liberal-Left cannot actually engage rational, philosophical arguments, but need to focus on smears, insults, and attacking reputation, like a bunch of gossipy schoolgirls? I blame Hairball for this mess...

How sad you are

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 22, 2024 12:34 am I have to hand it to the Liberal-Lefty-Wokist-Marxists... you/they are truly experts on Projection and Turning-The-Tables. Flash Schizoid voodoo doll writes some gross homoerotic poetry and pornography, and the Conservatives are to blame for it, and "must be secretly homos"... see how the Liberal-Left cannot actually engage rational, philosophical arguments, but need to focus on smears, insults, and attacking reputation, like a bunch of gossipy schoolgirls? I blame Hairball for this mess...

Seriously, you really think Harbal and I think you're homosexual? Here's a little test. What was the actual subtext when we 'implied' you guys were gay? What were we parodying?

You seem to have no idea what parody and irony are.
And no one said you were to blame for what FDP wrote. At least I didn't. I'm not a scholar of PN posts. What a strange strawman argument!
And no response to what wasn't presented as parody and irony, the actual message in the parody.

I love the gossipy schoolgirl label, though I always noticed schoolboys engaging in gossip also. Fine peachy, we were acting like gossipy schoolgirls.

In response to what gossipy schoolgirlishness, do you think? I called it flirty, winky. Maybe you only notice other people's gossipy schoolgirlishness.

Oh, jeez. It's like I've gone and explained a joke. I feel dirty.

You're innocent...of course.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2024 6:15 pm

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2024 5:15 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2024 4:39 pm I think you might want to revise your use of the word "SOUND".

You obviously believe in the category of *evil*. (Or did you use the term casually?)

If that is so, would you agree that "Evil cannot create anything new, but can only corrupt and ruin what the force of good has created"?

I would say that in respect to Tolkienn's views that the statement in quotes above corresponds to his ideas. In that sense it is *sound*.

No. Evil does not exist anymore than good.

Evil exists and you are proof of it, Sculpty. I read in the last week or two, a forum member mentioned that you Murdered somebody? Wouldn't surprise me, given your psychology.

Evil begins with the Lie.

I remember growing up in the 1990s USA, Americans were generally happy, upbeat, optimistic about the future, it was extremely High-Trust Society in the West. Don't believe me? Just listen to any music released between 1990-2000. 99% of it was rhythmically upbeat, up tempo, compared to now. That's what everybody in the world loved about America. People delude themselves that that is still the case, today, when it's not. Since 9-11, America has down-shifted from a WASP dominated High-Trust society to a Low-Trust society. That means, Lies are the norm, instead of the Truth.

This is why you "Hate" the Madonna and Our Lord, Jesus Christ, King of Kings.

This is why Hairball sees "nothing wrong" with a freak, dressed up as a woman, spreading Pedophile propaganda to school age children.

This is why Diarrhea Pants plasters homo-erotic pornography blurbs on the forum, unironically.


The Left is Evil.
The Right is Good.

JRR Tolkein knew full well the distinction between the two.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sun Feb 18, 2024 3:44 pm

Beautiful

Westerners (correctly) associate God and Godliness with Creation.

That which is Most Good, Creates.

That which is Most Evil, Destroys, Debases, Demeans, Perverts, Corrupts, Invades. Because Evil cannot Create, only Destroy.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2024 9:30 pmMy point with the 50s is that people who blame the 60s for current problems, as they see them, haven't really dealt with the fifties. Not that the fifties was also a source of decadence - it was, but that wasn't the point - but that there were problems in the old ideas of men, women and sexuality, consumerism, trusting authority, conformism and more - that led to the 60s. I don't think these have been dealt with by, for example, conservatives. You've not said you want to go back in time, but once I see transvaluation of values applied to the 60s, it sounds like what went before was values. Then the 60s and beyond transvaluedy, and transvaluing is the problem. But from earlier perspectives transvaluation occurred in the 50s and earlier. Or in the Civil War of the Revolution (thinking of the US).

I've lost any clear sense of what a Conservative is and what conservatism advocates for. There are some -- like Pat Buchanan -- who do seem to reminisce for the 1950s. And it is certainly true that many who are critical of the present do refer, nostalgically, to former times as if those times were better. But let me tell you what my own process in relation to this question has been. In my own case my political and social orientation was very much on the Left and Progressive. Especially as it pertains to Latin America nearly all of my research and study was of a Left-critical sort. And possibly the largest influence on my historical analysis was Noam Chomsky.

