Archive for May, 2015

Virtuous Atheism and Partial Truth

Posted May 8, 2015 By John C Wright

Part of an ongoing discussion. Regarding the debate over atheism and nihilism, a reader with the military but vandalistic name of Stilicho comments:

The question here is whether the honest atheist who believes in an absolute and objective standard of morality is committing a logical contradiction?”

It comes down to whether you think that an atheist can deduce objective morality from nature without reference to nature’s God. I think our hypothetical atheist CAN do so, honestly and incorrectly. The problem lies in the fact that this atheist MUST choose a standard for what is good or moral. Utilitarian– most benefit for the most people? Selfish–most benefit for me? Natural order– this is what I can observe in how nature functions (leaving aside the question of the source of observable natural law)? Some other standard? These can all be viewed as rational, logical choices, but choices they remain.

“Ultimately, the atheist’s choice is self-referential because he chooses the standard that appeals to him. In that sense, the atheist is not a nihilist using your definitions above, but instead of saying there is no meaning, he says my choices impart meaning.”

Now here you raise a very interesting problem. The rational atheists I know or knew personally could both deduce, rationally and without error from first principles, either a duty-based or a pleasure-based system of ethics, that is, stoicism or hedonism.

The Stoic did not chose his metrics based on personal preference, but the Hedonist did. Both could (using different chains of reasoning) deduce and justify the classical virtues of Prudence, Justice, Fortitude and Temperance.

But neither could explain acts of self-sacrifice, and both called them immoral rather than moral. Neither could deduce the Christian virtues of Faith, Hope and Charity.

If we define ‘ethics’ as including only the cardinal virtues and called the Christian virtues ‘super-ethics’ or some higher form of moral thinking, then we can say that an ethical atheist is possible.

If, however, we are a little more honest in our definition, and we call all virtues ‘ethics’ then the atheist is only able to deduce the pagan ethics which serve only on sunny days when self sacrifice is not called for. A peacetime ethics, as it were, but no good for storms or emergencies; an ethic good enough for every day of your life except the last.

Anyone persuaded that this is a valid approach must admit that an atheist can be mostly ethical, for example, as ethical as Aristotle, who famously fled Athens when the democracy turned on him. He can be a great souled man. He cannot rationally account for being as ethical as Socrates, who did not flee, and for whom truth was more important than life. He cannot be a saint.

But the harder argument to make is to show that the atheist, or, for that matter, the virtuous pagan, the great souled man, commits a logical self contradiction if he rejects nihilism. I have yet to see such an argument.

Stilicho concludes:

“A truly objective standard of morality, on the other hand, must be determined outside of influences that exist upon the stage where the standard is imposed. Our hypothetical atheist does not get to that level of inquiry because while he may deduce the existence of an objective morality, he does not pursue that to its origins, but, instead, stops his inquiry when he chooses his metrics.

Our hypothetical atheist does not get to that level of inquiry because while he may deduce the existence of an objective morality, he does not pursue that to its origins, but, instead, stops his inquiry when he chooses his metrics.”

I think this is exactly right, and have nothing to add. The virtuous atheist, like the virtuous pagan, sees part of the picture, and that part, he sees rightly.

But he lacks the whole picture. It is not illogical, but it is incomplete.

65 Comments so far. Join the Conversation

Attack Watch

Posted May 7, 2015 By John C Wright

My website is under attack by hostile hackers, so there will be delays and hiccups and slowdowns.

If I do not get a chance to answer any interest question, particularly on the philosophical discussion about atheism and nihilism (a topic that fascinates me) please be assured that this is not due to neglect nor contempt on my part.

Please be patient.

14 Comments so far. Join the Conversation

The Mockery of the World

Posted May 7, 2015 By John C Wright

My beautiful and talented wife has a short but heartfelt column up today on the Superversive feature of the Arhyelon blog:

http://www.ljagilamplighter.com/2015/05/07/superversive-blog-leveraging-diversity-through-inclusiveness/

Some of you know that I am currently taking the Boy Scouts of America’s Wood Badge Leadership Course. A friend, who had been both military and State Department, (they used to send him places to make sure it was safe before they sent the Secretary of State,) told me that it was the best leadership program in the world. Others have told me that the military has modeled some of its leadership programs after Wood Badge.

