I renounce modern politics-I guess i'm a Monarchist - Page 10 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

The non-democratic state: Platonism, Fascism, Theocracy, Monarchy etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14527709
As Einstein probably didn't say, "Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts."


Succinct and beautiful. I am amused by people who can not tolerate science and religion being mentioned in the same sentence. They are basically two different solutions for meeting the same human needs. It should not matter to the individual whose needs are met that one may be right and the other wrong.
#14527719
In fact, Einstein's pithy quote is actually compatible with atheism. I'm an atheist myself, and I agree with that quote. My point is that Starman seems to adhere to a rather exaggerated form of 'Scientism' - the belief that Science can (at least in principle) explain everything about the world to a maximal extent, such that everything not contained in that 'scientific' description of the world does not and cannot exist, and is in fact merely a delusion (probably caused by eating too much cheese just before bedtime). This belief is utterly idiotic.
#14527724
Potemkin wrote:You seem to be expecting things from science which it simply cannot deliver, Starman.

As Einstein probably didn't say, "Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts."


You're talking to a person who says things like "...when science is finished". This is someone who believes that scientific discovery will somehow usher us into a utopia where all philosophical debates will be settled and technocracy will be the order of the day. We'll be like the Borg.

This starman2003 person has no grasp of the human condition.

Potemkin wrote:In fact, Einstein's pithy quote is actually compatible with atheism. I'm an atheist myself, and I agree with that quote. My point is that Starman seems to adhere to a rather exaggerated form of 'Scientism' - the belief that Science can (at least in principle) explain everything about the world to a maximal extent, such that everything not contained in that 'scientific' description of the world does not and cannot exist, and is in fact merely a delusion (probably caused by eating too much cheese just before bedtime). This belief is utterly idiotic.


I'm not an atheist, and I agree completely. Einstein's views can be perceived either way, as was his comment "God doesn't roll the dice" (doesn't mean he was a believer in God or anything else). I suspect he probably was an atheist.

Secondly, I know *exactly* the type of person you're describing, and I usually find them insufferable when it comes to discussions of anything political. I'll add one other observation of this "Scientism"-following archetype - these folks often have a self-congratulatory sense about them, that they see the future that the rest of us lowly peons (and *gasp*! non-atheists!) can't grasp - meanwhile, they are almost always painfully average, which makes their inwardly-directed awe at their own (non)-prescience deliciously ironic.
#14527760
I am not a religious person. I was just giving an example. Actually I am anti-organized religion and pro-personal religion. I am a big believer in
"whatever gets you through the night".
#14527818
Unless organized religion gets you through the night.


I have to admit to that possibility, but I find it difficult to understand. Organized religion just seems to put laws and regulations between an individual and their God. I would think that would make it more difficult to get through the night.
#14527960
I think all can agree how it appears that discussion on Monarchism inevitably veers into discussion of various pillars of the modern age like 'scientism', as obviously Monarchism can only be at best a vestigial remnant of traditional world order in a world like that of today's. Monarchism is just the capstone of the pyramid, that yet without which the builders build in vain.

Otherwise, to say; 'I am an Monarchist' is an absurdity, for it entails a great deal more in the minds of most. It is not enough to reject just the modern politics, but everything else that is necessarily 'Modern' (now I could make the case that anti-modernism doesn't exclude technology, but in fact it probably does entail a deliberate restriction in technology analogous to groups like the Amish). I am a modern myself in many ways still, but I also know that it is simply not sustainable, and so if for no other reason do I want the modern age to end. Pre-Modern thinking will save one's life during the transition.

Therefore, it also follows that I am for example not against human servitude to a degree, as a unfortunate side effect of the natural human condition, but an arrangement which gets value for both parties, out of self-interest if for no other reason. Likewise, other so-called 'reactionary' positions will be revealed as simple natural necessity when the world is no longer able to support the luxury of utopianism and political/cultural stupidity.

Scientism then, as the plague it is, is best solved by the fact that universal education will also justly expire, and vain knowledge will not trouble the minds and hearts of the masses, with things they do not understand anyway, and run the risk of being deluded by charlatans of every variety over and over again.
#14528061
Scientism then, as the plague it is, is best solved by the fact that universal education will also justly expire, and vain knowledge will not trouble the minds and hearts of the masses, with things they do not understand anyway, and run the risk of being deluded by charlatans of every variety over and over again.

