Leftism is not an intellectual pursuit. Its animating principle is emotion, and those who cannot control their emotions are easily seduced by the siren songs of equity, identity, and collectivism. And this explains why Leftism cannot be defeated. The men and women who do what is right and proper in spite of what their emotions would have them do, are few and far between when compared to the masses who are largely driven by desire.
With all due respect, Leftism cannot be defeated in the long run. Leftism is based on emotion, a natural, instinctive, inherent attribute of the human person. As long as we are emotive creatures, Leftism will always be there, waiting for the next opportunity to rise. Note, this argument is entirely consistent with the observation that leftists often require a crises to move the masses - the population crisis of the late 60s. The global cooling crisis of the 70s. The AIDs crises of the 80s and early 90s. Now, it's climate change and more recently the Russian hoax. "Never let a crisis go to waste," said a wise man.
Not so intellect. Intellect is not natural. Intellect takes effort and will. It takes will because the adoption of an intellectual argument often must be taken against what one feels is right and good. I'll just close this argument with a tried and true axiom known by all great salesmen: the successful salesman articulates his pitch focusing on what the customer WANTS, not what the customer needs. Appealing to emotion (and especially fear) always wins to a greater or lesser extent. Appealing to reason, not so much.
Cultures are not the same as the philosophies that undergird them. Classical liberalism taken to its logical end would seem to suggest it compete with any and all other ideas in the marketplace of ideas, when left to those who don't believe in limiting principles. I see no reason to let ideas completely at odds with the structural imperatives of our own system "compete". Equity can't exist with individual freedom. So it has no place in our system.
Ok, agree that we can and should opt out of progressive language games. But what about Classical Liberalism’s devotion to “individualism”? How do we draw a limit around that, as it seems to buttress much of the progressive agenda?
I’d have to know your concerns with individualism to answer that. Individualism as it relates to natural rights is a positive. It acts as a corrective against official group narratives gaining too much power — though the left gets around this by replacing individual w “inauthentic” when it suits them. From my perspective we don’t rely enough on the promotion of the individual as he exists within a system of ordered liberty. You need not go fully Ayn Rand just as you need not go fully David French.
Individualism and perversion of individualism are not one in the same. John Milton's expressions of his individualism in Paradise Lost can't be equated with Jack The Ripper's expressions of his own murderous brand of individualist liberty. The same sort of Jack The Ripper perversion is at work in the transsexual movement and its torture and mutilation of innocents. The sick sex stuff is most obvious. The Left's pool of perversions applied to normal individualism is wide, dark and deep.
It's kind of like a difference between individualism and atomism. Atomism is kind of a strange form of collectivism (of one) by treating each individual as a perfectly self-interested and rational being. In my thinking, atomism would operate under the assumption that because man is a perfectly rational being, all the interactions an adult makes are perfectly rational and operating from their own self-interest. And we know this fails when introduced to David Hume's ideas. Individualism, and humanism before it, is much more interested in the inherent self-worth of the individual. Lockean liberalism defeats the trans movement right from the start with the core tenets. "no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions." And beyond that the core tenet was that this right was inherent, meaning the person cannot even give this right away. My two cents.
Didn't Thomas Hobbs with his 'war of all against all' define the secular view of a human individual? I-want-what-I-want-when-I-want-it is the way the Sixties philosophers suggested up & coming Boomers should live. 'Tune in, turn on, drop out. Don't trust anyone over thirty. If it feels good do it...' sounds like the Everything I Want Ticket to a teenager. Hobbs solution for that natural, unabated blood-lust was Leviathan, a government bureaucracy which (of course) would be served only by the best and the brightest who would always make the best, most rational and compassionate decisions for the collective of blood-lusty individuals; an elite leadership class led by people like Bill Gates and George Soros and Anthony Fauci and Mitch McConnell, et cetera, etc. Here's an idea of where this elite leadership is leading: https://chroniclesmagazine.org/society-culture/the-future-of-war/
Individualism has its roots in humanism, which is about 200 years older than Hobbes. So I can't say for sure if Hobbes defined that any better than Locke or Rousseau. None of them were completely correct, but Locke got the closest in my opinion. In any case, Hobbes and his Leviathan are a rehashing of the Platonic ideal society with the enlightened administrator at the top. Locke addresses that directly in the Second Treatise in the chapter On Prerogative in particular. It's great when a wise king acts outside the law for the benefit of the people...until you no longer have a wise king...
It depends on what is meant by individualism. I see two definitions in this thread. The first defines an individual operationally, i.e., by what s/he does. John Milton and Jack The Ripper are individuals by virtue of what they do. The second definition is based on uniqueness. For example, two identical twins are nevertheless individuals by virtue of, well, physics - they stand apart and are separate from each other. Another example? Eve is of the same flesh as Adam (metaphorically) but is pictured in the text as separate and distinct from Adam. Interestingly. when Eve and Adam are described as "one" individual by virtue of their marriage (again, metaphorically).
Not really. One can do what is usually done. Choose to congregate with people of like mind/attitude/values. This is how conservatives win:
Not mentioned by the OP, leftists destroy themselves because to live by emotion is not a stable, long term strategy for control. Sooner or later (often later, to be sure), the lefty sound bites are seen for what they are (and are not) and the leaders lose their power to control. Thus, group identity, a pillar of lefty social structure, only works for so long. The competent, individualistic-oriented people leave the cult.
As an aside, this explains why the Left has to invent new crises when the current one is seen for the fraud it is.
Leftism is not an intellectual pursuit. Its animating principle is emotion, and those who cannot control their emotions are easily seduced by the siren songs of equity, identity, and collectivism. And this explains why Leftism cannot be defeated. The men and women who do what is right and proper in spite of what their emotions would have them do, are few and far between when compared to the masses who are largely driven by desire.