One of the five principles of Wood Badge is: Leveraging Diversity Through Inclusiveness. I am happy to say that they use the original meaning of diversity—things that are diverse and different, not the modern meaning, where the word sometimes seems to apply only to a very small group of popular issues.

The below is an excerpt from something that I may be including in one of my Wood Badge projects. I though some of you might enjoy the sentiment.

———————————————————————————————-

It is very difficult to hold to what you believe, when all the world is telling you that you are wrong. It is easy to duck your head and go with the crowd and turn your back on the things that don’t fit in.

But we are not raising our Scouts to do the easy thing.

We want them to raise their heads with pride, regardless of the mockery of the world.

16 Comments so far. Join the Conversation

The Notorious Meat Robot Letters – Expanded!

Posted May 7, 2015 By John C Wright

In my last column in this space, I invited Malcolm the Cynic, and any other reader who cared to contribute, to debate the fascinating issue of whether atheism logically necessitates to nihilism. The challenge was either to prove or disprove that a non-nihilist atheist was a logical contradiction in terms.

To my immense surprise, not one, but many contributor began debating an unrelated issue, (and one I personally find deadly dull) namely, whether reductionist materialism, also called panphysicalism, necessitates nihilism.

I will not take the time to answer any such arguments now.

The topic, for me, was years ago sapped of all joy, and the philosophical curiosity of my buoyant yet naive youth beaten slowly yet cruelly out of my aching brain by an endlessly repeated blows of sheer hooey and dreary nonsense while I very slowly and very painfully discovered that panphysicalism is not really a legitimate and thoughtful position held by legitimate and thoughtful people, but a messy ashcan of random slogans, lame excuses, utter blither, and general crackpottery held by neurotics who cannot follow a simple syllogism of three steps.

I admit the possibility that perhaps somewhere a sane panphysicalist exists, a man who can give a rational argument defending the position, but I have yet to meet him, or read his words.

Until I meet such a chimera, I place panphysicalism, as a metaphysical theory, in the same category Marxism occupies for economic theory: that is, a mere insolent denial of the very discipline allegedly being investigated.

Those interested in a detailed, absurdly detailed, examination of my thoughts and reasoning on the matter are invited to examine as much of the record as they can stomach.

Below is the list.

I post the list to show that the topic has been sufficiently discussed to the point where I see no need to revisit the question until, if ever,  a new argument is introduced. Or I should say, a line of argument.

If someone wishes to prove that atheism in and of itself necessitates panphysicalism, he is welcome to produce the proof and show the steps of his reasoning.

Until then, I reject any identification of atheist, which is an honorable, if mistaken, philosophical posture, with panphysicalism, which is self-refuting Alice-Through-the-Looking-Glass nonsense, akin to a man saying he can prove his own non-existence, right after he proves that proofs never work and that words have no meaning.

I am not asking anyone to help me refute panphysicalism. I have done so over fifty times.

Read the remainder of this entry »

55 Comments so far. Join the Conversation

Is Non-Nihilist Atheism Possible?

Posted May 5, 2015 By John C Wright

A reader with the servile, dovish yet doglike name of Malcolm the Cynic writes and says:

I am not saying Stoicism is nihilism, but rather that it will lead to the same place whether it wants to or not.

Nihilism is just more honest about it.

(Not that I think stoics are actually lying, just wrong).

Basically, what I think is that any coherent atheist philosophy will ultimately have to deny that there is meaning in the universe.

My response:

I understood what you said. As someone who had coherent atheist philosophy for over four decades of his life, I would appreciate being allowed to examine your argument to back that assertion.

I am frankly fascinated by the assertion, since I have heard theologians I respect make the statement, but none, so far, to my satisfaction, have proved his case or even given his argument. If you are in a position to do so, I invite you to.

