The Cultural Left: Making the World Safe for Fundamentalism

[Lung]

Screw communism vs capitalism! THIS is the argument of the times! I'm sick and tired of feeling caught between opposing fundamentalists, as they're all crazy

What does everyone think of this??


http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=293

The Cultural Left is not a movement, an ideology, or a philosophy. It is a set of attitudes and beliefs based on the prejudices of the modern intellectual elite, shored up by shallow and simplistic interpretations of modern philosophy (often Karl Marx) and pop psychology. These beliefs are a hodgepodge of moral relativism, Marxism and political correctness--topped off by an almost pathological hostility to traditional Western civilization and the values it is based upon.

The Cultural Left's belief system is a threat to secularism on many levels, but three reasons stand out above all others:
1.) extreme relativism,
2.) hostility to traditional Western culture, and,
3.) the view that academia, scholarship, education, science, culture and the arts are nothing but weapons for use in political and ideological warfare.

These three beliefs undermine secularism and increase the power and influence of religion and superstition in our society.

Extreme relativism is the belief that all values, beliefs, cultures, ideas and ideologies are of equal value. Worse it is the idea that it is wrong to judge or evaluate any belief or idea by moral or empirical criteria. In this world view it is wrong to judge a belief system such as Communism or racism as evil because of its destructive effects. Extreme relativists also believe that it is wrong to evaluate ideas or belief systems based upon empirical criteria such as science.

This means that the cultural leftist can't denounce racism or Islamic extremism as evil because that would be making a moral judgement--even though both systems are clearly evil and destructive. It is also means that the cultural leftist can't pronounce Fundamentalist Christianity, Marxism, Communism and other dogmas false or wrong because that would be applying empirical standards to a belief system.

The prime beneficiaries of extreme relativism are religious fundamentalists and other fanatics. Since the cultural leftist can't judge beliefs on a moral level and can't evaluate them on a rational basis, the cultural leftist has no defense against the fundamentalist. Since the fundamentalist has no qualms about making such judgements and conclusions, he or she is free to judge, evaluate and criticize the Cultural Leftist.

Worse, by refusing to make moral judgements the Cultural Leftist turns the whole sphere of morality and ethics over to people of faith. Since the religious are willing to make moral judgements, they become the arbiters of morality and ethics for all society because the secular intellectuals have abandoned that role. This is why people of faith--whether they are Marxists, Catholic bishops, Buddhist Lamas, or Indian medicine men--are so influential in our society today. They have no real competition given that the scholars, intellectuals, journalists, writers, scientists and academics have abandoned the important area of morality.

The second way the Cultural Left undermines secularism is by its ongoing war on Western Culture and Civilization. When the Cultural Left announces its intentions to abandon the dead white men of Europe and their beliefs, secularists often cheer. This means the Cultural Left is abandoning the Medieval Church, the Witch Hunt, racism, nationalism and related evils of our past. Unfortunately it also means the Cultural Left is abandoning traditional Western Secularism.

When the Cultural Left throws out Western Civilization it throws out the Greek philosophers, the Enlightenment, the American Revolution, Voltaire, Thomas Jefferson, the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Paine, Adam Smith, Darwin, Einstein, Dickens, Nietzsche, Freud, and Bertrand Russell--in other words, the ideas that form the basis of our secular society. By doing so, it deprives secularists of the intellectual and cultural ammunition they need to fight the fundamentalists. It takes away the very ideas that can defend us from the fundamentalists and counter their arguments.

While the Cultural Leftists are busy flushing our heritage down the toilet in the name of political correctness, the fundamentalists are busy studying the great thinkers of the past. Naturally, the fundamentalists sound intelligent and educated and win most of the debates. Worse, to the average person the fundamentalist sounds like a decent and honorable person upholding tradition while the intellectual sounds like a vicious and ignorant fool out to destroy all that is good and holy.

Thirdly, the Cultural Left likes to think of all culture, science, scholarship, arts, entertainment and journalism as a sort of warfare. They view any attempt to say that a point of view is valid as an effort to force one's values on others. This means that they can't admit that their opponents' views are valid or correct, or that an argument might simply be logical. This turns the atmosphere on college campuses from that of debate to one of vicious warfare between people of different values and beliefs. Since those who disagree with you are the enemy, they must be destroyed; you can't have civil discourse with them.

