This post is little more than a comment awaiting moderation at CH. What’s new? The comment thread is here.
Glad for the commentary. I am a philosopher not an ideologue. The real difference is that you two are Xian and I am not, which is clear from the reliance on the rational animal of the Catholics’ Saint Aquinas and the r/K theory of Anonymous Conservative. We won’t agree, so we might as well agree to disagree.
Nevertheless, though I have no wish to attack, neither do I wish to give the air of debate capitulation or intellectual ineptitude, what Greg Eliot presupposes by announcing the handing someone of their ‘haid’.
It is a generally accepted principle that in the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king. In my philosophical view, the ‘animal’ human or humanoid, and who knows how far back our current instincts derive, has no morals (not in our terms anyway). I object to the term ‘rational animal’ as a catchphrase implying spiritual animal or moral animal, and your innate goodness per your religion. Rational animal as a subtype of intelligent animal I would admit. Like with women, all still IMO, exploitive behavior by animals is just a matter of opportunity. Shout fire in a theatre. Shout #MeToo. Shout performative. Consider the lion (K) that kills another lion’s cubs. Squirrels (r) will eat the offspring of rival squirrels. I don’t see the r/K spectrum as an insightful divide between good and evil.
From “It’s Squirrel Eat Squirrel World” (http://www.birdchick.com/blog/2007/04/its-squirrel-eat-squirrel-world):
“Last week we saw “our” squirrel (the one who raids our bird feeder and chews the wood trim off our garage) with a bird in its mouth. My husband was disbelieving of his eyes. Last night we saw the demon squirrel with ANOTHER SQUIRREL (looked like a baby) and watched it eating it (photo below). This grossed me out so much I skipped dinner. Should we be reporting this to someone? Are we harboring a dangerous development on par with Bird Flu? (OK, we are not that worried, but is this normal?)”
Mothers of some mammal species will eat their still borne babies for calorie recovery. Mother rabbits will, see yootube, eat their babies if ‘stressed’ over potential predation, instinctively ‘hoping’ to live and breed another day by keeping a low foodstuff profile.
From “Understanding rabbit behavior and preventing and treating behavior problems” (http://veterinarymedicine.dvm360.com/understanding-rabbit-behavior-and-preventing-and-treating-behavior-problems)
“The females in the subgroup are typically related, while the males maintain a rigid dominance hierarchy by ritualized signaling.”
“If a fight erupts, the rabbits must be immediately separated since they can seriously injure each other by biting and by raking with their claws.”
“While most people think rabbits are harmless, they can inflict painful injuries by clawing with their front claws—which are long and strong for digging—biting with their incisors, and kicking with their powerful hindlimbs.”
I don’t suppose that animalistic instincts differentiate neatly by animal type into some mutually exclusive taxonomy that makes humans neatly unlike animals or subdivides humans neatly into Good and Evil, etc. I see plenty of overlap in the abstract living strategies of organisms, of mammals, of people. What I see as fundamental to human differentiation of behavior and results is human capacity for culture, which is to say mass cooperation that is not mass submission. Submission is degenerate cooperation by the absence of action and positive results. Culture must subsist by action not inaction. And the culturally exhausted West dies.
Of course the violent and hierarchical nature of your r-selected species or of libtards does not debunk the mystical chords of the human condition known by faith. I consider Aquinas’ rational animal to be a mystical black-box catchphrase meant to prove faith by faith in operant conditioning. Faith can’t be examined or specified. The theological narrative is as specific as people like, but faith as ultimate agency, assurance, and authority never is. It would not be convincing or comforting otherwise.
Women may pretend to obey authority in the abstract, but their devotions are always calculated on inputs of palpable presence with no regard for the compounding of productivity over time into the future, or her inevitable depreciation as a baby factory and helpmate. What is an animal? I’d say an organism that competes in genes-only evolution. What is culture? It’s a herd habit for herd animals but something that can be rationally questioned and designed by a full human in my conceptual parlance. Locus of control a la the Triune Brain model is what I suppose to differentiate those worthy of political partnership and those who are substandard vis-a-vis the requirements of viable citizenship and civilization itself.
My social model is predictive and helps me improve my social outcomes. I have not seen any other social model that is consistent with empirical evidence, personal or historical, where it is distinct from my model. I am not swayed by faith that will not fully admit faith in evidence and logic/logos. Neither will I sway from faith those that need faith in something greater than themselves, and pretty much invincible. The Left and the Right are Hegelian mirrors of each other enough to joyously synthesize our locomotion down the road to serfdom. To the bitter end the Left will keep eating the Right and the Right will keep redeeming the Left.
I call my hate the nihilist enlightenment. I will not sacrifice my love of self for love of the other with what little of my vitality I have left. To hate can be to love just as to kill can be to defend or to eat. It is simply a matter of who wins and who loses. Animal calculus does not allow win-win, and any calculated efforts to redeem ‘America’ have already lost. The full humans don’t need a brand name to have civilization: they are civilization potential or actual. No hate, no actual.
—‘Reality’ Doug, 20 January 2018