/philosophy/ - Philosophy

>>5682

>If we can combine Ethno-nationalism and the most useful bits of Objectivism, and use the empirical evidence supporting the existence of tribal differences, the need for tribal separation, etc. I feel like we would be on track to a new morality.

And how the fuck are you gonna do that, son? You can talk all you want but unless you do shit, nothings gonna happen.

It'll fail, just like every other school of philosophy. The history of philosophy is the history of failure

You're trying to give a sense of purpose and intellectual clout to the pop-cultural flavor of the week. These sort of exercises never amounts to anything. If you want to truly understand morality you must examine ALL facets of it not just the once you and your buddies at /pol/ shake hands and tacitly agree upon.

I've been thinking about the "alt-right" a lot and I think I've arrived at a hypothesis regarding their way of thinking.

They're so similar to the self-hating whites who gets labelled as SJWs that I can't help but to think they are both the product of "white guilt".

Generally there are two ways people react when faced with accusation, perceived or not, and that is either through submission or rebellion.

Granted both of these reactions are unhealthy but they are the most common.

Submission to white guilt manifests in aggressive PC policing and a lot of self flagellation as unhealthy coping mechanism (they're trying to repay their historical guilt debt) whilst rebellion to white guilt manifests in aggressive rejection of guilt and "white pride" as unhealthy coping mechanism (they're trying to deny any guilt they might be feeling).

I think the goal of your "new morality" should be to recognize that there is no guilt and you're not gonna be able to do that by trying to justify it with vague pseudoscience.

>Freedom of religion causally promotes people abandoning religion

>Abandoning religion causes low birth rates, high divorce rates, more single moms, more government welfare, less happiness

I am nonreligious, but should religion be mandatory (no freedom of religion) to prevent total social collapse?

>Should religion be mandatory (no freedom of religion) to prevent total social collapse?

No because that's literally impossible. Trying to prevent social collapse by appealing to cultism is like trying to beat a forest fire into submission with gasoline covered rag. Smh.

>>6350

I wasn't advocating for positive thinking I was advocating against societally manufactured white guilt which I believe is the main driving force behind alt-right and alt-left thinking.

Alt-right recruiters will use the anger felt by whites who feel singled out as objects of blame and offer them simple solutions in the form of vapid third-rate philosophies and allusions to greatness in the form of existential purpose.

It's a dead end is what I'm trying to say and to acknowledge this instead of trying to justify it is the way to go.

>>6341

I think we could teach people the dangers of not breeding and even making a China-esque law that makes people have around 3 children trough lowering of the taxes and the annihilation of child support and government backing to single moms, along with the educational system encouraging women to be stay-at-home moms. This would make the population to grow like wildfire.

>>6534

You want MORE dumbasses running around? That's the very antithesis of a "China-esque" law.

Also how the fuck would that solve total social collapse?

>>6565

Dumbasses have a lot more children than smart people. 3 children being encouraged would help the dumb breed less and the smart have more children.

>>6567

Absolutely, agree with you. We need more smart people and less dumb, violent people in the world.

Unfortunately, it seems the cultural elite want the exact opposite. And as they control policy, I don't see things significantly changing before the western world burns.

>>6567

Smart people don't have children because they know that life is meaningless, painful and therefor don't want to subject their love to it by bringing it into life.

>>6568

>Cultural elite

>Control policy

>Western world

Hollow words which mean nothing.

>>6572

Smart people can change. Even if the world is meaningless, we are born with our biological duty, to spread our genes in the best way possible.

>>6573

There is no "best" way. We spread. That's it. The "pure gene" argument is a myth meant to instill a sense of grandiose purpose to the meaningless and banal.

To bring someone into life has nothing to do with duty but more to do with ego because we have no duty to nature. Nature doesn't ask anything of us only us humans do that to ourselves.

"It's MY child therefor he/she is important, MY child came out of ME therefore he/she is important, it's MY genes and legacy" etc.

Ego.

