I think Sam Harris had a good idea, but his arguments were blatantly wrong.
I think Richard Dawkins would agree that there's a better way to measure or gauge our morals. Morality is form of communication.. it's as simple as that. We try to measure and gauge our language, and that has resulted in linguistics (which is subjective enough, like a dictionary). the law is like morality's dictionary; it exists to standardize a communication of values, a dialectic if you will. Inevitably, 2 different groups always result in a dialectical difference; black vs white, Ebonics vs Proper, Thug life vs high class, etc. Thus, a standard can NEVER be a standard. Modern society exists on a multicultural standard, that we should treat everyone equally, yet this standard requires additional management and law enforcement. Tribalism is therefore the cause of dysfunction in a standardized legalistic society. Racism is the cause of dysfunction in a multi-racial standard. No matter how "Equal" or how many standards we set up, we can't change the tribalistic nature of society. And no matter how tribalistic people are, we can't get them to conform to a set standard. And when we have a "set standard", the imperative and anxiety of the people is to abide for fear of punishment, but we also enforce the standard for fear of tribal chaos, race riots, etc.
Natural Morality and Dark Enlightenment
The individual is the first feudal agency; the left hand protects the right hand that feeds; no law required. The feudal agency grows, and so do the classes (the right hand becomes the right man, and the left hand becomes the left man); thus, the hand that protects becomes a man who protects, and his hands become left for defense and right for offense; the hand that feeds, likewise becomes the farmer, and one of his hands becomes the one that sows, while his other hand reaps. The feudal society therefore lives in respect of their roles, and they pursue these roles, because they are the same fellowship and have a sense of social obligation toward eachother. Fellowship is the precursor to social obligation (morality). Modern decay of moral infrastructure is largely due to the lack of fellowship , therefore declining their social obligation, creating a sense of unfairness in the workforce and class victimization.
>Dark Enlightenment
Would someone post a picture of an ugly man in an unfashionable hat for me?
Enlightenment era ideals and the ideals of the French Revolution has brought us greater peace and prosperity than any other era of human history.
I'd also like to add that Confucian Role ethics is a big part of this natural morality. In fact, Confucius thought of this morality before I did.
Ceremony is VERY important. it's not good enough that a family (for example) is related to eachother. What really creates the family is the rituals of kinship, the ceremonies, dinners, events, family outings, etc. When we spend time with family, we gain a higher sense of fellowship.
In a feudal society, ceremony was important, because it made the people closer to eachother. We need ritual and ceremony as a society, regardless of what it does for the individual. The individual is unimportant; what is important is that we have morals and meaning in life; all individuals agree, but individualism itself doesn't satiate a collective hunger.
>"peace"...
Utterly meaningless today. Hold a gun up to my head and say "Don't murder, steal, lie, etc". I will only act peacefully because I'm afraid of the gun. If I'm among people who are not like me, people I don't know, and someone holds a gun to my head, I'll be as peaceful as they want me to be. But that's not real peace. Law doesn't create peace.
Fuck off, stupid bully. You already ruined the Evola thread, don't ruin this one too.
>But that's not real peace.
The practical difference between that and genuine peace is?
I'd be willing to buy that if this were one of those hippy dippy, "let's just get along, man" sort of ideologies. But neoreactionism most certainly is not.
No, you will take what criticism you deserve.
>The practical difference between that and genuine peace is?
It's not peaceful to be afraid of being punished
We create the society we live in, we create the laws we live by and we enforce those rules to maintain a healthy society.
Then learn not to fear it. We also maintain peace through a variety of other means, such as greater access to food, education, and increased enfranchisement of the lower classes. Increased social mobility and lower income inequality correlate with peaceful societies.
But that said, even for that dedicated core of people who only cooperate out of fear, they will be present in every society, and coercing them into allowing us to have a peaceful society is entirely legitimate, and entirely fitting the doctrine of peace. It's not like you're an anarchist or anything: you have no grounds to cry about coercion.
