Remarks in Passing on our understanding of the Moral and Intellectual conceptions as historical relics and correctness (in some connection to Isaiah Berlin). On whether life is useless.
The question What is the significance of life on earth? is given in the formation of Law (through the art of Political Philosophy) and the direction of the advancement of the experimental sciences (or, the decision about how much resources will be allotted to each). The question then becomes concrete.
We are grateful to Dugin for reawakening the interest in Guenon, his book The Crisis of the Modern World agrees with our own view to the extent that it grasps the transformation of the higher, nous or reason, to the lower, calculative episteme, as a comprehensive transformation of the human being, in his sense as a ruination and destruction of the intellect unparalleled in the human development. What interests us in Guenon is his genuine grasp of an inkling of the full force of the older thinking, now lost. That the going down of the tradition is the going down of an Earth. Earth is said of ethnos, but World of the Political community.
In parallel the Zizek position denies this attitude of destruction wholly, though in a certain sense Zizek, though he does not sense the Aristotelian world (as does Guenon), but wholly moves in its destruction in Kant and Hegel, as he expresses it quite beautifully by reference to Vertigo, to the rings of the felled giant Redwood “here I was born and here I died,” ergo, between Kant and Hegel, his attitude is that the cosmos is favorably disposed to man and must yield even though various difficulties present themselves. Nietzsche and Bakunin take the view, in contradistinction to this, that the significance of life is in life without end or favored home. Thus these views, never understanding either being nor religion and faith in Dugin's sense, are species of a Catholicism. The sense of a Herder, of a being at home as being like oneself, which in some sense even taints Heidegger, is repudiated in Zizek for universal norms as absolutes. Herder does not hold with supremacism, as of some veiled menace of a neo-Nazi "88," but with the each to their own to the fullest. This position, however, is impossible when the search for Truth of Being is taken seriously. The problems raised by Schmitt must show their grimace as in the "Idealism" of Samanth Power, in the spirit of the Valkyries, which strives constantly towards the elimination of evil, of enemy, with an undying will (concealed by lovely manners).
The Catholic “will to power” shows straightforwardly through Sam Harris. Philosophy or “science” is supposed to be able to answer the question, What is the true way to live? The answer must be universal in character. Various verbal questions which can be raised as objections are not much interesting and, even less interesting is whether Harris himself knows what he is (or what peculiar taint of history he embodies).
‘But if they want to suffer…’
‘A man may want to rape a woman. Are we to allow it because he wants to? Suffering is wrong.’
‘And you suffer all the time,’ the priest commented, watching the sour Indian face behind the candle-light.’
― Graham Greene, The Power and the Glory
This example shows the difference between relativism, as in Comte, Mill and the Utilitarian vision, and the Historical Consciousness properly. Of course, true, the Harm Principle comes in in the example of rape. But, on the Kantian view, it comes in as much in the example of suffering. Since each one is like each other, and harming oneself is no different than harming another.
Leiden leiden, Kreuz Kreuz. (Suffering suffering, the cross the cross.) ― Martin Luther
There is a thread, running from Athenian Eudaimonia, to Catholic Beatitude, to American Happiness. In this sense, one must ask: Does anything remain? Or, rather, has the ground changed sufficiently that nothing remains in the “idea”.
The Utilitarian so-called Relativism sees each society as approximating towards what is most conducive towards cozy self-preservation.
Our view is that: In Pinker there is an example of total lack of Aristotelian phusis or “origin.” He reads Locke as a Marxist who speaks of “blank slate” babies who take their form through rearing in the sense of class upbringing. Thus he tends towards the cheap commonplace amongst the Leftists: Plato, the Aristocrat. With the addendum, though, not all aristocrats are bad since there are “class traitors”.
All this is totally alien to Locke and has nothing to do with his concept of the tabla rasa. which was directed at the art of reasoning or the formation of the discrimination of moral opinion and knowledge.
In the same style Adam Smith is usually wholly misread. Since Smith (natural value) still lived in the atmosphere of Aristotelian reason. In a certain sense, something of the spirit of the “scientific” table, of Edington, so-called, is always read back into the Aristotelian world where there is no such nature. No experimental “science” “nature”, which is really a name for technological enframement (i.e., “nature” as an imaginary “space-time”/ "Gestell" as totalizing non-rational availability).
Ishah Berlin says Hitler’s “values did not coincide with ours” and we therefore “had a right to go to war with him”. He doesn’t say: They were wrong (“universal”) values.
Berlin admits that the category of human disappears at the edges. Those who we can not understand in any reasonable sense are not human.
An implication of this is what follows: A discourse must be addressed to the friends of the truth if it is to be serious. To those who take pleasure in truth (rather than in interest or passion). A written discourse may be read by anyone, for thousands of years. It may be read by those who are not human. The ones who aren't human will not be friends of the truth. (The issue of bare intelligibility as against reasonableness is key here.)