Hong Wu wrote:[I'm made to feel like I'm]just an asshole who is part of a larger problem that is everything wrong with the world.
It is instructive that you bind communism, liberalism, and Islam together. Three ideologies that have nothing to do with one another.
But the solution for why you do is easy enough to diagnose, however.
You are upset that you are made to feel as if you are an external participant within actual material reality when confronted with someone you disagree with.
This has to do with your acceptance of a postmodernist sense of self
, where you view your own presence as part of a crucial component of who you are and how you understand.
For the late modernist, the Marxist, this was anticipated and dismissed as a form of alienation. The fragmentation of yourself into commodity to be used as weather vane of your feelings about an issue is a result of external conditions that can be explained:
Marx wrote:It depends not on consciousness , but on being ; not on thought, but on life; it depends on the individual's empirical development and manifestation of life, which in turn depends on the conditions existing in the world.
If the circumstances in which the individual lives allow him only the [one]-sided development of one quality at the expense of all the rest, [if] they give him the material and time to develop only that one quality, then this individual achieves only a one-sided, crippled development. No moral preaching avails here. And the manner in which this one, preeminently favored quality develops depends again, on the one hand, on the material available for its development and, on the other hand, on the degree and manner in which the other qualities are suppressed.
Precisely because thought, for example, is the thought of a particular, definite individual, it remains his definite thought, determined by his individuality in the conditions in which he lives. The thinking individual therefore has no need to resort to prolonged reflection about thought as such in order to declare that his thought is his own thought, his property; from the outset it is his own, peculiarly determined thought and it was precisely his peculiarity which [in the case of St.] Sancho [was found to be] the "opposite" of this, the peculiarity which is peculiar " as such ".
In the case of an individual, for example, whose life embraces a wide circle of varied activities and practical relations to the world, and who, therefore, lives a many-sided life, thought has the same character of universality as every other manifestation of his life. Consequently, it neither becomes fixed in the form of abstract thought nor does it need complicated tricks of reflection when the individual passes from thought to some other manifestation of life. From the outset it is always a factor in the total life of the individual, one which disappears and is reproduced as required .
In the case of a parochial Berlin schoolmaster or author, however, whose activity is restricted to arduous work on the one hand and the pleasure of thought on the other, whose world extends from [the small confines of their city], whose relations to this world are reduced to a minimum by his pitiful position in life, when such an individual experiences the need to think, it is indeed inevitable that his thought becomes just as abstract as he himself and his life, and that thought confronts him, who is quite incapable of resistance, in the form of a fixed power, whose activity offers the individual the possibility of a momentary escape from his "bad world", of a momentary pleasure.
In the case of such an individual the few remaining desires, which arise not so much from intercourse with a world as from the constitution of the human body, expressed themselves only through repercussion , i.e., they assume their narrow development the same one-sided and crude character as does his thought, they appear only along intervals, stimulated by the excessive development of the predominant desire (fortified by immediate physical causes, e.g., [stomach] spasm) and are manifested turbulently and forcibly, with the most brutal suppression of the ordinary, [natural] desire [— this leads to further] domination over [thought.] As a matter of course, the schoolmaster's [thinking reflects on and speculates about] is empirical [fact in a school] masterly fashion.
It is, for the Marxist, the goal to reconcile the environment and the world to the individual:
Ibid wrote:Within Communist society, the only society in which the genuine and free development of individuals ceases to be a mere phrase, this development is determined precisely by the connection of individuals, a connection which consists partly in the economic prerequisites and partly in the necessary solidarity of the free development of all, and finally, in the universal character of the activity of individuals on the basis of the existing productive forces. We are, therefore, here concerned with individuals at a definite historical stage of development and by no means merely with individuals chosen at random, even disregarding the indispensable Communist revolution, which itself is a general condition for their free development. The individuals' consciousness of their mutual relations will, of course, likewise be completely changed, and, therefore, will no more be the "principal of love" or devoument than it will be egoism.
Islam is the submission of the individual into the abstract notion of God, the same as the Christian or any other religious force.
And the Liberal is, in the classical sense, the beginning and current issue with your own self and its feelings being a tool to be used to gauge reality instead of using any objective means. It is exactly what you are doing, though you have alienated yourself even from recognizing this.
Hong Wu wrote:When you have a spat with a liberal/communist/some Muslims, the problem is always the world (and how you're a part of it), rarely does their dialogue suggest that they should change.
And, if not to change the world (as the communists suggest) and if not to reconcile one's self with the imaginary theolologic underpinnings of the world (as the religious suggest) and if not to simply accept the world (as the liberals suggest) to what exactly do you expect everyone to conform?
The answer for you is your self, as informed by your feelings. This is interpreted as an insult when I write it, but it is the crux of the issue. The post modernist does not take emotion as a vital reaction to an issue to be pondered, but as reality itself. In this sense, nobody can ever be wrong and facts themselves are just as useful for understanding as the individual's feelings.
It is an impossible achievement to ask of anyone, or any group, to conform to your feelings at any given moment. And yet this is the postmodernist condition, and probably why there is a sense of rage as the crises of capitalism becomes more acute. It is part of being alien to one's self, and something that will never be healed by accepting the alienation.
Alis Volat Propriis; Tiocfaidh ár lá; Proletarier Aller Länder, Vereinigt Euch!