Worse, all intellectual disciplines (including science, history and literature) are perverted into mere tools of intellectual warfare. The worst example of this is the abomination known as creationism: pseudoscience designed to promote religion. History, for example, becomes little more than a fable designed to justify someone's prejudices.

Not surprisingly, the fundamentalists are far better equipped to wage such warfare than the Cultural Left. Fundamentalists are usually better-read and better-educated, and have certainty of belief and centuries worth of intellectual arguments on their side.

The end result of the Cultural Left's belief system is an abomination. American Academia has been turned into a bad joke, the intellectual life on our universities has been devastated, our popular culture has been wrecked, and our literature and art have become irrelevant. Worse, secularism and secular culture have been given a bad name while the power and influence of religion has increased. Since religious institutions have been able to escape the Cultural Left's onslaught, they can set the agenda in our culture, politics, literature, art and news media.

The Cultural Left has augmented the power and influence of faith in our society. Religious institutions and religious leaders are now setting our national agenda and arbitrating morality for the rest of us. Secularists can't stand up to this onslaught because they are intellectually unprepared to do so--thanks to the Cultural Left.

The time has come for secularists to stand up and take back our culture from the Cultural Left. If we don't, we may find ourselves living in a dark age of superstition, bigotry and faith thanks to those who call themselves "intellectuals" in our day and age.

[Berzerker]

What does everyone think of this??

Crazy Man, Crazy...

[Lord Merciless]

What I hate the most about lefties is their "blame everything on the West" thing.

To hell with self-loathing and masochism!

[Ben Kenobi]

This is why people of faith--whether they are Marxists, Catholic bishops, Buddhist Lamas, or Indian medicine men--are so influential in our society today. They have no real competition given that the scholars, intellectuals, journalists, writers, scientists and academics have abandoned the important area of morality.

Nope. Most liberals claim to be moral relativists, yet they really have an agenda. Perhaps if they were more consistent, we would not be having this problem

[DAVOUT]

Total agreement. This is why we are really touchy about secularism considered as an essential basis of our idea of the republic.

On this side of the Atlantic, we are less pessimistic; your P.Roth found in this situation the subject of a great novel. What I am really worry about however is a cabinet meeting beginning with prayers.

[Giant_Squid]

This article is all too representative of the way people "argue" against something these days.

First they take everything they don't like and come up with a generic term like "cultural leftists". Then they make a half-hearted attempt to give a caricaturized attempt of what "cultural leftism" is. Then they accuse the philosophy of being shallow, self-contradictory, distorted, and poorly thought out without actually raising specific objections to it (or raising objections that any intelligent philosopher could cut through in a heartbeat, but of course they don't know philosophy because they're demagogues). Then they throw in terms like "academic elite", "pseudo-intellectual", and of course "political correctnes". Then they subtly exploit anti-intellectualism. Then they accuse them of or exaggerate random stuff that's impossible to prove or disprove but which sounds highly possible, like "using academia as a political weapon" Then the obligatory closing about how they are fifth column godless probably communist traitors who want to destroy western civilization. Voila! You've got something that makes you want to go on an immediate crusade against the mindless liberal elites infesting America that is completely impossible to argue against because it's really not discussing anything substantive.

If you want to discuss moral relativism, I'd be happy to discuss it. I would very much enjoy a debate on it and while I doubt I could change your mind I hope I could at least get you to admit it's a valid and consistent philosophy that needs to be considered.

If you want to discuss the good and bad things about Western culture that would be great too - I'm sure we could have an interesting time evaluating the pros and cons of different societies. I think you'd also find that, outside of a couple of countries no one listens to anyway, there are very few people who HATE the West, just people who think that maybe if it stopped displaying the kind of attitude being displayed right here, it could learn a thing or two from other cultures (which of course could also learn something from it) - or even that they love the West but think it ought to change one or two little things - which of course to some people is HATING WESTERN CULTURE AAAH COMMIE RUN AWAY RUN AWAY!