To start: “(1) Atheism implies a belief that the universe is entirely natural with no supernatural part to it, set in motion by blind and indifferent natural forces. (2) Nihilism is the belief that there is no final truth, no ground of being, no objective morality, no difference between virtue and vice, nothing worth doing.”

I submit that there is no way to deduce statement (2) from statement (1). The one does not logically imply the other.

I moreover submit it is as easy to deduce the existence of an objective moral code, even absent the supernatural, as it is to deduce the existence of logic itself.

The argument in both cases is the same. In order to deduce whether or not logic is useful, one must use logic. Hence, it is inescapable, part of the human condition outside of which no human can step, not even for the brief moment it takes to ask a hypothetical question. Likewise, in order to deduce whether or not morality is objective, one must face the question with the honesty, humility, and perfect integrity of a philosopher, that is, one must adhere to at least these moral imperatives. Again, it is inescapable.

Nothing in the above argument presupposes the existence of a god or gods. Hence I submit that it is possible to deduce the existence of rules of logic and rule of morality that govern all men, all life. And if rules of morality exist, virtue and vice exist, are meaningful terms, and apply to real objects and events.

A meaningful life is one lived according to virtue. Hence, if virtue exists, life can be meaningful, even for an atheist.

I welcome a rebuttal from your or from anyone who cares to pick up the gauntlet.

Read the remainder of this entry »

188 Comments so far. Join the Conversation

Mad Mike’s Latest

Posted May 5, 2015 By John C Wright

Michael Z. Williamson’s new book, A Long Time Until Now is now available. Today a bunch of us are helping spread the word.

A Long Time Until Now (Temporal Displacement)
by Michael Z Williamson
ALongTimeUntilNow

And there is a contest: http://baen.com/contests-may2015.asp

And sample chapters: http://www.baenebooks.com/chapters/9781476780337/9781476780337.htm

A closeup of the cover art below the cut Read the remainder of this entry »

3 Comments so far. Join the Conversation

A Fan Letter to Night Thrasher

Posted May 5, 2015 By John C Wright

Night Thrasher is a character I have always liked for the same reason I like Green Arrow or Nightwing. They are basically normal guys trained in one weapon or skill with no superpowers, but who can — almost — hold their own in the rough and tumble world of superheroics, going toe to toe with robots and demigods, aliens and mutants.

He is also about as generic a super as you can find: rich kid, parents killed by gangsters, uses his fortune to train himself in martial arts and get a suit of high tech armor. Rides a skateboard.

And he organized his own set of vigilantes from among the has-beens, also-rans and newbies of the Marvel universe, twisting arms and making enemies to do it. The team included the totally lame Speedball, the utterly forgettable female Human Torch called Firestar (one of the only characters who started on the telly and ended up in the comic), the utterly forgettable female Namor called Namorita, also known as Marvel’s answer to Aqua-Lass, and Vance Astro, whom I remember from the old-timey version of Guardians of the Galaxy. I think Nova, the human cannonball, was in the mix too. They were dubbed with the most generic superteam name ever: THE NEW WARRIORS.

Despite all these drawbacks, I liked it, and I like him. He was a total badass. Who got his ass handed to him on numerous occasions.

But he never gave up. Read the remainder of this entry »

8 Comments so far. Join the Conversation

Come to the Dark Side, Joss! We have Cookies!

Posted May 5, 2015 By John C Wright

Here is one more data point in the ongoing argument that Social Justice Warriors and Political Correcting Officers and Thought Police and (as I call them) Morlocks are not really creatures of the Left.

They are not Leftists, not Liberals, but are in fact the opposite. They use Leftwing terminology and vocabulary, but they stand for the very opposite ideals.

  • Leftists are antiracists and antibigots, who want a color blind society where all are judged on their merit and character.
  • Morlocks are pure pro-racist bigots, who hate straight white males because of their outward characteristics of skin color and genitalia, and merit and character be damned.

Scott W brings this tidbit to our attention:

http://whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2015/05/shrieking_harpies_of_tolerance.html which leads to this entry: https://storify.com/Astojap/wehdon-twitter-hate (bad language warning).