If Ayn Rand were alive I'd say "but what about the Jews?" Eric Striker made a video speaking of Emma Goldmann and Ayn Rand being two of the same shit encrusted coin

>>6568

Yeah but people use college degrees as a form of "muh IQ" and to virtue signal

>>6574

Actually I find smart people reproducing being less egoistic than if they don't. If they reproduce, the genes that make the smart will continue to survive and have the next generations have more smart people as doctors, rulers and mathematicians. If they die off, only the foolish will reproduce and lead the world to chaos and destruction.

>>6568

I have to say that if at least one country stands against the agenda, it'll survive.

I'd rather say that the majority of the Western world will burn, but some white countries will still survive when they see what happens to the "culturally enriched" ones, if they have time, of course.

>>6600

That's not how genes work but, sure, that's the kind of rationalization you get when you base your whole worldview around the movie "Idiocracy".

>>6601

People latch on to concepts like country, nation, race as shorthanded supplement for any real identity that they are lacking. Any scrap of humanity which isn't arbitrarily disposable to the great big nothing of history, that is. The world goes on with or without you, it doesn't care, life goes on with or without you.

The world can go on without your race, history, culture and agenda. This applies to everyone. Accept that you are unimportant and then maybe you can stop living vicariously as a slave to your ego.

You're not a crusader.

>The alt-right and /pol/ both have members who believe that god and the afterlife do not exist, but who also believe that public belief in such things is the only way for society to avoid falling into moral relativism and degeneracy.

That's all you need to say and observe. No "maybe" is needed. No "but." No "if." You can stop right there. You're proposing that this is (1) a problem for the future; (2) you have some sense of how it might be solved; (3) you propose getting the ball rolling with one suggestion, but it's up to others now to reconcile it because, well, it's a problem.

You don't need a new, or an objective morality. There is one. It's the one you categorize as "X believes Y, but X also believes not-Y." Perhaps you should consider what you mean by the "non-existence" of god and the afterlife. in what sense do they "not exist?" And why is their non-existence in whatever sense you are asserting pose a contradiction? You must first demonstrate that the way you have phrased this as a logical contradiction is in fact correct, insofar as you have not defined what you mean by existence and non-existence. Second, you must prove that those who hold that being and non-being can both be and not be are logically contradicting themselves, in all senses of the term "being," not merely yours.

Good luck.

>>6615

The world could go on without humans at all, but I want humanity to go on relatively peacefully and to continue to exist for a long time. Studies have shown that diversity in race and nationality make people a lot more aggressive and produce a lot of more crime.

And biology has proven that there is a selection in a population, like let's say smart people don't reproduce that'll lead to less people with high IQs being born as that trait doesn't survive.

It has been proven that there exist IQ differences between the races which makes us to want as little mixed race couples as possible.

And in order to achieve that we need nations and traditions to hold them together or to increase the well-being of the people.

Of course, things such as monogamy has been proven to do both. It both makes the next generation more mentally stable and to increase the happiness in a household.

In order to keep monogamous relationships that produce children and do not break up you need to have other traditions like marriage and sex until marriage and sex at a later age.

And yet again, we need smart people as doctors and leaders.

I agree that is arbitrary but you need to accept that it has been proven to work pretty well this way.

I know that humanity will continue existing without my culture and traditions, but it would be chaotic and distructive until humanity creates other cultures and traditions and goes back to normal.

>>6629

I also want to add that I enjoy our conversation and that I find it interesting to share my opinions with someone who disagrees with me.

>>6615

'Races' are collections of similar traits that are distinct enough to be considered groups but not to be considered subspecies. Non-caucasian races are less intelligent on average than caucasian races.

The world could 'go on' after a multitude of events that you would be opposed to. What justification do you have for your continuation of life, if you are unlikely to affect the 'going on' of the world? You have given this argument without any alternative.

>>6637

And where exactly do you draw the distinction for what constitutes one race contra another race? You are, by the by, using an erroneous distinction by using caucasian to mean "white" as caucasian can apply to a wide variety of people from all over Europe, Western Asia, Central Asia, South Asia, North Africa, and the Horn of Africa.

