What is a lie to a Darwinian materialist?
Vincit omnia veritas
Lying could be quite useful, genetically speaking, for a mafioso, while on trial, to save himself (and his family, cronies, business etc.). Say Guido ordered his boys to off some nosy-detective, and they do so, and then Guido lies about his guilt ("plead the fifth, paysano") when on trial (as of course many people accused of crimes do) and then goes to trial, but is acquitted, and in effect gets away with Moider, returns to his warehouse, and continues with his business, advances the gene pool a bit more via kids with Velma, etc. What does the strict Darwinian say? Guido succeeded, in a sense, by lying (a "don't get caught" meme, in contemporary parlance), and many criminals who lie about their guilt (at least ones with the right defense attorneys) do succeed; thus lying could in many instances be a positive trait. We here at Contingencies (and we do not advocate Catholics, Inc. as an alternative to DarwinCorp.) assume that most rational humans would object to Guido's lie, but those who hold to purely Darwinist or genetic determinism would appear to have no grounds for any such objections.
What is a lie to a pragmatist?
Pragmatists, idealists (at least some), mystics, and postmodernists generally assert that truth is not a matter of confirming some alleged facts, "out there", in an objective, empirical world. There are various differences between these groups, but it doesn't seem unreasonable to suggest that they uphold some version of William James concept of pragmatism: that truth always has some relation to usefulness, whether in regards to sciences, social sciences, humanities, etc.
The Cash Value of Truth model, has of course been criticized, and not without reason. While in some contexts--say medicine--utility would seem to be critical (--testing the functionality of a drug, say)--in others, whether history or law, or various social sciences, any modifications of the actual facts to fit some ideology might conceivably result in highly unethical situations. Bertrand Russell noted this problem in regards to Dewey's pragmatist ideas. If the pragmatist's goal is to create a harmonious community, or even harmonious classroom, or well-integrated self, then it would seem the pragmatist might "shape" facts (say historical, or economic facts, or even literary narratives) to fit his pedagogy--making the students see the world through rose-tinted glasses, more or less (or perhaps red-tinted glasses, in marxist indoctrination centers). And if the end result was a harmonious community and well-balanced individuals (or even a supremely efficient proletarian State), then pragmatists would grant, it would seem, that the right thing had been done. And other sorts of similar absurdities, possibly Orwellian, resulting from pragmatism (or any ideology where truth is solely a matter of functionality) across the board could be realized.
Custom Search
10 comments:
Hey lustmolch--I see you've started blogging again, and glad to find it! Think your stuff on Long Sunday is really good. Have you been hitting the books in the last year? Sounds like you have really gotten your Hegel, Heidegger and Kant more under your belt than ever, and I thought that last about the historical error of Marxist reversal of nature/freedom, was worth listening to. I'm worn about from most of the bloggers, though, and now Chabert has a painting of voluptuous Cunt and has decided to get snitty and disallow contents. I've wasted enough time over there though. She's okay, but too full of shit.
I'll try to get back to your own posts here later this weekend. Last time I looked over here you hadn't written for many months. Anyway, I won't have too much to add most of the time, because I am not well-read enough on all the classical philosophers and have no more time for them.
Hello Herr PM---
Merci boo-coo.
"""now Chabert has a painting of voluptuous Cunt.""
C'est vraiment, and I was all set to congratulate the ho on her bestest post evah, and then I noted she had shut the comments the F down. Typical tease from blogland;s favorite putain de la rouge.
Yes I am attempting a continentalist schtick; it's not pretty, but better a bit of honest realism (even literary realism) than the bizarre sludge of Being and Time. It is my contention most of these freaks are mocking KantHegel (certainly the more empirical, humanist Kant), if not Marx hisself. And those progressives who think Heidegger is some voice of dissent or whatever, well, they are a few goosesteps away from " Hermann Goering, reconsidered" are they not?
I agree that Miss LCC is sort of a genius in ways (and outscribbles most of us), but I object to her innate, uh stalinist decadence. And her grand generalizations, 24/7.
Yes, it is almost 'innate', this 'decadence' plus 'genius' that weirdly convinces no one at all. I think it's a form of stupidity as well. I just happened on the most recent place she's managed to hide on dejan's Culture Parody Center blog (they've been going at it for over month, probably two, he must be some kind of glutton for punishment, it's just dominatrix whippings one after the other), and there isn't a thing sexy about it, just delusion. Of course, 'Uncle Joe' is not nearly the only example of failed socialist states. There's not a one that is at all successful without capitalism, China is the most impressive (however disgusting I might find all the glut of sperm-and-egg that eat dog) because big, a major world player and booming. Otherwise, the welfare states of Europe, but none of these toilets like North Korea or Venezuela mean a shit.
She thinks she can convince people that 'it really isn't they GRAY sort of thing' that we all know the Soviet Union most definitely was, even after they got the
White Russians to do some desk work for them since peasants can't do shit by themselves unless instructed and directed. Fact is--you do end up with gray shit. She uses the same kind of moral blackmail that her 'warszawa' pal uses, except a little more cleverly: I think they've decided to abandon their idiocies for the most part about how the Bushies and CIA orchestrated 9/11, but they are not at all averse to wasting as many people's time as possible. I don't even know what they want. They only want to be humane to people if they can do it with the right dogma. Even the dumb religious assholes do more charitable works than these masochistic Soviet types. And secretly they definitely approve of all those big failed Russian whoppers, as long as they don't have to be near them. It's a well-known and time-honoured form of bullshit. The Village Voice used to be full of it, and New York is where Chabert learned it. It's ingrained in her.