Dark Enlightenment you say
>We create the society we live in, we create the laws we live by and we enforce those rules to maintain a healthy society.
What it does, to enforce those kind of rules, is to undermine people's natural tendency to help out their fellows. If we start to add a state on top of a natural society, it's fine for a while, until someone realizes that a law can benefit their individual interest, and it literally leads to lawful moral-decay, where people are no longer reliant on morals, and instead rely on law. After a while, people cross the slippery slope where subjectively abhorrent behaviors become lawful (such as pedophilia). And when certain immoral behaviors become legal, one group gets the advantage, while the other group gets the disadvantage, resulting in racial tensions, class warfare, etc.
>Then learn not to fear it.
>Learn not to fear absolute authority
>We also maintain peace through a variety of other means, such as greater access to food
That's physical peace. Just because someone's fed, educated and has a better job, doesn't mean that he's "peaceful". Look at the mouse utopia experiment. Utopian society, everything given to them, yet they turn on eachother and aggress WORSE than if they had barely anything.
>income equality correlate with peaceful societies.
That's not true at all.Wealth disparity has NOTHING to do with the peace. The US does considerably well considering that it has a very broken energy sector. Denmark does so well because it has MORE oil per person, and isn't even dependent on mostly oil. Look at Canada; relatively low crime in certain areas where there's a lot of poor people.
>But that said, even for that dedicated core of people who only cooperate out of fear
But that's just it.. They don't operate strictly out of fear. They operate as if the law has become the moral standard; this leads to eventual moral decay, as laws change for individual needs.
>That's physical peace. Just because someone's fed, educated and has a better job, doesn't mean that he's "peaceful"
Someone that's well-fed, educated, well-employed is less likely to be violent, and thus can be considered "peaceful."
>Look at the mouse utopia experiment.
Inapplicable to our society, because A) they were fucking mice, and B) they were packed in so densely they were literally piling on top of each other.
>That's not true at all.
Except it is. Nations with lower levels of income inequality tend to be more peaceful.
>Wealth disparity has NOTHING to do with the peace.
Prove it.
>The US does considerably well considering that it has a very broken energy sector.
The US has, for the standards of the developed world, relatively high rates of violent crime.
>Denmark does so well because it has MORE oil per person, and isn't even dependent on mostly oil.
Oil per person does not create peace. Venezuela has plenty of oil and isn't peaceful in the slightest.
>Look at Canada; relatively low crime in certain areas where there's a lot of poor people.
Canada also has relatively low income inequality, and some of our poorest regions can actually get pretty bad.
>But that's just it.. They don't operate strictly out of fear.
There are people in any society that cooperate with the law strictly out of fear of the law. This has been a fact as long as laws have been a thing.
>They operate as if the law has become the moral standard; this leads to eventual moral decay, as laws change for individual needs.
If people on the whole considered law to be the moral standard, nobody would ever campaign to change it or break it. But as it stands, we've seen several large movements to change laws in our history, and we've seen plenty of widespread law-breaking (the widespread defiance against prohibition springs readily to mind).
>Someone that's well-fed, educated, well-employed is less likely to be violent, and thus can be considered "peaceful."
>less likely to be violent.
No. There's no statistic on Earth that can prove this.
>Inapplicable to our society, because A) they were fucking mice, and B) they were packed in so densely they were literally piling on top of each other.
You really missed the point. You don't know fuck all. I should stop responding, since you know nothing. The point of the experiment was that the mice entered only few in number; the utopian availability of resources led to reproduction, which resulted in a densely packed environment. But even when the population declined, it kept declining despite the availability of resources and space.
>Prove it.
i don't have to, you're the one who who asserted that income equality leads to peace.
>The US has, for the standards of the developed world, relatively high rates of violent crime.
I said it does very well (economically), despite the fact that it has 10% of the availability of oil as other 1st world countries, especially given the fact that other countries aren't as dependent on oil.