If you want to discuss how academia is sometimes used as a propaganda tool, that would be another interesting discussion, and one in which we could certainly ferret out a lot of problems, which certainly wouldn't be limited to one side of the political spectrum. Maybe we could even find statistics and try and figure out what could be done about it.

BUT, if you post something randomly associating people who hold certain philosophical views with The Decline of Western Civilization, accusing them of everything short of child molestation, and then vaguely suggesting they're a threat to America that Someone Should Do Something About (and you get the impression that that Something doesn't involve discussing the philosophical merits of their views in a civilized matter) then all someone like me who disagrees with you can do is yell NO THEY'RE NOT!

So, my answer to this is NO THEY'RE NOT!

What I find most interesting about this is that it's coming from a secular website, whereas usually this kind of stuff comes from really fundamentalist people who can't stand that the evil mindless liberal elites are turning people away from God, and now here are people who technically ought to share this viewpoint because let's face it, any attempt to construct objective morals without a God is going to be built on quicksand, and they say the e.m.l.es are evil because they're turning people *towards* God. You can't win in this business!

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Lung
Screw communism vs capitalism! THIS is the argument of the times! I'm sick and tired of feeling caught between opposing fundamentalists, as they're all crazy

The argument of the times is to leave things the way they are?

Politics is not science. We have no problem with science at all. I have no idea what is going through your head to think all of these things.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Lord Merciless
What I hate the most about lefties is their "blame everything on the West" thing.

Nah, just the US.

[Az]

**** cultural relativism.

[Dis]

can't say I agree with it.

though lefties do cause problems in other areas...

[Az]

If you want to discuss moral relativism, I'd be happy to discuss it. I would very much enjoy a debate on it and while I doubt I could change your mind I hope I could at least get you to admit it's a valid and consistent philosophy that needs to be considered

How does that fit in with utilitarianism?

[Giant_Squid]

How does that fit in with utilitarianism?

Auuugh! "When Threads Collide"!
Okay, my personal moral philosophy in a nutshell - barring God, it's impossible for there to be any logically establishable objective morality independent of and superior to individual people because of the lack of any objectively declared beginning postulate. I declare utilitarianism to be my postulate, which is entirely my own thing. How can I argue that my postulate is superior to someone else's postulate? Because I think most non-utilitarian positions are the utilitarian position plus fuzzy logic - that is, when a non-utilitarian says "You should never murder" he's basing this on the fact that murder causes pain, but this is done at such a basic level of thought that one isn't aware of it.

Basically, I think moral discussions or debates are possible for people who assume the same postulates - for example, we could argue whether bombing Hiroshima was moral because we both share the postulate that unnecessary lives shouldn't be taken - we'd probably just end up arguing over whether it saved more American lives than it cost Japanese lives or something like that. I think the utilitarians and the nonutilitarians on that thread share the common postulate of wanting people to be happy, and that they just haven't gotten beyond the point of "but murdering someone causes pain, so it's against happiness".

On the other hand, I don't think it's possible to argue (at least not logically) against someone with no similar postulates. If someone on that thread said they hated human beings and wanted them to be sad, there'd be nothing I could say to them. I could say "But making people sad is...mean! And it hurts them!" They'd say "Yeah, that's the point." I could say "Well, what about the Golden Rule?" They'd say "I don't believe in the Golden Rule". And in a situation like that, what can you do? Mostly just make sure you lock up the guy before he hurts someone.

Does that answer your question or confuse you further?

[Jon Miller]

you do know that science will never give you morality?

some system of morality can use science as an argument, but any such system is fundamentally non-scientific

the question of morality is not a question thatt sceince is equiped to answer

Jon Miller

[Agathon]

What a load of bollocks. I always love secular rationalist sites - they accrue to themselves the whole of reason and the rational by pushing a sort of "popular science" philistinism. Boring stupid people. **** em.

If relativism benefits anyone it benefits the right, since it sanctions might makes right, which is their favourite hobby.

This is so old it's not funny. If you'd posted it in 1991 it might have been topical.