It can be defeated in the way I've outlined here. It just takes will.
With all due respect, Leftism cannot be defeated in the long run. Leftism is based on emotion, a natural, instinctive, inherent attribute of the human person. As long as we are emotive creatures, Leftism will always be there, waiting for the next opportunity to rise. Note, this argument is entirely consistent with the observation that leftists often require a crises to move the masses - the population crisis of the late 60s. The global cooling crisis of the 70s. The AIDs crises of the 80s and early 90s. Now, it's climate change and more recently the Russian hoax. "Never let a crisis go to waste," said a wise man.
Not so intellect. Intellect is not natural. Intellect takes effort and will. It takes will because the adoption of an intellectual argument often must be taken against what one feels is right and good. I'll just close this argument with a tried and true axiom known by all great salesmen: the successful salesman articulates his pitch focusing on what the customer WANTS, not what the customer needs. Appealing to emotion (and especially fear) always wins to a greater or lesser extent. Appealing to reason, not so much.
Regards,
It would appear, then, that if you are not a leftist, you have two options: submission, or suicide.
Were humanity in general that nihilistic, it would have exited the scene a very long time ago.
Nothing in classical liberalism requires one to view all cultures and ideas as having equal value. Cultures compete, and some are better than others.
Cultures are not the same as the philosophies that undergird them. Classical liberalism taken to its logical end would seem to suggest it compete with any and all other ideas in the marketplace of ideas, when left to those who don't believe in limiting principles. I see no reason to let ideas completely at odds with the structural imperatives of our own system "compete". Equity can't exist with individual freedom. So it has no place in our system.
Ok, agree that we can and should opt out of progressive language games. But what about Classical Liberalism’s devotion to “individualism”? How do we draw a limit around that, as it seems to buttress much of the progressive agenda?
I’d have to know your concerns with individualism to answer that. Individualism as it relates to natural rights is a positive. It acts as a corrective against official group narratives gaining too much power — though the left gets around this by replacing individual w “inauthentic” when it suits them. From my perspective we don’t rely enough on the promotion of the individual as he exists within a system of ordered liberty. You need not go fully Ayn Rand just as you need not go fully David French.
Individualism and perversion of individualism are not one in the same. John Milton's expressions of his individualism in Paradise Lost can't be equated with Jack The Ripper's expressions of his own murderous brand of individualist liberty. The same sort of Jack The Ripper perversion is at work in the transsexual movement and its torture and mutilation of innocents. The sick sex stuff is most obvious. The Left's pool of perversions applied to normal individualism is wide, dark and deep.
It's kind of like a difference between individualism and atomism. Atomism is kind of a strange form of collectivism (of one) by treating each individual as a perfectly self-interested and rational being. In my thinking, atomism would operate under the assumption that because man is a perfectly rational being, all the interactions an adult makes are perfectly rational and operating from their own self-interest. And we know this fails when introduced to David Hume's ideas. Individualism, and humanism before it, is much more interested in the inherent self-worth of the individual. Lockean liberalism defeats the trans movement right from the start with the core tenets. "no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions." And beyond that the core tenet was that this right was inherent, meaning the person cannot even give this right away. My two cents.
Didn't Thomas Hobbs with his 'war of all against all' define the secular view of a human individual? I-want-what-I-want-when-I-want-it is the way the Sixties philosophers suggested up & coming Boomers should live. 'Tune in, turn on, drop out. Don't trust anyone over thirty. If it feels good do it...' sounds like the Everything I Want Ticket to a teenager. Hobbs solution for that natural, unabated blood-lust was Leviathan, a government bureaucracy which (of course) would be served only by the best and the brightest who would always make the best, most rational and compassionate decisions for the collective of blood-lusty individuals; an elite leadership class led by people like Bill Gates and George Soros and Anthony Fauci and Mitch McConnell, et cetera, etc. Here's an idea of where this elite leadership is leading: https://chroniclesmagazine.org/society-culture/the-future-of-war/
Individualism has its roots in humanism, which is about 200 years older than Hobbes. So I can't say for sure if Hobbes defined that any better than Locke or Rousseau. None of them were completely correct, but Locke got the closest in my opinion. In any case, Hobbes and his Leviathan are a rehashing of the Platonic ideal society with the enlightened administrator at the top. Locke addresses that directly in the Second Treatise in the chapter On Prerogative in particular. It's great when a wise king acts outside the law for the benefit of the people...until you no longer have a wise king...
It depends on what is meant by individualism. I see two definitions in this thread. The first defines an individual operationally, i.e., by what s/he does. John Milton and Jack The Ripper are individuals by virtue of what they do. The second definition is based on uniqueness. For example, two identical twins are nevertheless individuals by virtue of, well, physics - they stand apart and are separate from each other. Another example? Eve is of the same flesh as Adam (metaphorically) but is pictured in the text as separate and distinct from Adam. Interestingly. when Eve and Adam are described as "one" individual by virtue of their marriage (again, metaphorically).
Not really. One can do what is usually done. Choose to congregate with people of like mind/attitude/values. This is how conservatives win:
Not mentioned by the OP, leftists destroy themselves because to live by emotion is not a stable, long term strategy for control. Sooner or later (often later, to be sure), the lefty sound bites are seen for what they are (and are not) and the leaders lose their power to control. Thus, group identity, a pillar of lefty social structure, only works for so long. The competent, individualistic-oriented people leave the cult.
As an aside, this explains why the Left has to invent new crises when the current one is seen for the fraud it is.
Cheers,
Trade subscriptions?