4 ms·

> objectives facts (what is) rather than ideology (what should be) What is a "fact" or what is "true" is dependent on your values (aka your ideology). This is

> objectives facts (what is) rather than ideology (what should be) What is a "fact" or what is "true" is dependent on your values (aka your ideology). This is one of Nietzsche's main contributions to philosophy. There are things like mathematical and logical truth and really basic physical assertions (e.g. the sky is blue) but those are qualitatively different than what we're talking about. Both normative and positive statements about the world of human affairs are ultimately dependent on ideology and that might explain to you why you perceive conservatives as focusing on arguments over ideology. That is what people should be arguing over since from that all else flows. When people don't share substantially similar values even language itself becomes useless as a means of communication because the words themselves mean different things.

dragonwriter 6y ago
> What is a "fact" or what is "true" in dependent on your values (aka your ideology). This is one of Nietzsche's main contributions to philosophy. No, it's not. That's one of the Enlightenment’s many contributions to philosophy and the foundation on which the advances in knowledge of the universe enabling the explosion of post-Enlightenment technical progress is built. Obviously, one might have ideological, aesthetic, or other preferences for what facts ought to be, and one might have beliefs about questions of fact that ultimately result from those preferences, but—Roadrunner cartoons not withstanding—beliefs about the material universe don't trump material facts. (However, it's kind of funny that you are making, as a positive argument in favor of conservatism, exactly the argument that conservatives usually not only reject, but also attribute—not entirely inaccurately though certainly overgenerally—to the “postmodern” left and cite as a key reason for rejecting the left.)
- googthrowaway42 6y ago
  > enabling the explosion of post-Enlightenment technical progress is built. The same metaphysical view you're describing also enabled utopian totalitarian visions like Nazism and Communism. Communism famously proposes a view of the world that sees everything through the lens of materialism. This discussion is much deeper than what a thread on HN can really do justice to. I would just strongly urge you to consider reading Beyond Good and Evil for a different perspective and study of this question by a great thinker. > to the “postmodern” left and cite as a key reason for rejecting the left.) Postmodernism hinges on whether or not there is an objective set of values. Conservatives believe there is (the Bible, natural law, God, etc) whereas Postmodernists believe there isn't. Everything I've said holds true regardless of where you come down on that. Personally yes I believe there is an objective set of values.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > The same metaphysical view you're describing also enabled utopian totalitarian visions like Nazism and Communism. Leninism and it's descendants are totalitarian, Communism (even Marxism) more generally is not, but, sure, you can certainly make the case that scientific rationality has some connection to Marxism and thus an indirect effect on Leninism. OTOH, scientific rationality and the proven results are also the explicit basis for the widespread Western rejection of Leninism and it's descendants (and explictly cited as such by wide segments of the Right, including those who generalize that rejection to Communism generally, which the left might argue is an overgeneralization, but even in that argument there is a broad consensus that there are actual material facts that one can draw conclusions about from material evidence which transcends ideology when approached correctly.) OTOH, Nazism was not based on scientific rationality, except as a reaction against it, and in fact both Italian Fascism and Naziism were explicitly based on the exact Nietzschean view that you advance (both the idea and explicitly crediting it to Nietzche). > Postmodernism hinges on whether or not there is an objective set of values. Conservatives believe there is (the Bible, natural law, God, etc) whereas Postmodernists believe there isn't. That may be a difference between your particular worldview and postmodernism, but large number of other conservatives criticize the “postmodern left” not merely for rejecting objective values which you claim is the difference between Conservatism and Postmodernism, but for rejecting objective facts and viewing facts as constructs which depend on ideology—the position you take on the nature of facts is one explicitly rejected and criticized (and attributed as a failing of the left) by most mainstream conservative thinkers, though I will agree that the factions of the Right who adhere to it are at what is, at least, a recent local maximum of prominence.
    - googthrowaway42 6y ago
      > Nazism was not based on scientific rationality, How can you say this when Nazis famously "pioneered" and promulgated things like Phrenology and Eugenics? Scientific racism was at the heart of the Nazi program. > the position you take on the nature of facts is one explicitly rejected and criticized (and attributed as a failing of the left) by most mainstream conservative thinkers, I do agree with you here. What we're discussing really only has meaning when both sides of the discussion are able and willing to have a deeper discussion about this sort of stuff. What Charlie Kirk and Ben Shapiro engage in is completely sufficient for the audience they're trying to engage with and appeal to. To get into this more abstract kind of discussion would be counterproductive in my opinion. Postmodernism is actually really harmful for people to believe in and at that point where you're lost in a world where most major cultural institutions are pushing that, you just need someone articulating an alternative view point. At that level, getting into a discussion about how they're actually similar would be a bad idea.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> What is a "fact" or what is "true" in dependent on your values (aka your ideology). This is one of Nietzsche's main contributions to philosophy. No, it's not. That's one of the Enlightenment’s many contributions to philosophy and the foundation on which the advances in knowledge of the universe enabling the explosion of post-Enlightenment technical progress is built. Obviously, one might have ideological, aesthetic, or other preferences for what facts ought to be, and one might have beliefs about questions of fact that ultimately result from those preferences, but—Roadrunner cartoons not withstanding—beliefs about the material universe don't trump material facts. (However, it's kind of funny that you are making, as a positive argument in favor of conservatism, exactly the argument that conservatives usually not only reject, but also attribute—not entirely inaccurately though certainly overgenerally—to the “postmodern” left and cite as a key reason for rejecting the left.)