The shrieking harpies of toleration have successfully driven Joss Whedon off Twitter after their Two Minute Hate for some imagined slight against goodthink. Yes, this is the same Joss Whedon who pioneered the unobtrusive and winning pro-femininst and pro-lesbian messages into BUFFY and ANGEL and FIREFLY, all of which were not just well written entertainment, but superbly written, FIREFLY most of all.

He is being excoriated for the latest AVENGERS movie, the wildly popular latest entry in the most wildly popular film franchise in human history.

The Avengers, if my fellow geeks will kindly recollect, has been solidly on the side of anti-prejudice and anti-bigotry since their inception in the 1960s, back when this message actually had some meaning.

The Avengers has always been like the bridge crew of STAR TREK: American supersoldier Captain America alongside the Soviet superspy Black Widow together with wealthy Tony Stark and poverty-stricken Luke Cage, the Caucasian Wasp (no pun intended) and the Korean Mantis, the awesome Black Panther, Monarch of Wakanda, and the not so awesome (but still a favorite of mine) Nightthrasher, a hightech streetfighter with a skateboard. Not to mention Norse gods and Greek demigods, a guy who controls ants, and the ultimate minority, the mutants.

Read the remainder of this entry »

74 Comments so far. Join the Conversation

Quotes from Carver

Posted May 4, 2015 By John C Wright

Today’s quotes are from George Washington Carver:

  • “Ninety-nine percent of the failures come from people who have the habit of making excuses.”
  • “The opening of the school found me at Simpson College, attempting to run a laundry for my support…I lived on prayer, beef suet and corn meal, and quite often being without the suet and meal.”
  • “…to me, my dear young friends, nature in its varied forms are the little windows through which God permits me to commune with Him, and to see much of His glory, majesty, and power by simply lifting the curtain and looking in.”
  • “I never have to grope for methods. The method is revealed at the moment I am inspired to create something new… Without God to draw aside the curtain I would be helpless.”
  • “God is going to reveal to us things He never revealed before if we put our hands in His. No books ever go into my laboratory. The thing I am to do and the ways of doing it are revealed to me.”
  • “When I was young, I said to God, ‘God, tell me the mystery of the universe.’ But God answered, ‘That knowledge is for me alone.’ So I said, ‘God, tell me the mystery of the peanut.’ Then God said, ‘Well George, that’s more nearly your size.’ And he told me.”
  • “We are brothers, all of us, no matter what race or color or condition; children of the same Heavenly Father. We rise together or we fall together.”
  • “When our thoughts—which bring actions—are filled with hate against anyone, Negro or white, we are in a living hell.

Read the remainder of this entry »

15 Comments so far. Join the Conversation

A reviewer is disappointed in my efforts:

http://secritcrush.livejournal.com/tag/pathetic%20puppies

In Wright’s hands Queequeeg remains firmly a noble savage with no depth of characterization at all. One person of color in the story and that’s what Wright goes for. That’s how the Pathetic puppies increase diversity.

Diversity, eh?

Discuss.

ADDENDUM: a reader brings to my attention links to a review site whose disappointment is markedly less. He asked whether both sites read the material, or only one?

http://superversivesf.com/2015/05/01/hugo-nominee-review-transhuman-and-subhuman-part-i-transhuman-and-subhuman/

http://superversivesf.com/2015/04/18/review-of-plural-of-helen-of-troy/

http://superversivesf.com/2015/04/17/one-bright-star-a-review/

Can you go back again? The warm spring dawn and summer days of childhood leave us behind, leaving memories of the fantastic and wondrous. In their wake the coming chill of autumn adulthood the world seems a stark and unfriendly place, a grim, gray world with no place for the fairy tales and wonder of childhood. Darker magics, things of greed and ambition lurk, and the answers that seemed so bright and simple to the young are denied the wizened eye.

“One Bright Star” the the tale of a man called back to duty to fight against supernatural evil: though not in the bright fairy-lands of his childhood, but in the gray streets of modern London. It contains hope, loss, wonder, despair and glory. It is the perfect fairy tale and I heartily recommend it.

