site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   30730 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 3, 2023

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Sorry. My phone ate a more thorough response twice, probably because I kept switching to a memory-hungry tab for the source. So I gave up and posted the short version. Let’s see if I can’t flesh it out.

I think your theory shares a lot with Nietzsche’s. First, that modern culture lacks an ethos present in older societies. Second, that this loss was driven by ideological colonization. Third, that the absence of this ethos cripples Western ability to organize.

211: …THE REAL PHILOSOPHERS, HOWEVER, ARE COMMANDERS AND LAW-GIVERS; they say: "Thus SHALL it be!" They determine first the Whither and the Why of mankind, and thereby set aside the previous labour of all philosophical workers, and all subjugators of the past—they grasp at the future with a creative hand, and whatever is and was, becomes for them thereby a means, an instrument, and a hammer. Their "knowing" is CREATING, their creating is a law-giving, their will to truth is—WILL TO POWER.

Your description of Dante reminded me of this passage. He had his conviction and enacted it, critics be (literally) damned. While I concur with the other comments—Dante was not as authoritative as this portrayal—I see what you were intending. A man who either takes his psychosis seriously or never considers that it is psychotic at all.

Of course, Nietzsche labeled Christianity not as the moral authority, but as the “slave-revolt in morals.” He argued that Judeo-Christian aesthetics had colonized the aristocratic mindset. As Christianity grew, it taught would-be philosophers that ruling was actually cringe—they should renounce their worldly wealth, preach the gospel, et cetera. In other words, they should abandon their duty.

Nietzsche always sketches this subversion as an abuse of Rome’s cosmopolitan tolerance. By analogy, this would be the influence of liberalism and pluralism, methods by which our society demands public consideration of consequences. But Nietzsche perceived it as the hallmark of the Catholic Church.

46: Faith, such as early Christianity desired, and not infrequently achieved in the midst of a skeptical and southernly free-spirited world, which had centuries of struggle between philosophical schools behind it and in it, counting besides the education in tolerance which the Imperium Romanum gave—this faith is NOT that sincere, austere slave-faith by which perhaps a Luther or a Cromwell, or some other northern barbarian of the spirit remained attached to his God and Christianity, it is much rather the faith of Pascal, which resembles in a terrible manner a continuous suicide of reason…

Clearly, Luther gets some credit. I can’t say whether Nietzsche would have extended a grudging respect to Lenin. Those are the “sample ideologues” I had in mind, rather than Freud and Derrida. Speaking of philosophy-workers, you actually came to opposite conclusions regarding Kant.

5: …The spectacle of the Tartuffery of old Kant, equally stiff and decent, with which he entices us into the dialectic by-ways that lead (more correctly mislead) to his "categorical imperative"—makes us fastidious ones smile, we who find no small amusement in spying out the subtle tricks of old moralists and ethical preachers.

Regardless, you and Nietzsche converged on skepticism towards a civilization which labors under slave morality.

212: …At present, on the contrary, when throughout Europe the herding-animal alone attains to honours, and dispenses honours, when "equality of right" can too readily be transformed into equality in wrong—I mean to say into general war against everything rare, strange, and privileged, against the higher man, the higher soul, the higher duty, the higher responsibility, the creative plenipotence and lordliness—at present it belongs to the conception of "greatness" to be noble, to wish to be apart, to be capable of being different, to stand alone, to have to live by personal initiative, and the philosopher will betray something of his own ideal when he asserts "He shall be the greatest who can be the most solitary, the most concealed, the most divergent, the man beyond good and evil, the master of his virtues, and of super-abundance of will; precisely this shall be called GREATNESS: as diversified as can be entire, as ample as can be full." And to ask once more the question: Is greatness POSSIBLE—nowadays?

He is very clear in condemning his Europe as slavish, utilitarian, masochistic and sometimes effeminate. If postmodernism were around, he’d have hated it too. Surely no culture, no empire can enact its will when hamstrung by a lust for suffering?

And yet.

The 20th century saw dictatorships and aristocracy on a never-before-seen scale. Unimaginable blood and treasure backed up the ambitions of a few men. Regimes warred against Christian thought, not to mention liberalism itself. “Will to power” in action. And what did it buy them? Most went out with a bang. The USSR, a whimper. Outcompeted by the essence of materialist pluralism.

In the end, we may lose out, too. Perhaps even to a certain allegedly socialist, decidedly authoritarian power. But it will not represent the triumphant return of master morality. Even if the wheel turns, Nietzsche missed his chance.

Outcompeted by the essence of materialist pluralism.

Sure, sure.

It was 'materialist pluralism' that outcompeted them, not a very large, very secure nation which had 40% of world's industrial base and threw its weight decisively against them.

