Once you realize that "wokism" is just another religion born from secular liberalism with no moral compass, it makes sense. The foundation of liberalism and individual freedom is sound but it always relied on the idea of moral truths birthed by religious ideals. Take away the underlying foundation and the moral relativity which gets created is nothing but chaos.
Once you realize that "wokism" is just another religion born from secular liberalism with no moral compass, it makes sense. The foundation of liberalism and individual freedom is sound but it always relied on the idea of moral truths birthed by religious ideals. Take away the underlying foundation and the moral relativity which gets created is nothing but chaos.
It reminded me of John Adams' famous quote: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
I do think its possible to recognize natural rights as secular and not just god given. But to do so a person must recognizes the precious nature of individual human life. Todays elites views humans as beans to be counted and organized with them doing the counting.
If "natural rights" exist, then are they TEMPORARY or PERMANENT? If you say they are temporary, then are they really "rights" at all, as opposed to temporary "licenses" that can be revoked at will by the changing society that conferred them? No, if permanent natural rights are merely conferred by secular society, then secular society can always change its mind and take them away.* And how can contemporary secular society ever confer rights that are permanent if such rights are contingent upon the temporary society that conferred them? (Spoiler alert - it can't.) All of this points inescapably to the idea that Natural Rights are PERMANENT because they arise out of a created order that includes a Natural Law, and it is this "Natural Law" that establishes such "Natural Rights." Further, if there is such a "Natural Law" in the fabric of Nature and the Universe, then there must be a personal, just, good "Natural LawGIVER" to have created it - a kind of "person" (or "Being") who (in your words) "... recognizes the precious nature of individual human life." YES! I agree, but if mankind is a mere "Cosmic Accident" - a fortuitous occurrence of incidental circumstances having neither purpose, intention, nor meaning - then by what standard can you infer that such a "Cosmic Fart" is "precious"? No, people can only have "preciousness" if they are made in the image of or from the "mold" of something that is INHERENTLY precious, but such a Being would have to be PRE-EXISTENT to the thing created after it. What's more, it would have to be "ABSOLUTE" (i.e., "PERMANENT") and not merely "CONTINGENT," for the same reasons as explained above. I agree that Natural Rights that permanently recognize the precious nature of individual human life can and do exist, but such rights cannot be secular. Which brings us back to the haunting reality that "... there's something out there, and It's watching me..." ЁЯШ│ Suggested reading: C.S. Lewis, MERE CHRISTIANITY, Chapter 1 "Right and Wrong as a Clue to the Meaning of the Universe," from which my thoughts are adapted...
The idea that the moral behavior requires traditional religious beliefs is a blind spot of the conservative religious right. The trend toward secularization of society is only accelerating. Our only hope is to embrace the idea of natural first principles--- individual value, individual autonomy, equal treatment under the law, etc. Enlightenment Now!
Not a "blind spot" at all. NO ONE knows if there is a god, particularly one that might punish immoral behavior (however defined - that's actually the core issue). Many conservatives simply assume this deity exists (again - no one knows for certain) as a functional, practical check on (guaranteed) human immorality.
I get your point, I think and pretty much agree" but I don't care for the assume terminology. It is faith and I don't think for most it is the fear of punishment but rather the promise of reward. And if we are wrong about reward in the afterlife, so what? We will still have the reward of a life well-lived.
But those first principles have to be accepted as actual values. And the Woke do not. In Progressive ideology, only group membership gives any individual value, and group value is dependent on an "oppression" matrix that penalizes success and exalts victimhood. It's a quasi-religious ideology that has nothing to do with natural first principles.
Agreed. A universal feature of ethnic strife is the ingroup devaluing the outgroup with moralistic language. From the beginning of recorded history we see people describing their enemies as evil, unworthy, inferior, and less than human. The language of Woke is simply a current, and very banal, version of this ingroup/outgroup dynamic--- the evil white, cis, male, yada yada, oppressor.
What IтАЩm arguing is that itтАЩs more than тАЬquasi-religious;тАЭ itтАЩs actually the same genre of moralistic language that typifies religious ideologies. The archetype of this moralizing most familiar in the western world is the Abrahamic religions viewing themselves as chosen by God, which is simply a version of ranking ethnic groups by value.
So, IтАЩm skeptical of the frequent comments calling for a return to foundational Judeo-Christian values, not because those values arenтАЩt genuine, but because we need a more universal unifying vision going forward. It is implied in the Constitutional separation of church and state that we can figure out how to organize a just, fair, free society around the first principle that all human beings are of equal value.