The term caucasian has been twisted and appropriated to simply mean "white" which is a gross oversimplification. Similarly to word "aryan" which does not mean white but are encompassing of genetic traits which can be found in people all over the world not just blue eyed, blonde and white people.

So when you say to one "race", using your definition of race that is, means nothing.

Your whole outlook on race is primarily based on pseudoscience, linguistic shortcuts and general ignorance.

>You have given this argument without any alternative.

That's because it isn't an argument with alternatives in the first place. If you live you live, if you die you die. Any meaning found therein is completely of your own volition. If thinking about your own racial superiority over other races gives you some semblance of purpose then, fine, who gives a shit that's what gets YOU going.

I personally think you could, if you wanted to, strain yourself to find something more meaningful and productive to believe in but that's a journey you have to make on your own.

>>6644

>And where exactly do you draw the distinction for what constitutes one race contra another race? You are, by the by, using an erroneous distinction by using caucasian to mean "white" as caucasian can apply to a wide variety of people from all over Europe, Western Asia, Central Asia, South Asia, North Africa, and the Horn of Africa.

>The term caucasian has been twisted and appropriated to simply mean "white" which is a gross oversimplification. Similarly to word "aryan" which does not mean white but are encompassing of genetic traits which can be found in people all over the world not just blue eyed, blonde and white people.

If you do not have the capacity to understand what is meant, when the meaning of the term used can not be exactly defined using other words, then this is your cognitive lack. The terms caucasian and aryan have indeed been used in multiple ways, this does not mean that they are somehow beholden to what you conceive to be one of those ways.

>So when you say to one "race", using your definition of race that is, means nothing.

How does the relationship between signifier and signified being arbitrary mean that the signifier does not signify?

>That's because it isn't an argument with alternatives in the first place. If you live you live, if you die you die. Any meaning found therein is completely of your own volition. If thinking about your own racial superiority over other races gives you some semblance of purpose then, fine, who gives a shit that's what gets YOU going.

>I personally think you could, if you wanted to, strain yourself to find something more meaningful and productive to believe in but that's a journey you have to make on your own.

but people die dude, so whatever dude, it's like create your own meaning and shit, i swear dude, just take the journey through reddit and the self-help book section at the thrift store..

>>6645

>If you do not have the capacity to understand what is meant, when the meaning of the term used can not be exactly defined using other words, then this is your cognitive lack. The terms caucasian and aryan have indeed been used in multiple ways, this does not mean that they are somehow beholden to what you conceive to be one of those ways.

La di da.

The reason I bring it up is because the definition keeps, conveniently, changing with the times and the context.

But the bottom line being that there's still this lingering persistence to make the "white" race more important and "better" than other races even when there's no justification or scientific confirmation for it being provably true.

I can easily point this out but people put so much of their own personal self worth and identity in this vague concept of race that whenever I say "your race doesn't make you special", which it doesn't, people see it as an attack on their very personhood.

And I suppose it is if the only thing you have going for yourself is the complexion of your outermost layer of skin.

But the fact that you can't make something of yourself that's YOUR problem that you have to work on.

>How does the relationship between signifier and signified being arbitrary mean that the signifier does not signify?

That was actually a typo on my behalf, whoops, what I meant to say was that saying that one race, the whites, have a "higher I.Q. than other races" means nothing. Which it does because even the definition of I.Q. is another definition which has been horribly confused from it's original meaning.

>just take the journey through reddit and the self-help book section at the thrift store...

And this is somehow worse than the "I'm the chosen white" bullshit that you keep telling yourself... How exactly? I at least expect something of you.

I don't feel the need to pat myself on the back for being white so why do you? Why should anyone have to congratulate themselves for being average? What's the use of mocking the concept of creating your own meaning out of life when your own sense of purpose is mandated by character weak conformists and idol worshippers?

And yes we all do die, dude, so of what function does your philosophy serve in the grand scheme of things besides as a flaccid guilt absolving pardon for apologists?