googthrowaway42 6y ago
> enabling the explosion of post-Enlightenment technical progress is built. The same metaphysical view you're describing also enabled utopian totalitarian visions like Nazism and Communism. Communism famously proposes a view of the world that sees everything through the lens of materialism. This discussion is much deeper than what a thread on HN can really do justice to. I would just strongly urge you to consider reading Beyond Good and Evil for a different perspective and study of this question by a great thinker. > to the “postmodern” left and cite as a key reason for rejecting the left.) Postmodernism hinges on whether or not there is an objective set of values. Conservatives believe there is (the Bible, natural law, God, etc) whereas Postmodernists believe there isn't. Everything I've said holds true regardless of where you come down on that. Personally yes I believe there is an objective set of values.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > The same metaphysical view you're describing also enabled utopian totalitarian visions like Nazism and Communism. Leninism and it's descendants are totalitarian, Communism (even Marxism) more generally is not, but, sure, you can certainly make the case that scientific rationality has some connection to Marxism and thus an indirect effect on Leninism. OTOH, scientific rationality and the proven results are also the explicit basis for the widespread Western rejection of Leninism and it's descendants (and explictly cited as such by wide segments of the Right, including those who generalize that rejection to Communism generally, which the left might argue is an overgeneralization, but even in that argument there is a broad consensus that there are actual material facts that one can draw conclusions about from material evidence which transcends ideology when approached correctly.) OTOH, Nazism was not based on scientific rationality, except as a reaction against it, and in fact both Italian Fascism and Naziism were explicitly based on the exact Nietzschean view that you advance (both the idea and explicitly crediting it to Nietzche). > Postmodernism hinges on whether or not there is an objective set of values. Conservatives believe there is (the Bible, natural law, God, etc) whereas Postmodernists believe there isn't. That may be a difference between your particular worldview and postmodernism, but large number of other conservatives criticize the “postmodern left” not merely for rejecting objective values which you claim is the difference between Conservatism and Postmodernism, but for rejecting objective facts and viewing facts as constructs which depend on ideology—the position you take on the nature of facts is one explicitly rejected and criticized (and attributed as a failing of the left) by most mainstream conservative thinkers, though I will agree that the factions of the Right who adhere to it are at what is, at least, a recent local maximum of prominence.
  - googthrowaway42 6y ago
    > Nazism was not based on scientific rationality, How can you say this when Nazis famously "pioneered" and promulgated things like Phrenology and Eugenics? Scientific racism was at the heart of the Nazi program. > the position you take on the nature of facts is one explicitly rejected and criticized (and attributed as a failing of the left) by most mainstream conservative thinkers, I do agree with you here. What we're discussing really only has meaning when both sides of the discussion are able and willing to have a deeper discussion about this sort of stuff. What Charlie Kirk and Ben Shapiro engage in is completely sufficient for the audience they're trying to engage with and appeal to. To get into this more abstract kind of discussion would be counterproductive in my opinion. Postmodernism is actually really harmful for people to believe in and at that point where you're lost in a world where most major cultural institutions are pushing that, you just need someone articulating an alternative view point. At that level, getting into a discussion about how they're actually similar would be a bad idea.