Quite a few years back now, for reasons that I could elaborate, I began to expose myself to critical ideas that came from a very different camp. Metaphysical Traditionalism (René Guénon, Julius Evola), but before that, if I have the order right, I read Richard Weaver's Ideas Have Consequences as well as The Southern Tradition at Bay. And also -- and this has a direct bearing on what you brought up -- the book Slouching Toward Gomorrah by Robert Bork.

I found that he (Bork) made extremely relevant and powerful critical arguments about the influence of a general 60's ideology as it pertained to the attack on and the destruction of hierarchical categories. Without going into summations of their work these titles launched me into a wide study of Traditionalist perspectives.

I also devoted a good deal of time to researching Traditionalist Catholic perspectives -- pre-Vatican ll. I do not regret any part of all of this. But I am certain that when I speak of respect for people like Bork (utterly hated by the Left-Progressives) and Weaver (a Platonic Traditionalist), and certainly Guénon and Evola, as well as a respect for traditional values in Catholicism, my expressions evoke strong reaction on the part of some, perhaps most, who write on this forum. I believe I understand why. From my perspective -- this is the idea I work with -- we have all been inculcated in sets of values that have a strong tendency to define as *evil-bad* nearly all of the valued and traditional ideas (based in metaphysical predicates) that were formally a part of the very structure of our (cultural, civilizational) understanding. So, when I use the Nietzschean term *transvaluation of values* I am referring to that larger, and consequential shift. The transvaluation of sexual values is just one part of a far larger shift.

the old ideas of men, women and sexuality, consumerism, trusting authority, conformism and more

I understand what you are getting at, and I would agree, but with a caveat. And the caveat has to do with metaphysical traditionalism of the sort that Weaver and Guénon deal in. So in each category that you mention here a discussion would open about what *values* operate at the core of those who articulate ideological positions about men & women, sexuality, consumer culture, authority, conformism -- all in the context of America and Americanism of those post-war years.

I certainly grasp the Left-Progressive critical posture of those who lent power to a criticism of the 50s -- say the philosophers of the Frankfurt school like Eric Fromm and Horkheimer. I definitely came under their influence as I think we all did (to one degree or another). The origins of American Sixties Radicalism can even be traced back to the Catholic Personalism of Dorothy Day and her mentor Peter Maurin. Personally, I do not dismiss any of this nor some of the tenets of sound Catholic social doctrine (which certainly moved and inspired Maurin).

I don't think these have been dealt with by, for example, conservatives.

I heartily agree. But I think you would have to define what Conservatives you are referring to. Take for example the thought and ideas of Alain de Benoist. He transcends polarized Left-Right political and social stances. And there are a wide range of accomplished, coherent thinkers who are comparable to de Benoist in the depth of their critical views.

How well did it all go the last time before when the dominant values were conservative around many of these issues and why did it unravel?

An entire range of reasons. Weaver wrote about the destruction of metaphysical categories as ground or moorings. And he also wrote about 'nihilism' and decadence which he strongly noted in American culture in the Postwar. American culture in the 1950s, from traditional and genuinely conservative perspectives, cannot be considered a model.

Are there swings of overcompensation?

Certainly. And if the general platform of values is skewed and contaminated there seems little help in establishing any ground in that particular political and social establishment (of the American 1950s).

Do people on the right or traditionalists or conservatives realize that they had a PC and it had power and that was problematic?

Again, it depends on who in that wide-ranging camp you refer to. As I said de Benoist and people like him take everything into consideration and dismiss nothing. I refer to him because he is not a backwards-looker but a forwards-looker. To be such changes everything.

Indirectly there's criticism of guilt coming from those groups. They see the Left as purveyors of guilt (and shame). There's some truth in this. But do they realize that the predecessors on their side were purveyors of shame (and guilt)?

Of course, and these polarities are locked in *moral combat'. But let me say that *we* have access to ideas that they could never access because, ideologically, they remain fixed in certain conventions.

You are making reference to ideological and cultural values that hinge on questions of *core value*. In my view these are metaphysical categories of concern and they have to be looked at carefully and with a penetrating insight.

and then, there's my sense that these culture wars are being used to keep us focused on the relatively powerless those those with incredible power can get more.

Indubitably this seems to be so. But it does not have much bearing on how an individual orients themselves in regard to the categories we have broached here.

But do note that the activist Personalism of Maurin and Day, which I suppose seemed to come from Left-oriented concerns, actually has a root in traditionalist Catholic values.