 

76 Comments so far. Join the Conversation

Five Views of Man

Posted May 1, 2015 By John C Wright

This merits a long and involved column to explain this thought, but time does not permit. Allow me only to pose it as a gadfly question:

In my view, there are only five entirely logical political philosophies. Four of them are logical but untrue, since they are based on a false view of human nature.

1. Catholicism (based on the notion that men are sinners and Christ is sovereign) — several possible political systems, from Roman republicanism to imperialism to monarchy to constitutional and parliamentary government are possible under this view, but concentrating secular and spiritual powers in one head, Caesaropapism, is not possible. This view of man holds that man is a hopeless sinner yet somehow made in an divine image.

2. Classical liberalism, also called Libertarianism (based on the notion that men are sovereign, and are rational economic actors, motivated by self interest) — this is the default position of the Enlightenment, if carried to its logical John Galt extreme. This view holds that man is a rational animal, and, when virtuous, will follow reason to create a spontaneously self-organizing social order.

3. Marxism, also called Socialism or Naziism (based on the notion that men are helpless soldiers in a Darwinian war of survival, motivated by perfect altruism) — this is a corruption of the Enlightenment position, when economic as well as secular power is taken as the proper object of government, and men are regarded as patients, not citizens.  This view holds that men are irrational animals, the byproducts of inhuman forces of biological and social evolution.

4. Confucianism, also called the Rule by Mandarins (based on the notion that reality itself ordains submission to a perfect social order, as perceived and interpreted by intellectuals.) This could also be called Spartanism — this is the default view of pre-Enlightenment and pre-Christian political thinking. Obedience to maat or me or dharma, that is, obedience to the divinely imposed social order, is the hallmark of ancient and postmodern thought on the topic.

5. Nihilism, also called Anarchy (based on the notion that men are not just sovereign over themselves, but over reality itself, as a god ergo bound by no law save willpower.) — this is the abrogation of political thinking.

I suggest that few or no thinkers have the stomach to carry out any of these five political philosophies to their logical extremes and that most political thought is a compromise or amelioration of each of these, held in suspension somewhere between two or three of them.

So, for example, Protestantism is somewhere between the Catholic view and the Libertarian view when it comes to the role of the Church in society: either the spiritual power is an adjunct of the state power, as it was in Reformation England, or spiritual power is private, outside the orbit of secular power altogether, as it was in the United States before the Obama Administration. Protestantism is compatible with several forms of government, from Monarchic to Parliamentarian to Democratic.

There is a sound reason to avoid taking any political philosophy all the way to one of these five logical extremes. Four of the five would make men into devils. The logical extreme of Anarchy would make men into devils of wrath; Mandarinism of pride, particularly intellectual pride; Socialism of avarice and envy; Libertarianism of gluttony, avarice and contempt for spiritual things.

The logical extreme of Catholicism would make men into saints. The sound reason to avoid this is because we love and adore our sins, and serve them as willing slaves.

A truly Christian society has not been tried and found wanting: it has never been tried.

Discuss!

59 Comments so far. Join the Conversation

Spoileriffic Reviewer Praise for ARCHITECT OF AEONS

Posted May 1, 2015 By John C Wright

A review by Ben Wheeler: https://millennialking.wordpress.com/2015/05/01/architect-of-the-aeons-intelligence-unbound-and-unrestrained/

Mr Wheeler describes this discussion of my book as “A dark carnival of spoilers” and he gives away the surprise ending, the surprise middle, and the surprise opening, not to mention the surprise in Chapter Three, so I very strongly urge and recommend that no one read this review until he has read the book.

I am very pleased that a reader likes the self same scenes I liked in the book, and, to be frank, saw the same weaknesses and rough spots I saw. Better yet, he is asking the very questions your humble but subtle author wants him to ask, as a setup for the follow through in VINDICATION OF MAN, the next volume.

But his overall recommendation is this:

It was worth the read and the buy.

 

12 Comments so far. Join the Conversation