Excuse rudeness, I still am going to read your posts tomorrow and will comment if I have the brains to. You've actually read a lot more philosophy than I have. I went ahead and wrote this because I can't believe people can sit around and blog out these arguments for weeks on end and not think they have done anything more than just become sweatshop workers. Oh well, all the better for Ms. Chabert to learn to identify with the workers, since she's going to keep the Prada bags and furs and opera. Trying to take on k-punk now, it looks like. Well, that's of no interest. He mainly just writes movie reviews and calls for World Communism Now! This dejan is not dumb at all, but people should know how to treat Mrs. Chabert as what she is: a WOMAN! I don't give a flying fuck who calls me a racist or sexist anymore, and Chabert is smart enough to know that, and actually respect while hating only those who treat her as the FEMALE she is!
(you can see this weird business on the 'zizek zombies' post at CPC..nauseating, I tell you..just freak city...I skimmed it in about 10 minutes, finding many precious utterances very dispensable..of course, you need not bother, it's just more of the same harridan craziness...)
Danke, Herr Putrick.
I agree with your point regarding the complete obliviousness of that crew to the failures of marxism (tho' I am not with the GOPers yet---), and their, what is the word, incredulity over the 9-11 "conspiracy" BS. There have been for instance a few texts recently detailing the extent of Maoist barbeques, and not a peep from LCC or her palsies--nothing from the macho comrades at LongSunday either (or their various stooges). Or Jodee, etc. (tho' Miss Dean I think has a good heart--alas the mind attached to it lacks a bit) Mutt C., macho Lit. guy. I did glance at that bizarre site CPC or whatever. Zizek is not my fave red scribbler (as far as I can read him--anyone who invokes Lacan is not my pal), but I think LCC hates him because he has the nerve to denounce, well, zionist capital. I do enjoy reading some of Zizek's journalism.
I do like the Heidegger invocations on LS: Herr H's Being and Time one of the grandest, most obscure systems, like since GWF Hegel himself (yet Hegel, great historian, would not approve of Heideggerianism I do not think). Plus Heidegger supported the nazis: LS real roots come out--the vichy left or something. I allude to like Bertrand Russell or Carnap and am sentenced to obscurity, or given rightist stamp, "Troll" ad nauseum; but chant Dasein and you're par-tay material.
Take care PM. Busy day of krime here
Ich übe mein Deutsches wieder außerdem, P.M.: Deutsche Gegenstandswörter und Artikel--- ein was für Weibchen! (Fraulein LCC würde ein schmutziges Weibchen sein, ja: Alphonze Von Schmutzen! heh heh) Mach's gut.
Got around to some more of your posts today, and see I should have put some of the reflections on the Colonel on the Nietzsche post below. yes, he wasn't worried about observing facts about women.
True about Ms. Dean. She is basically trusting and will not turn on Zizek until something truly vile and direct occurs. At this point, she is actually smart to go on and use some of it to further her career, as opportunism ought to be practised on him, given that's mostly what he does, the slob.
Don Imus just given 2 week suspension. Very clever solution given the incredible reaction. I confess I hadn't realized to what low depths public talk has gone. Just over a month ago, that evil Kunt Ann Coulter called John Edwards a 'faggot' to only mild outcry, and that was far worse, since directed at a specific person (as well as being based on considerably less vanity than that hag has herself. I wonder if she actually thinks she's good-looking, because she's the fuck not.) But network had to do something, and interesting they'd bet on the public losing concentration in 2 weeks (they will.) It should have been enough to have to endure humiliation by the Fat Black Racist Freak Al Sharpton, that lowest of human beings. He greets anybody with a civil rights complaint, and has as little interest in facts as does Mrs. Chabert (they'd love each other.) It can be Tawana Brawley's faked rape or Michael Jackson's Beatle Songbook problems, Sharpton is there to give whoever wants them the Keys to the Sewer. One thing Imus said to Sharpton that was truly clever, and Sharpton's vanity (I don't know how he ever got any) had to overlook it: He said something like 'you don't think I find this humiliating?' but Sharpton couldn't then say 'you mean you find ending up with me humiliating?' because little could be more so.
German looking good. I took that one you put and had it laundered by the translating machine so I could make it out.
by 'public talk', I meant public judgment about PC talk, of course. I actually cannot see that something like that was all that serious, and Imus must not have either, because it frankly doesn't amount to shit.
Donkey shane, Mein Haar!
Coulter's shrieks were fairly obnoxious, if not sadistic. But the leftists have plenty of sadists as well; yet I would agree with you that however pathetic a Coulter is, Rev. Sharpton's hyena barks are far more nauseating: ChandalaSpeak 101 (as is most talk radio--tho' ah admit to enjoying some of Hannity's stuff once in a while--sort of old-school New Yawk irish wise guy, or that's how it sounds. Tho' he's not too PC).
Nietzsche of course detests both the bourgeois and the socialists, and that is one reason I enjoy his writing, however trite it is (I enjoyed seeing Tarentino with his love and hate thing on MS). He is not however some pure nihilist ala De Sade (or even Hume). Fritz was an amateur composer, hung out with Dickie Wagner and Lizst (I wager Liszt thought he was a buffoon), and a gent: sort of a Bavarian Marcus Aurelius. His anti-democratic stance offends a lot of "liberals" but Nietzsche had read his greeks, and knew what sorts of nightmares Vox Populi produces, or something like that. Personally, I would probably vote for Guiliani (or even McCain) before some populist do-gooder sheeets like Hillary or Boy Obama. Sorry, that is harsh, but how I feel. The way the marxist lemmings fall for the 9-11 conspiracy BS should scare all of us, even non-conservatives. I hate to invoke Hitchens again (LCC would put me up with swastika on my forehead) but better Hitchensism than muslims and marxist psychotics (tho' I voted Kerry, reluctantly, and not a fan of dixie xtians).
Post a Comment