"The future of mankind, for the socialist, is simple: pull down the existing order and allow the future to emerge."
Roger Scruton (1944-2020) English Conservative philosopher.
@irreplaceable-spark / irreplaceable-spark.tumblr.com
Roger Scruton (1944-2020) English Conservative philosopher.
Does Israel have the right to exist? | PM-Elect Benjamin Netanyahu | #311
Dr Jordan B Peterson and Israel Prime Minister-Elect Benjamin Netanyahu discuss the history of Israel, its status as an embattled nation, the importance of the struggle for statehood, why and how the PM came back from political demise, and his vision for the future.
Benjamin Netanyahu was recently reelected as Prime Minister of Israel, having previously served in the office from 1996–1999 and 2009–2021. From 1967–1972 he served as a soldier and commander in Sayeret Matkal, an elite special forces unit of the Israeli Defense Forces. A graduate of MIT, he served as Israel’s Ambassador to the United Nations from 1984–1988, before being elected to the Israeli parliament as a member of the Likud party in 1988. He has published five previous books on terrorism and Israel’s quest for peace and security. He lives in Jerusalem with his wife, Sara. In his newest book "Bibi: My Story" the newly reelected prime minister of Israel tells the story of his family, the story of his people, his path to leadership, and his unceasing commitment to defending his country and securing its future.
Peter Thiel, Leader of the Rebel Alliance
With his many varied interests in technology, politics, and culture, Peter Thiel has often been described as a Renaissance man. So perhaps it was only fitting that we traveled to Florence, Italy—where the Renaissance originated and thrived for hundreds of years—to speak with him. In this wide-ranging interview, we cover several topics, including his support for candidates across the country who are running as outsiders, why technology has not fulfilled many of its early promises, and why California is still America’s incubator for ideas and growth.
Ethics are not the same as morals. One of the problems with our post-modernist society is the conflation of the two, which I believe to be the basis of our culture war today.
For starters, let’s define the two terms.
Ethics: A set of principles of right conduct; A theory or a system of moral values; The study of the general nature of morals and of the specific moral choices to be made by a person; moral philosophy; The rules or standards governing the conduct of a person or the members of a profession.
Morals: Of or concerned with the judgment of right or wrong of human action and character; Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior; Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous; Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong; Having psychological rather than physical or tangible effects; Based on strong likelihood or firm conviction, rather than on the actual evidence.
Ethics are based on a moral system, however ethics can neither exist without nor supplant morality. This is the mistake made during the French Revolution that led to public guillotines and a regression to a dictatorship with Emperor Napoleon. This is the same mistake we are making today with the loss of religion, the desecration of tradition, and the rise of ‘wokeism’.
One way to understand the insidiousness of post-modern ethics is through the rise of history revisionism, allowing for past events to be recategorized or recontextualized using a post-modernist lens. History revisionism is not merely the rewriting of history to fit a narrative, although that tends to be the layman’s interpretation like with the 1619 project. The core of it is the post-modernist ethics which emphasize that history is not relegated the the past, that through their concept of alterity, it also exists it the present and future, thus allowing and demanding alternative versions to be exposed.
What is alterity? Alterity is a philosophical and anthropological term meaning "otherness", that is, the "other of two". It is also increasingly being used in media to express something other than "sameness", or something outside of tradition or convention. By analyzing ethics through alterity, it allows “alterity to mark its radical or unrepresentable difference.” In conclusion, “without this ethic openness, difference could not be carried out as difference” and would “submit to the power of representation.” (1)
Not only does this pervasive theory allow for history revisionism, it opens up the can of worms in all sectors of society - identity, politics, economics, competency, privacy - to name a few. Transgenderism, wokeness, equity, intersectionalism, and degradation of privacy all stem from this post-modernist interpretation of ethics. A cornucopia of genders exists because gender must be analyzed through alterity. Equality of opportunity doesn’t guarantee equitable outcome, so with a post-modernist ethical lens, is unethical and a focus on equity has replaced it.
What cued me into this was reading What Happens to History: The Renewal of Ethics in Contemporary Thought, ed. by Howard Marchitello. It discusses ethics through a contemporary, post-modern lens and through various post-modernists such as Heidegger, Derrida, and Levinson. While I am all for a renewal of ethics in contemporary thought, I reject the ongoing ethics revisionism and the eradication of morals for ethics.
For instance, one moral we have is thou shall not kill. It is immoral to murder. However, depending on the context and intent of that murder, the law may find you innocent. Why? Because the law is ethical, not moral. If the murder was in self-defense, you will be found not guilty as the law is interested in why you murdered someone, not the action of murder.
However, this is where post-modernist ethics come in. It refuses to acknowledge the morality of murder. Instead, if a white man kills a black man in self-defense or vice-versa, the race of the individuals (intersectionality & equity) comes into question rather than the why or the action itself. The redefining of what is ethical based on alterity has usurped morality.
I highly recommend reading What Happens to History: The Renewal of Ethics in Contemporary Thought. It is a bit of a slog, especially with the circularity of thoughts and the redefining of what is ethics in order to explain the essayists’ positions. But it will increase your understanding of the culture war happening today and how to make some of these post-modernist arguments moot.
(1) Krzysztof Ziarek, “The Ethos of History,” in What Happens to History: The Renewal of Ethics in Contemporary Thought, ed. by Howard Marchitello (New York: Routledge, 2011) 80.
“You exist in time: future, present, and past. This is manifest in life, liberty, and the product of your life and liberty: property… To lose your life is to lose your future. To lose your liberty is to lose your present. And to lose the product of your life and liberty [property] is to lose the portion of your past that produced it.”
— Ken Schoolland (1950-) Professor of Economics
President Theodore Roosevelt Inaugural Address, Saturday, March 4, 1905
secret door in this mansion
http://instagram.com/houseofbrinson/
Jordan Peterson, “Rule 8: Tell the Truth - Or At Least Don’t Lie” from 12 Rules for Life