>Oil per person does not create peace.
Not the point i was trying to make.
the US isn't at a netural point; it has an energy deficiency; the people have to work doubly hard to even live, which means they can't even live unless they bare the stress of their economy.
>Canada also has relatively low income inequality, and some of our poorest regions can actually get pretty bad.
Yes, I live in one of those poorest regions. We have the worst education in all of Canada, yet it's relatively peaceful. All of our workers moved out west, and businesses are failing.
>If people on the whole considered law to be the moral standard, nobody would ever campaign to change it or break it.
That's because multiple communities exist. One community sees nothing wrong with the law, and that's the problem, because there are other communities who do.
>dark enlightenment
>Sam harris.png
Funny, but I think the Veeky Forums part is more like reddit.
At first I thought this bait was lazy but it actually has some nuance.
Dark Enlightenment is certainly a fedora idea but we should not offhandedly dismiss pre-Enlightenment ideas. I think we can learn a lot of the medieval mindset and its conception of reality which is in itself a valid expression of seeing the world.
The problem is that the muh dark ages meme peddled by the philosophes has caused the caricaturisation and absurdification of this world view and we can only relearn them by an arduous effort.
But fuck the Dark Enlightenment
I do personally think dark enlightenment should be discussable. /pol/lies make certain topics undiscussable, but we shouldn't do the same.
I came to Veeky Forums because pol was undiscussable
Well, I would like to discuss this. But I am not knowledgable on the dark enlightenment. I know it comes from blogs, that Nick Land plays a role and certain aspects of it.
I was going to read Nick Land but was put off by the obsecure reading. I tried postmodern philosophy and found it a waste of my time.
I would have to read into it.
To summarize (this is all you need to know), you can forget Evola; the dark enlightenment simply focuses on political ideas of the past, before the enlightenment. The peak of enlightenment, Evola argues, was the French revolution, in which the monarchy was abolished.
Dark enlightenment therefore exists as an alternative to the politics that cause the eventual decline of mankind.
I personally believe that the very nature of society before the enlightenment was lawless. There was a "law" but it served on the sidelines of society where there was moral corruption. The spirit of law eventually led rebellion against Rome (for example), as morality declined past law; the morality of each community therefore triumphed, and Rome divided as a result, because it was a divided house built upon a legal system.
The very fabric of the feudal system wasn't exactly a fair exchange but a trade of service for loyalty. Trust, rather than payment, creates loyalty. The payment may serve as a sideline (like law), but a market economy must always exist outside of the feudal system. In Japan, merchants were beneath even peasants; they were seen as greedy, because they traversed Japan to make money in spite of society.
Jews, likewise, spent a majority of their time in Europe as outsiders, thus they had to operate in their own interests as a separate group, thus leading to the moral depravity of German society. (that's just one of many examples).
All in all, I think that the economy needs to divorce itself (of loyalty) from government completely; and by that, I mean that the common man should have pirate rights over the economy, the right to steal, that nothing in the economy should be protected by law. Support of a society should be done between farmer and protector. The right to have food, clean water, etc, should NOT be a market decision, neither should housing.
posting this here, because nobody has any clue what they're talking about when they talk about Nrx and the Dark Enlightenment:
thedarkenlightenment.com
Also:
thedarkenlightenment.com
Have fun
when you read at least these two please create another thread about it and I'll gladly participate
there's also an "audiobook" version in YT:
youtube.com
>dark enlightenment
>a movement which relies on outdated information, conspiracy and claims to be """red pilled"""
Dark enlightenment indeed, they claim to be torch bearers and yet they still wonder in darkness aimlessly while shouting "I know the way"!
>a movement which relies on outdated information, conspiracy and claims to be """red pilled"""
>they claim to be torch bearers
what the hell are you even talking about
Dark enlightenment is a blanket term tbqh fampai.
>supports black lives matter
Surely this is bait