[Az]

Originally posted by Giant_Squid


Auuugh! "When Threads Collide"!
Okay, my personal moral philosophy in a nutshell - barring God, it's impossible for there to be any logically establishable objective morality independent of and superior to individual people because of the lack of any objectively declared beginning postulate. I declare utilitarianism to be my postulate, which is entirely my own thing. How can I argue that my postulate is superior to someone else's postulate?

If you don't believe it is the correct one, or the superior one, one do you hold it?

Because I think most non-utilitarian positions are the utilitarian position plus fuzzy logic - that is, when a non-utilitarian says "You should never murder" he's basing this on the fact that murder causes pain, but this is done at such a basic level of thought that one isn't aware of it.

Some are, many are not. Most "traditional" societies, those that are defended the most by cultural relativists, are highly unfair, and anti-utilitarian.

Basically, I think moral discussions or debates are possible for people who assume the same postulates - for example, we could argue whether bombing Hiroshima was moral because we both share the postulate that unnecessary lives shouldn't be taken - we'd probably just end up arguing over whether it saved more American lives than it cost Japanese lives or something like that. I think the utilitarians and the nonutilitarians on that thread share the common postulate of wanting people to be happy, and that they just haven't gotten beyond the point of "but murdering someone causes pain, so it's against happiness".

Not true. take libertarians for example. Generally, "everyone's a utilitarian, they just don't realize it, is not correct. remember those "don't kill a man to spare a thousand" quotes?

On the other hand, I don't think it's possible to argue (at least not logically) against someone with no similar postulates. If someone on that thread said they hated human beings and wanted them to be sad, there'd be nothing I could say to them. I could say "But making people sad is...mean! And it hurts them!" They'd say "Yeah, that's the point." I could say "Well, what about the Golden Rule?" They'd say "I don't believe in the Golden Rule". And in a situation like that, what can you do? Mostly just make sure you lock up the guy before he hurts someone.

But why? you're just judging him according to your postulates, who told you that your ethics are correct and his are wrong? you're an evil and close-minded person.






You see? Now I know that there are almost no cultures that are so velhemently anti-utilitarian, but, many of them are anti-utilitarian. Why is it wrong to oppose, fight and resist them? Why is it wrong to decry them as things that should pass from this world?

Does that answer your question or confuse you further?

I wasn't confused, I just thought that it was inconsistent ( and to be honest, I was also somewhat disappointed. ).

you do know that science will never give you morality?

Neither will the Pink Unicorn Behind the Moon, or his son ( that is him at the same time ) that died for our sins.

[BeBro]

Some interesting points, althouth I don´t understand the label "cultural left". Is this a common term in English? What part of the left is described by that? Because you can´t describe "the left" as a whole in that way....

Sounds more like the "dogmatic left" for me, you know, those who are in fierce class struggle everyday

BTW, how can those relativists criticise capitalism when everything has equal value?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by BeBro
What part of the left is described by that?

Judging by the tone of the article, I'd say commies.

It is also means that the cultural leftist can't pronounce Fundamentalist Christianity, Marxism, Communism and other dogmas false or wrong because that would be applying empirical standards to a belief system.

[Az]

generalizations generalizations.

( I can't believe it, I have the same discussion on another site. )

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Azazel
[q] Originally posted by Giant_Squid

Quote:

you do know that science will never give you morality?

Neither will the Pink Unicorn Behind the Moon, or his son ( that is him at the same time ) that died for our sins.

actually a pink unicorn behind the moon would be a far better giver of morality than science

when you try to use science to give you morality you are misusing science and so weakening it

there is no way to misuse a pinkunicorn behind the moon (although if you have it try and explain science to you you will find that it doesn't do a very good job)

you, and others like you, have no concept of what science really is (and what questions it can answer)

if you want to answer questions of morality you would be far better to use a religion or a philosophy (which is better in your view point becuase of the lack of pink unicorns)

Jon Miller

[BeBro]

DD: Yeah, I wasn´t sure because in the beginning he says "not a movement, an ideology, or a philosophy" etc....

Sounds to me as the kind of popular "leftism" which isn´t grounded in clear political or philosophical ideas, but whines about everything without having better alternatives.

[Kidicious]

Another thing. Relativism was Einsteins idea, wasn't it? Are there people who actually disagree with it?