Essentially this country relied on the Judaeo-Christian tradition for its system of laws. That tradition is essentially the 10 Commandments. The 9 other than "I am the Lord thy God . . ." are very universal. And my Lord values every human being equally. So perhaps we already had at our disposal the ability to "organize a just, fair, free society" and just pissed it away. I do not believe that every citizen is required to worship as I do, or worship at all, but I do believe a moral compass is required to participate effectively in a "just, fair, free society" and IMO our current society demonstrates that few are capable of creating an individual, independent moral compass.
I'm not so sure about that last. It might be that it's just recent generations that aren't capable of creating an individual, independent moral compass. I say that because I'm not sure they were ever raised to be strong, independent individuals. ICBW, 'course.
As I look at all religions as a whole (not merely the Judeo-Christian ones), there seem to be a number of core concepts that all agree upon: that taking an innocent life is wrong, that stealing is wrong, and so forth. Indeed, the core concept of Natural Law seems to be the same one that Jesus and Hillel (among others) have summed up as "treat other people the same way you wish to be treated yourself."
Woke-ism rejects that concept. Woke-ism is, in fact, a philosophy of destruction and revenge. It says that the only way for things to be "right" in the universe is to destroy the successful, to harm healthy bodies, to embrace lies.
My take: тАЬWokismтАЭ is a philosophy that is concerned with aiding the weak. In general this is a good impulse, and we need advocates for this in society. The problems I have with it are two-fold: (1) theyтАЩve fused this good impulse with identity politics, which results in many unfair and hypocritical positions (2) their line of thought is so simplistic and short sighted that their rule wonтАЩt even result in improvements for the select groups they claim to care about.
Tldr; They represent a perversion of a good impulse and make terrible leaders. May we have sanity on the left once again, and soon!
I think the people who advocate Woke philosophy would have you believe that it exists to aid the weak, and some may indeed believe that, but the practice is far different. As far as I can tell it is about aiding their "elites" in the same old sordid ways - money and power - while absolutely diminishing the autonomy of the individual.
Once you realize that "wokism" is just another religion born from secular liberalism with no moral compass, it makes sense. The foundation of liberalism and individual freedom is sound but it always relied on the idea of moral truths birthed by religious ideals. Take away the underlying foundation and the moral relativity which gets created is nothing but chaos.
It reminded me of John Adams' famous quote: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
I do think its possible to recognize natural rights as secular and not just god given. But to do so a person must recognizes the precious nature of individual human life. Todays elites views humans as beans to be counted and organized with them doing the counting.
If "natural rights" exist, then are they TEMPORARY or PERMANENT? If you say they are temporary, then are they really "rights" at all, as opposed to temporary "licenses" that can be revoked at will by the changing society that conferred them? No, if permanent natural rights are merely conferred by secular society, then secular society can always change its mind and take them away.* And how can contemporary secular society ever confer rights that are permanent if such rights are contingent upon the temporary society that conferred them? (Spoiler alert - it can't.) All of this points inescapably to the idea that Natural Rights are PERMANENT because they arise out of a created order that includes a Natural Law, and it is this "Natural Law" that establishes such "Natural Rights." Further, if there is such a "Natural Law" in the fabric of Nature and the Universe, then there must be a personal, just, good "Natural LawGIVER" to have created it - a kind of "person" (or "Being") who (in your words) "... recognizes the precious nature of individual human life." YES! I agree, but if mankind is a mere "Cosmic Accident" - a fortuitous occurrence of incidental circumstances having neither purpose, intention, nor meaning - then by what standard can you infer that such a "Cosmic Fart" is "precious"? No, people can only have "preciousness" if they are made in the image of or from the "mold" of something that is INHERENTLY precious, but such a Being would have to be PRE-EXISTENT to the thing created after it. What's more, it would have to be "ABSOLUTE" (i.e., "PERMANENT") and not merely "CONTINGENT," for the same reasons as explained above. I agree that Natural Rights that permanently recognize the precious nature of individual human life can and do exist, but such rights cannot be secular. Which brings us back to the haunting reality that "... there's something out there, and It's watching me..." ЁЯШ│ Suggested reading: C.S. Lewis, MERE CHRISTIANITY, Chapter 1 "Right and Wrong as a Clue to the Meaning of the Universe," from which my thoughts are adapted...