The plague of Scientism can only be cured by more education, not less, annatar. After all, this sort of attitude - the idolatrous worship of science - can only arise in the minds of people who do not truly understand science itself, either in its historical development or its operational procedures. Scientists themselves make no such absolutist claims to Eternal Truth for their discipline which Starman takes it upon himself to make on their behalf. And it tends to be uneducated people who fall easy prey to charlatans of every stripe.
#14528068
Potemkin wrote:My point is that Starman seems to adhere to a rather exaggerated form of 'Scientism' - the belief that Science can (at least in principle) explain everything about the world to a maximal extent, such that everything not contained in that 'scientific' description of the world does not and cannot exist,


No, no no. I didn't say that!! I said science will just discover the fundamental truths, the basic nature of the Universe. For some time scientists have spoken of Theories of Everything, but they don't mean they'll describe or explain literally everything and neither do I. Nevertheless, just as earlier knowledge of science or evolutionary knowledge gave rise to secular ideologies and totalitarian states, it's reasonable to assume that more more complete knowledge will give rise to the ultimate system of this kind.

It should not matter to the individual whose needs are met that one may be right and the other wrong.


There are ample signs christianity is waning amidst scientific and material advances e.g. scarcity of catholic priests. Ehrman's mass publicizing of the phoniness of christianity itself may accelerate the process.
Last edited by starman2003 on 20 Feb 2015 11:56, edited 1 time in total.
#14528070
No, no no. I didn't say that!! I said science will just discover the fundamental truths, the basic nature of the Universe. For some time scientists have spoken of Theories of Everything, but they don't mean they'll describe or explain literally everything and neither do I.

Fair enough. Please accept my apologies for mischaracterising your position.

Nevertheless, just as earlier knowledge of science or evolutionary knowledge gave rise to secular ideologies and totalitarian states, it's reasonable to assume that more more complete knowledge will give rise to the ultimate system of this kind.

Why is it reasonable to assume that? Besides, many of the ideologies which arose as a consequence of advances in scientific understanding (for example, 'social Darwinism') were actually based on a fundamental misunderstanding of those scientific theories. For example, the phrase "the survival of the fittest" does not mean in Darwinian theory what it meant in the political ideology of social Darwinism. These 'scientific' political ideologies are usually vulgarisations and over-simplifications of the real implications of the scientific theories.
#14528073
it's reasonable to assume that more more complete knowledge will give rise to the ultimate system of this kind.


I agree this is a concern of mine, at least in a similar, thread of thought.
Nationalism plus Imperialism plus increasing control by special interest ideologies seems to point to an end result of the domination of one ideology probably more by force than conviction.

This is why I promote citystates.

Utopia is not possible as a single entity. Utopia is only possible if their are hundreds or thousands of Utopias. It can be reached only if we allow others to pursue their own version.
#14528074
Potemkin wrote:Why is it reasonable to assume that?


If 20th century totalitarian systems could successfully challenge democracy and christianity, to an extent and for a time at least, with maybe 2-5% of the scientific and technical basis for doing so, that should exist in the future, imagine what a 21st, 22nd century system may do.

Besides, many of the ideologies which arose as a consequence of advances in scientific understanding (for example, 'social Darwinism') were actually based on a fundamental misunderstanding of those scientific theories.


To an extent yes. But they were still broadly correct to perceive a contradiction with existing equalitarian and religious views.
#14528076
If 20th century totalitarian systems could successfully challenge democracy and christianity, to an extent and for a time at least, with maybe 2-5% of the scientific and technical basis for doing so, that should exist in the future, imagine what a 21st, 22nd century system may do.

Indeed, and this is actually cause for grave concern. What new vulgarisation of science will emerge, to wreak more havoc on the world?

To an extent yes. But they were still broadly correct to perceive a contradiction with existing equalitarian and religious views.

But it was always obvious that such equalitarian and religious views were a fantasy. That was clearly understood even by Machiavelli, without needing some guy in a white lab coat to tell him. Besides, Darwinian theory could be used to 'prove' that collectivism and socialism were the only way forward, as people like Karl Pearson, for example, did in the early 20th century.
#14528172
I think Science is best left as it is, a technical craft that produces verifiable information, rather than being shoe horned into the role of cultism. That the product of this technical craft is verifiable information, which is Truth of a sort, does mean that the technicians of Science can and do step on the toes of cultists for reason that the cultists also claim to produce truth but whose truth sometimes sits in contradiction to the truth of the Scientist. This does not mean that the Scientist should also become a promulgator of cults. It would be better that his truth serve as a vaccine or antidote to cultism rather than as a new source of mischief.