Sorting through all of this is a Herculean task and is not easy. I can say that I have struggled for years in these areas and have a good deal of confusion about how to get it settled internally. In my own case the questions are, ultimately, spiritual.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 22, 2024 12:34 am I have to hand it to the Liberal-Lefty-Wokist-Marxists... you/they are truly experts on Projection and Turning-The-Tables. Flash Schizoid voodoo doll writes some gross homoerotic poetry and pornography, and the Conservatives are to blame for it, and "must be secretly homos"... see how the Liberal-Left cannot actually engage rational, philosophical arguments, but need to focus on smears, insults, and attacking reputation, like a bunch of gossipy schoolgirls? I blame Hairball for this mess...

The reason I respect the orientation expressed here is because I understand where Wizard is coming from. I definitely have deep suspicion of Left-Marxism and *wokism*. Beyond all doubt. And I understand the impetus that propels 'transvaluation of values'. It is not hard for me to see that this man Flash operates from (what I regard as) a diseased, contaminated perspective. But I honestly believe that we have all been exposed to the same and it lives in us, to one degree or another. It becomes a question of How to recognize it, and How to combat it, and With what to replace it.

Flash and also Sculptor do not deal in genuine arguments (if I may refer to these two as examples). Their so-presented arguments are really emotionalized outbursts.

I do not see Harbal as being capable of instigation. Because he is, generally speaking, completely outside of the world of ideas. So it is more sensible to refer to Harbal as a *consequence* -- just as we all are consequences of huge shifts in ideas. In the sense that *ideas have consequences*. In my view it is a question of veering away from *moorings* that must be defined metaphysically.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 22, 2024 10:52 am
This is why you "Hate" the Madonna and Our Lord, Jesus Christ, King of Kings.

This is why Hairball sees "nothing wrong" with a freak, dressed up as a woman, spreading Pedophile propaganda to school age children.

Just for the record; I not only see nothing wrong with men in fancy dress reading to kids, I also hate the Madonna and your poxy Lord, King of Kings and Lord of the Rings. You horrible little man.


That told him.

Harbal wrote: ↑Thu Feb 22, 2024 11:12 am

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 22, 2024 10:52 am
This is why you "Hate" the Madonna and Our Lord, Jesus Christ, King of Kings.

This is why Hairball sees "nothing wrong" with a freak, dressed up as a woman, spreading Pedophile propaganda to school age children.

Just for the record; I not only see nothing wrong with men in fancy dress reading to kids, I also hate the Madonna and your poxy Lord, King of Kings and Lord of the Rings. You horrible little man.


That told him.

Wow.......Surprising.

I'm FLOORED.

Here's the thing about Parasites. You feed off what built Western Civilization. You took no part in its Creation, which is why you Hate it. You hate the cobblestone streets underneath you. You hate the architecture around you. You hate all the soldiers who carved-out the political boundaries of Europe. You hate our kings, queens, royalty, our Kin. You hate everything about us, because you are *NOT* us.

Those who created Western Civilization, have Pride. That is the opposite of Hate.



Alexis says it has hard to "pin down what/whom is Conservative",
It's simple.
Conservatives are the ones who built and defended all the Good that we take advantage of today.

Count your blessings, parasite (Hairball).

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Thu Feb 22, 2024 11:09 amThe reason I respect the orientation expressed here is because I understand where Wizard is coming from. I definitely have deep suspicion of Left-Marxism and *wokism*. Beyond all doubt. And I understand the impetus that propels 'transvaluation of values'. It is not hard for me to see that this man Flash operates from (what I regard as) a diseased, contaminated perspective. But I honestly believe that we have all been exposed to the same and it lives in us, to one degree or another. It becomes a question of How to recognize it, and How to combat it, and With what to replace it.

Flash and also Sculptor do not deal in genuine arguments (if I may refer to these two as examples). Their so-presented arguments are really emotionalized outbursts.

I do not see Harbal as incapable of instigation. Because he is, generally speaking, completely outside of the world of ideas. So it is more sensible to refer to Harbal as a *consequence* -- just as we all are consequences of huge shifts in ideas. In the sense that *ideas have consequences*. In my view it is a question of veering away from *moorings* that must be defined metaphysically.

Wasn't it Plato or Socrates that asserted that Evil spawns from Ignorance?

"They know naught what they Do"

I think it's mostly an issue of Ignorance. Much of Liberal-Leftism relies on selective-memory of the Past. The Greatest Generation brought the Baby Boomers to life, and gave them the World. What have they done with it? Squandered it, mostly. But these are the natural cycles of generations. Selfishness leads to societal decay, leaving nothing behind, and leaving no wealth to their children or grandchildren. Or, like the motley crew of Liberals here... having no children themselves, childless, no future, extinction.

In order to build, you need to have a Future.

And in order to be "Conservative", you need to Honor all that was built for you, beneath you.

Just for fun:



The so-called Black Madonnas have an interesting and complex genesis.