The idea that the moral behavior requires traditional religious beliefs is a blind spot of the conservative religious right. The trend toward secularization of society is only accelerating. Our only hope is to embrace the idea of natural first principles--- individual value, individual autonomy, equal treatment under the law, etc. Enlightenment Now!
Not a "blind spot" at all. NO ONE knows if there is a god, particularly one that might punish immoral behavior (however defined - that's actually the core issue). Many conservatives simply assume this deity exists (again - no one knows for certain) as a functional, practical check on (guaranteed) human immorality.
I get your point, I think and pretty much agree" but I don't care for the assume terminology. It is faith and I don't think for most it is the fear of punishment but rather the promise of reward. And if we are wrong about reward in the afterlife, so what? We will still have the reward of a life well-lived.
But those first principles have to be accepted as actual values. And the Woke do not. In Progressive ideology, only group membership gives any individual value, and group value is dependent on an "oppression" matrix that penalizes success and exalts victimhood. It's a quasi-religious ideology that has nothing to do with natural first principles.
Agreed. A universal feature of ethnic strife is the ingroup devaluing the outgroup with moralistic language. From the beginning of recorded history we see people describing their enemies as evil, unworthy, inferior, and less than human. The language of Woke is simply a current, and very banal, version of this ingroup/outgroup dynamic--- the evil white, cis, male, yada yada, oppressor.
What IтАЩm arguing is that itтАЩs more than тАЬquasi-religious;тАЭ itтАЩs actually the same genre of moralistic language that typifies religious ideologies. The archetype of this moralizing most familiar in the western world is the Abrahamic religions viewing themselves as chosen by God, which is simply a version of ranking ethnic groups by value.
So, IтАЩm skeptical of the frequent comments calling for a return to foundational Judeo-Christian values, not because those values arenтАЩt genuine, but because we need a more universal unifying vision going forward. It is implied in the Constitutional separation of church and state that we can figure out how to organize a just, fair, free society around the first principle that all human beings are of equal value.
Thank You.
I believe we need to develop a common *philosophy,* which One could consider a Religion or not. As suits the individual.
Another first principle, in addition to the one You mentioned (or another embodiment of it)...
... Well one that suits all occasions is "Do unto others..." TY again.
Essentially this country relied on the Judaeo-Christian tradition for its system of laws. That tradition is essentially the 10 Commandments. The 9 other than "I am the Lord thy God . . ." are very universal. And my Lord values every human being equally. So perhaps we already had at our disposal the ability to "organize a just, fair, free society" and just pissed it away. I do not believe that every citizen is required to worship as I do, or worship at all, but I do believe a moral compass is required to participate effectively in a "just, fair, free society" and IMO our current society demonstrates that few are capable of creating an individual, independent moral compass.
TY, Ma'am.
I'm not so sure about that last. It might be that it's just recent generations that aren't capable of creating an individual, independent moral compass. I say that because I'm not sure they were ever raised to be strong, independent individuals. ICBW, 'course.
TYTY, a-course. :-)
As I look at all religions as a whole (not merely the Judeo-Christian ones), there seem to be a number of core concepts that all agree upon: that taking an innocent life is wrong, that stealing is wrong, and so forth. Indeed, the core concept of Natural Law seems to be the same one that Jesus and Hillel (among others) have summed up as "treat other people the same way you wish to be treated yourself."
Woke-ism rejects that concept. Woke-ism is, in fact, a philosophy of destruction and revenge. It says that the only way for things to be "right" in the universe is to destroy the successful, to harm healthy bodies, to embrace lies.
My take: тАЬWokismтАЭ is a philosophy that is concerned with aiding the weak. In general this is a good impulse, and we need advocates for this in society. The problems I have with it are two-fold: (1) theyтАЩve fused this good impulse with identity politics, which results in many unfair and hypocritical positions (2) their line of thought is so simplistic and short sighted that their rule wonтАЩt even result in improvements for the select groups they claim to care about.
Tldr; They represent a perversion of a good impulse and make terrible leaders. May we have sanity on the left once again, and soon!
I think the people who advocate Woke philosophy would have you believe that it exists to aid the weak, and some may indeed believe that, but the practice is far different. As far as I can tell it is about aiding their "elites" in the same old sordid ways - money and power - while absolutely diminishing the autonomy of the individual.
Wokism's compass (such as it is) is the simple tenet that white male power and social status (in any form) are evil, and should be eliminated.