So it is clear the wise ruler should allow, protect and patronise the technical craft of Science but not make a religion of it which would only degrade the desirable qualities of the technical craft.

Religion fills some holes that Science cannot or should not. These are storytelling, communal ritual and the ineffable connection to the spirit.

For inspiring stories the honest fictions of the story teller are healthier for the people than the overly asserted for truth stories of the priest.

What secularism lacks still is capacity to fill communal ritual. At the most visible level that is providing form and vehicle to rites of passage such as birth, marriage and death. Oh I know there are birth certificates, civil marriages and civil funerals but they are so dull and prosaic in execution that they hardly suffice at all in the role of communal ritual. Why else in a secular age do even atheists still prefer to marry in a church? I should think this is something that might still be remedied.

As for the ineffable well..
#14528206
As for the ineffable well..

"Whereof one cannot speak thereof one must be silent," as Ludwig Wittgenstein put it. Indeed.

Taxizen - you, sir, are an eminently sensible person. When I become Emperor of the Earth, I shall appoint you as my Chief Minister. That's a promise.
#14528423
Potemkin wrote:"Whereof one cannot speak thereof one must be silent," as Ludwig Wittgenstein put it. Indeed.
Just so.
Potemkin wrote:Taxizen - you, sir, are an eminently sensible person. When I become Emperor of the Earth, I shall appoint you as my Chief Minister. That's a promise.

I am sure I have never been so honoured not least because this fine compliment comes from one I readily recognise for having an eminently discerning mind. It takes quality to recognise quality, thus may you consider yourself reciprocally honoured.

However as one who also seeks dominion over this planet (and all others of this too small universe) I must say it would be wiser for you not to make such a promise, whatever qualities I may possess I may not have when you are in a position to make good your promise; I may be by then quite useless and degraded by who knows what misfortune. Additionally you may since encounter characters of still greater quality who would make still more satisfying chief ministers. Thus you would and should be wise to break that promise. It is wise to break promises that you should not keep but it is wiser still to not impetuously make promises that you may not keep, even as a courtesy to me for how can I not be offended if the promise isn't and can't be kept?

Thus I would not reciprocate that promise to you should I make Emperor of Earth first, though I do not doubt your quality, for I can not know now if it would be wise to make such an offering without closer certainty that it would be appropriate and because it would not be kindly to disappoint.
#14528482
Potemkin wrote:Indeed, and this is actually cause for grave concern. What new vulgarisation of science will emerge, to wreak more havoc on the world?


Hey it may be a great help to the Emperor of the Earth.

But it was always obvious that such equalitarian and religious views were a fantasy. That was clearly understood even by Machiavelli, without needing some guy in a white lab coat to tell him.


But it helps if science can be marshalled against them, especially if it's well-publicized. It'll increase the number and confidence of people, especially bright people, willing to actively oppose fantasies, which unfortunately, still have a large following among the masses.


Besides, Darwinian theory could be used to 'prove' that collectivism and socialism were the only way forward, as people like Karl Pearson, for example, did in the early 20th century.


I wouldn't have a problem with science being used to back Statism.
#14528552
I am sure I have never been so honoured not least because this fine compliment comes from one I readily recognise for having an eminently discerning mind. It takes quality to recognise quality, thus may you consider yourself reciprocally honoured.

Please don't mention it, my dear sir. I was merely stating a fact which should be obvious to all.

However as one who also seeks dominion over this planet (and all others of this too small universe) I must say it would be wiser for you not to make such a promise, whatever qualities I may possess I may not have when you are in a position to make good your promise; I may be by then quite useless and degraded by who knows what misfortune. Additionally you may since encounter characters of still greater quality who would make still more satisfying chief ministers. Thus you would and should be wise to break that promise. It is wise to break promises that you should not keep but it is wiser still to not impetuously make promises that you may not keep, even as a courtesy to me for how can I not be offended if the promise isn't and can't be kept?

Thus I would not reciprocate that promise to you should I make Emperor of Earth first, though I do not doubt your quality, for I can not know now if it would be wise to make such an offering without closer certainty that it would be appropriate and because it would not be kindly to disappoint.

A good point, sir, and well put. Nonetheless, I hope you can accept my promise in the spirit in which it was made. And, in my own humble opinion, the Cosmos is large enough for us both. There will always be new worlds left to conquer....
  • 1
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12

ATTEMPTED STABBING OF US MARINE VET BY ANTIFA h[…]

What did you think of the Panorama "document[…]

The Evolution Fraud

Living things provide abundant evidence of their[…]

Your lack of an argument is noted.