[BeBro]

Not ethical relativism I think

[Kidicious]

Ok. I'm out of my league because I niether know what ethical relativism is or give a **** about it. I just think we should take care of each other and stop being greedy and irrational.

[BeBro]

Ethical relativism is similar to what is described in the article from the first post by "all values, beliefs, cultures, ideas and ideologies are of equal value".

If you believe in this, you cannot make moral judgements about anything. Consequently this would eg. mean that Racism is of equal value than Humanism.

[chequita guevara]

Cultural realtivism is not cultural leftism. While they claim to be leftists, their philosophy is actually quite conservitive. It comes down inaction in the face of oppression and an inability to side with justice. The left actually rejects these people and their philosophy.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
The left actually rejects these people and their philosophy.

Does that mean that they are able to label dogmas such as Marxism as wrong?

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by BeBro
Ethical relativism is similar to what is described in the article from the first post by "all values, beliefs, cultures, ideas and ideologies are of equal value".

If you believe in this, you cannot make moral judgements about anything. Consequently this would eg. mean that Racism is of equal value than Humanism.

Thanks BeBro. And I agree with Che. That has nothing to do with Marxism. Marx was no ethical relativist. The article implies that he was, so its just crap.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Judging by the tone of the article, I'd say commies.

That's not accurate at all, since commuism is just an enconomic system.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
That's not accurate at all, since commuism is just an enconomic system.

1) Bugger off if that is all you have to say.

2) Ideaology that advocate the overthrow of the status quo are inherently political.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Giant_Squid
Okay, my personal moral philosophy in a nutshell - barring God, it's impossible for there to be any logically establishable objective morality independent of and superior to individual people because of the lack of any objectively declared beginning postulate. I declare utilitarianism to be my postulate, which is entirely my own thing. How can I argue that my postulate is superior to someone else's postulate? Because I think most non-utilitarian positions are the utilitarian position plus fuzzy logic - that is, when a non-utilitarian says "You should never murder" he's basing this on the fact that murder causes pain, but this is done at such a basic level of thought that one isn't aware of it.

I agree with that. I am a Utilitarian, it is my postulate, to us GS's phrase, however I am not objective, therefore I cannot say that it is better, merely that I believe it is.

Originally posted by Giant_Squid
Because I think most non-utilitarian positions are the utilitarian position plus fuzzy logic - that is

Originally posted by Azazel
Not true. take libertarians for example. Generally, "everyone's a utilitarian, they just don't realize it, is not correct. remember those "don't kill a man to spare a thousand" quotes?

Yes, although you could argue that is because they believe it is best, creates the most happiness, not to kill that one. They would be personally utilitarian, that is that they do what creates the most happines for them, and as David Floyd once said, there is preventing death, and there is preventing me from killing. That believe it is happier for them to make sure that they don't kill first, and then to reduce the number of deaths second. Since I believe that everyone does what is in their best interest, I think it is a governments position to inforce laws that mean what is best for the individual, what they would choose to do in that situation is also best for society.

Originally posted by Jon Miller
there is no way to misuse a pinkunicorn behind the moon

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Does that mean that they are able to label dogmas such as Marxism as wrong?

If you were culturally relativist, you would have to say that all opinions, such as Marxism, are equal, regardless of the evidence or 'truth' behind it. That would mean that a theory that is true (such as Gravity on Earth) would be of equal weight to one that is false (such as that the Earth is flat). This seems silly to me. The opposite would be to state that some are wrong and some are right, but who would you be to decide? Therefore everyone would believe their opinions are right, and every who disagrees is wrong. Quite simply, it is not possible for them all to be right, and thus cultural absolutism seems silly too. However there is a large grey area in the middle of those that believe that some opinions are equal, and some are more valid than others. The only way I can think to determine that is based on the evidence supporting each opinion, although I am sure there are other ways.

Therefore I think that the validity of an opinion depends on the strength of the argument and evidence supporting it. For example, a nobel prize winning economist's opinion, backed up by much economic data, theory and past experience, has a more valid opinion on whether the UK should join the Euro than a high school dropout who's only argument is prejudice. However I think in many things, it is impossible to say what is more valid, such as whether one food tastes better than another, or what is the best film ever made.