It was pluralism, not the bombs, shells and associated hardware.

The 20th century saw dictatorships and aristocracy on a never-before-seen scale. Unimaginable blood and treasure backed up the ambitions of a few men. Regimes warred against Christian thought, not to mention liberalism itself. “Will to power” in action. And what did it buy them? Most went out with a bang. The USSR, a whimper. Outcompeted by the essence of materialist pluralism.

War was certainly one factor Nietzsche thought would contribute to the realisation of the overman (I'll quibble on the point about this being the same as bringing back master morality, he says too many good things about slave morality for the overman to be a mere negation of the slave revolt), but if we're discussing how Nietzsche missed his chance - the wasted opportunity he saw in the Jews as a partial antidote to the nationalistic small-mindedness which was holding the Europeans back from truly becoming clay in the hands of a deserving ruling class should be mentioned. From Beyond Good and Evil 251 (bolding mine):

That Germany has ample quantities of Jews, that the German stomach and the German blood have difficulty (and will continue for a long time to have difficulty) coping with even this number of “Jews” – as the Italians, the French, the British have coped, due to a stronger digestion –: this is the clear statement and language of a universal instinct that needs to be listened to and acted on. “Don’t let in any more Jews! And lock the doors to the east in particular (even to Austria)!” – so commands the instinct of a people whose type is still weak and indeterminate enough to blur easily and be easily obliterated by a stronger race. But the Jews are without a doubt the strongest, purest, most tenacious race living in Europe today. They know how to thrive in even the worst conditions (and actually do better than in favorable ones) due to some virtues that people today would like to see labeled as vices, – above all, thanks to a resolute faith that does not need to feel ashamed in the face of “modern ideas.” The Jews change, if they change, only in the way the Russian empire makes its conquests (being an empire that has time and was not made yesterday): namely, according to the fundamental principle “as slowly as possible!” A thinker who has Europe’s future on his conscience will, in every sketch he draws of this future, consider the Jews, like the Russians, to be the most certain and probable factors at present in the great play and struggle of forces. What gets called a “nation” in Europe today (and is really more a res facta than nata – every once in a while a res ficta et picta will look exactly the same –) is, in any case, something young, easily changed, and in a state of becoming, not yet a race let alone the sort of aere perennius that the Jewish type is: these “nations” should be on a careful lookout for any hotheaded rivalry and hostility! The fact that the Jews, if they wanted (or if they were forced, as the anti-Semites seem to want), could already be dominant, or indeed could quite literally have control over present-day Europe – this is established. The fact that they are not working and making plans to this end is likewise established. Meanwhile, what they wish and want instead, with a unified assertiveness even, is to be absorbed and assimilated into Europe; they thirst for some place where they can be settled, permitted, respected at last and where they can put an end to the nomadic life, the “wandering Jew” –; and this urge and impulse (which in itself perhaps already reveals a slackening of the Jewish instincts) should be carefully noted and accommodated – in which case it might be practical and appropriate to throw the anti Semitic hooligans out of the country. Approached selectively and with all due caution, the way it is done by the English nobility. It would clearly be unproblematic for the stronger and more strongly delineated types of new Germanism (the officers of noble rank from the Mark, for instance) to get involved with them: and it would be very interesting to see whether the genius of fortune and fortitude (and above all some spirit and spiritedness, which are in very short supply in the place just mentioned –) could not be added into, bred into, the hereditary art of commanding and obeying – both of which are classic features of the Mark these days. But I should really break off my cheerful speeches and hyper-Germania here, since I am already touching on something I take seriously, on the “European problem” as I understand it, on the breeding of a new caste to rule Europe.

Yeah, BG&E has a number of interesting takes on Jews. A motivated antisemite could cherrypick any number of quotes to support his position. Same for a motivated philosemite!

Sorry. My phone ate a more thorough response twice, probably because I kept switching to a memory-hungry tab for the source. So I gave up and posted the short version. Let’s see if I can’t flesh it out.

I've already had this problem many times, and even asked Zorba for a fix recently.

In the interim, I get around it by using the clipboard feature in SwiftKey to save the text of my comment as I write it, and that also makes it easier to juggle several links as necessary.

It's a pretty good keyboard, if that helps.

My solution was to finish drafting on a notes app. iPhone master race :P

I've used Google Keep in the past, but just using the clipboard is more convenient since I don't have to leave the website I'm browsing in the interim.

I think your theory shares a lot with Nietzsche’s.

That's not too surprising - he taught me everything I know! I'm incredibly indebted to him. I'm pretty sure I've read all of his published works (with the exception of WtP).

We do have points of disagreement though - I think he's probably friendlier to transhumanism than I am.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats